feminism, logic, and (ir)rational debate

The following is an exchange I had with a colleague via the comments section of a link she posted on Facebook. I'm not disclosing her name or how I know her, but for context I will say that she's an adult female, several years my junior, and despite the impression this exchange may give, I really do like her and consider her a friend.

The initial link she posted was an essay entitled "Feminist arguments: A good argument against feminism". Having a basic understanding of logic and rhetoric, it didn't take me long to recognize that this piece is so wrought with fallacy and condescension that it's not even worth finishing.

Once I got about half way through, I quit reading and wrote a quick response. Little did I realize that this would lead to me spending my afternoon debating instead of getting the alignment on my Saturn done. Here's the exchange:

Me:
I read the first few paragraphs, and couldn't bring myself to continue.

Let's just take a moment to clear up what feminism is, and what it is not.

Feminism is the theory that women should have the same rights, responsibilities, and opportunities as men.

Feminism is NOT about women and men being exactly the same. It's not about women being better than men. It's not about burning bras, male-bashing, lesbianism, or anything else this author would like to convince us it is.

It's just the theory that men and women should be afforded equal opportunity and equal rights. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Me:
And yes, there do exist feminist sub-theories which advocate misandry (reverse sexism), transgenderism (eg., not shaving, acting "butch"), and various other concepts which most people would consider "fringe".

But keep in mind there are some conservatives who advocate misogyny, the suspension of the Bill of Rights, and racial bigotry. But these views are not representative of what it means to be a conservative.

And there are some liberals who advocate voting rights for noncitizens, the abolition of capitalism, and eliminating our police and military forces. But these are certainly not reflective of classic liberalism.

And also, there are some Christian groups which promote anitsemitism, homophobia, violence, and greed. And you and I know these have nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

Just as it would be dishonest and reckless to generalize any of these fringe sub-theories as representative of their metatheories, we must take care not to do the same with feminist theory.

Her:
whatever the theory originally was, or what feminism is "defined as", is irrelevant. I did not post this article to say that women are inferior to men, but rather, that women should stop ACTING like the victim. Yes, men and women are of equal value, but it cannot be argued that they are the same. They're not, and that's a good thing...something to be celebrated, not fought. For the most part, feminism has become an agent for women to complain and act picked on. Interestingly enough, it is not uncommon for feminists to have had crappy, loser fathers. Hmmmmm..... a little pent up anger?

Maybe you should read the whole article?

Her:
More support for my belief: http://www.drlaura.com/letters/index.html?mode=view&tile=1&id=18102
[Ironically, I was thinking of using this very letter as an example of the kind of illogical and senseless argument one should avoid... obviously that would not have gone over very well in this discussion.]

Me:
Ironically, in describing your opposition to feminism, you are actually describing feminism itself. And what you are describing as feminism is, as I pointed out in my last comment, not actually what feminism is about. But of course, that's "irrelevant" isn't it?

Me:
Also, do you have any statistics to back up your suggestion that feminism is related to having bad fathers?

Her:
Do I have any statistics? No. Could I find some? Probably. I can list a number of women that I KNOW who are pissed off, liberal-minded, traditional-hating, men-bashing, feminists whose fathers were crap.

I'm sure that you will have some argument for anything I say regarding this issue. I will go on believing that modern feminism is ridiculous, that it is a huge contributor to the breakdown of the American family, and that it's has become a way for women to feel sorry for themselves. I believe these things about feminism TODAY; regardless of its ORIGINAL intent, there is NO denying what it has become.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Her:
And did I mention that these women tend to be miserable?

Me:
And I can list a number of conservatives I know who are anti-women, anti-environment, anti-minority, and anti-intellectual, but I'd be a fool to use that as evidence that those traits are reflective of mainstream conservativism.

You're free to stereotype and pigeonhole if that's what you really want to do. But I'd like to suggest you instead take the time to really understand the subject matter you're talking about instead of closing your ears and your mind to logical arguments that don't necessarily support what you've already chosen to believe is true. You just might find the world is much more complex and beautiful and textured than you'd realized.

Her:
dito

Her:
wait...have you not already chosen that what you believe is true as well? are you not closing your ears and your mind to MY logical arguments? We are both guilty of the same thing; we both want to be right. Maybe there is more than one way to look at something? Like I said, we can agree to disagree.

Her:
And I have taken the time to understand the subject matter, extensively. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you on it, doesn't mean I'm wrong or close-minded.

Her:
It's also interesting that you made incredibly strong statements on an article that you didn't even read. Hmm.

Me:
The statements I made aren't about the article; they're about the logical position you're arguing.

Her:
I think we are both arguing about different aspects of this issue. You certainly have made some great points, and I really respect them.

Me:
I think so too. You're arguing against a particular brand of feminism which denies inherent differences between men and women, and tends to favor reverse sexism. I'm arguing that this brand of feminism is a fringe view and doesn't reflect the mainstream position that men and women ARE different, but should be afforded equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law.

We both know that there are innate sex differences, and that believing otherwise is inconsistent with mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary. There's no disagreement there.

Me:
I guess the real debate here is how to define feminism. I'll take your word for it that you've encountered lots of wackos who call themselves feminists, and who have been the proverbial bad apples that spoil the whole bushel. I've encountered plenty of them myself. But that's only one view out of many which all fall under the "feminism" umbrella.

You've indicated that you agree with popular feminist theory, yet won't call yourself a feminist because you associate the term with the radical groups. I used to hesitate to use the term too, for the same reason. But we'd do well to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, rejecting true feminism along with its radical subcultures.

I guess the take-home lesson, if I had one, would be this: Don't let crazy minorities redefine definitions. It's human nature and we all do it, but it's very dangerous. We need only look at any political debate, religious strife, or racial conflict as evidence of this.

Me:
Last comment: I really enjoyed this debate, and I hope you did too :-)

Her:
Good conclusion. I actually did enjoy it too. Truce?

Me:
Sure. Let's join forces and gang up on someone else now. Any suggestions?

Am I not getting something here? Is the logic really that difficult to understand? Or am I really doing that bad a job of explaining that just because A=B, B doesn't necessarily equal A? Were my examples insufficient? Or does this go deeper than that? Am I the one being illogical? I sure hope not.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: After I posted this initially, the debate continued on for a while longer, leaving this account only about 50% complete. I've gone back and included the conversation in its entirety, which negates my original conclusion, as we did end up coming to a consensus. As usual, it ended up being more about semantics than actual content. Psh. Just once I'd like to come out of a debate having vanquished an opponent instead of realizing that we agree with each other and are just too tenacious to realize it. Oh well.

mrs. watson-parker was unavailable for comment

Well, I got on the boat pretty late, and chances are you did too. Did you know that a website has been set up for citizens to suggest and vote on policies for Obama's incoming administration? Apparently the Top 10 ideas, as determined by voting, will be presented to Obama and the 111th Congress for full consideration. That doesn't mean the Top 10 ideas will automatically be enacted, naturally (and once you see some of the top votes, you'll be glad that's the case), but Obama does seem pretty keen on involving the electorate in shaping his administration, so I wouldn't discount the contest as a waste of time, either.

While I'm wholeheartedly against the use of "voter guides", I do think it's a valuable exercise to discuss the issues on the table. I'd love to write about each of the ten initiatives I voted for (and some of the ones I didn't), but I simply don't have the time for that today. I will, however, tackle one of the issues. I'm writing about this one because it is, at the time of this writing, in first place among all the dozens of initiatives on the website, so it's obviously important to a lot of people. And obviously, since I voted for it, it's important to me too.

Ideas for Change: Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana.

Before I go any further, let me just say that using any recreational drugs, including marijuana, is stupid, and I do not endorse drug use or abuse in any way. Having said that, though, I do endorse the idea that adults should have the right to make their own personal health decisions, and the federal government has no right whatsoever to dictate what can and cannot be consumed by an individual, provided it doesn't harm anyone besides the moron doing it. The government acknowledges that we should be allowed to destroy our bodies and minds with tobacco and alcohol, yet doing the same with cannabis is prohibited. It simply doesn't make sense.

But restoring individual rights isn't the only benefit to decriminalizing the reefer; it would also make a pretty decent dent in the federal defecit, and right now we need whatever dents we can get. Think about it: We currently have pigovian taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and other harmful taxable items, ostensibly to discourage use and help pay for any damage they cause. Marijuana would certainly be a candidate for such a tax, so why not legalize it for the sake of the much-needed tax revenue it would generate? Even greater than the money it would bring in, is the money it would save. How much cash are we pouring into police, FBI, DEA, state and federal courts, county jails, state and federal prisons, probation and parole departments, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam, in order to combat marijuana? Now imagine not spending all those millions every year.

Decriminalizing pot would drastically reduce crime, too – particularly organized crime. If marijuana could be grown openly on American farms, the drug cartels would lose much of their power. This would result in a drop in violent crime, which would not only save lives, but law enforcement and emergency services resources as well (and again, the tax dollars that support such services). Now I'm not so naive as to think that the cartels wouldn't bounce back, finding other drugs to subsidize their losses... which is why I also advocate legalizing many other illicit drugs, thereby taking away pretty much all of their power... but we're talking about a marijuana initiative, so I won't spend any more time talking about other drugs. Perhaps I'll delve further into it in a future post.

But wait, this isn't Denmark! I don't want to be running into long-haired stoners every time I turn a corner, or share the highways with reefer-headed space cadets! Hey, neither do I, and don't worry, that won't happen. There are already laws in place in all 50 states (correct me if I'm wrong) against public intoxication, DUI, and DWI, and it'll remain just as illegal to swagger around stoned as it is to stumble around drunk. Let's not throw the baby our common sense out with the bathwater ridiculous and unconstitutional federal laws.

So that's my rationale behind voting to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. It may be controversial, but I stand by it. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would stand by it too.

remember, remember, the fifth of november july

For the past two decades or so, the High Five has enjoyed immense popularity among sports fans, jet pilots, mathematical nerds, and anybody who wants to celebrate that awesome thing that just happened. From the lowliest of peasants to the mightiest of kings, there's nary a person who doesn't enjoy a High Five. It is truly the great equalizer.

But it's time for High Five to take a hike.

Back in the days before High Five ruled the roost, a cat by the name of Low Five was the star of the show. Low Five was decidedly rad, offering such exciting variations as Double Five, Sides, The Bumps, Skin, and of course, The Flip Side. It was also a bit more distinguished than its High counterpart, seeming to say, "I'm celebrating with you, but I'm holding on to my dignity as well." Low Five was both a gentleman-scholar and a philosopher-king. Low Five was awesome.

But unfortunately for Low Five, it also had one glaring drawback: initiation consternation. Although it only took about a second to resolve, the confusion over who delivers that totally rad slap and who receives it caused enough of a delay to take a little bit of the zing out of the celebratory moment. This did not go unnoticed by High Five, who took full advantage of this liability, and used its everyone-initiates simplicity as a foothold to quickly rise to the top of the Five ladder, where it's remained to this day. And High Five has never looked back.

Until now.

As is often the case when something totally boss has been around for a while, High Five is now largely taken for granted, achieving the ironic status of being as unappreciated as it is popular, just like FM radio, faux hawk haircuts, and Bob Dylan. And that's terrible. But it doesn't have to be this way.

And beginning on the Fifth of July, 2008, it will be this way no longer!

A long-range plan has been put into place to restore High Five to its once-awe-inspiring role as the unbridled powerhouse of celebration it spent twenty years enjoying. Be warned, though -- this plan will be difficult for many, and will not happen overnight. In short, it requires the total abolition of High Five for a period of one year.

'Are you mad?!' you are probably shouting at your screen at this point. The answer is a qualified 'no!' This tactic worked for Superman, Batman, and Coca-Cola, and you can bet your shorts it'll work for High Five as well. Allow me to explain:

On the Fifth of July, 2008, at 5:00 pm, history will be made. High Five will be sequestered into exile for exactly one year, and Low Five will return from obscurity to reclaim the throne! During these twelve Five-riffic months, America will rekindle its dormant love affair with Low Five, knowing once again the totally bitchin' power of giving it Down Low, Turned In, and On The Flip Side, while at the same time evoking memories of a simpler and more optimistic time. Then, on the Fifth of July, 2009... High Five will return from its year of banishment to face off with Low Five and fight for its position at the top of the Five hierarchy once and for all! And, since absence makes the heart grow fonder (and this is the most important part), High Five will, upon simply returning, be afforded the respect and appreciation it deserves. It will again be among the ranks of There Will Be Blood, instead of Bob Dylan and the faux hawk.

So as difficult as it may be to not High Five for an entire year, it is really quite necessary for the very sake of High Five itself! Please support the Fifth of July campaign by attending a local Five party, or hosting one of your own. Make bracelets or t-shirts to help spread the word about the Fifth of July. And of course, if someone offers you one "Up High", politely decline and offer one "Down Low" instead, and explain why. High Five is counting on you!

Remember, the future of Five is in your hands!

an open letter to the angry rioting serbs

Dear Angry Rioting Serbs,

I understand that you're upset about Kosovo's Declaration of Independence, but burning our embassy will not bring your territory back. If you want reunification, try appealing to the UN, NATO, and your Serbian government. No matter how upset you are, rioting and killing people will not help your cause; indeed, it will only serve to hurt it.

If you absolutely have to throw a collective tantrum, effigies are generally preferable to burning actual people. Angry rock music is helpful, too. After 9/11, I listened to Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It on perpetual loop for about three weeks, and that seemed to do the trick.

Believe me, Angry Rioting Serbs, I can sympathize with your outrage. Part of my country declared independence once, and we marched into their cities and slaughtered every man, woman, and child within striking distance. Now this was a terrible solution to the problem, but I guess it's just part of our human nature to react violently in the face of secession. I encourage you to not follow the poor example we set in our Civil War, though, and take the higher ground by doing things the right way.

I know you've got it in you, Angry Rioting Serbs. So go and show the world that you're the bigger man, and stop burning down my effing embassy, okay?

Yours truly,
Caleb Ruggiero

i wool always love ewe

Swedish retail giant H&M has announced a boycott of products made from Australian wool, in response to animal cruelty complaints. What's so cruel about Australian wool, you ask? Well, there are a few things, but this boycott is focused on mulesing, which is basically the practice of cutting a sheep's ass off. Okay, okay, I'll concede that there's a little more to it than that, but it really does pretty much boil down to sheep ass removal; even John Mules would agree.

It's nice to see a mega corporation taking a stand for what's right, isn't it? Take a moment and join me in sending H&M a quick note of appreciation.

geekfitti

Every so often, the stars align and create something that delights the geek, artist, and stick-it-to-the-man-iness in me. The geekfiti movement is one of those very somethings. It also satisfies my considerateness of other people's property, because geekfitti artists tend to do their work in non-permanent mediums. So they're bad ass, but not jerks.

Check out all the goods in WebUrbanist's geekfitti gallery.

bob cratchit would shoot you in the face if he got the chance.

If I hear one more person complain about this alleged "war on Christmas," I'm gonna slap them silly. Nobody is out to get rid of Christmas. There are no supervillains sitting in their lairs, concocting diabolical schemes to rid the world of Christmas once and for all, laughing heartily with their henchmen about how now Chanukah will be the big winter holiday.

Seriously, if someone who doesn't know you wants to give you a friendly greeting, do you really expect them to say, "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Super Solstice, and Bitchin' Festivus, depending on whichever holiday you happen to celebrate, as well as Happy Thanksgiving, Boxing Day, and a Happy New Year too"? No, because not only would that be stupid, it would be a waste of everybody's time and an annoyance. So shut up and quit complaining about "Happy Holidays" and just be glad that you're not getting a laundry list of seasonal greetings that will just piss you off and make you late for your pilates.

But wait, it gets even worse. I was at Souplantation the other day, and there was a family sitting at the table next to mine, and the mom seemed very agitated that there was a "Happy Happy Hanukah" sign hanging on one of the doors, but not a "Merry Christmas" sign. She made a fuss about it and even asked her server why there's not a "Merry Christmas" sign. Of course he doesn't know or care about the background of the holiday decorations, so he says he'd have to ask the manager about it. As time went by, I heard her continue to complain to her family about it, and wonder aloud why she hasn't gotten an answer yet. Thankfully I resisted the urge, but I really wanted to just get up and throttle her and be like, "You see the Christmas lights hanging up in here? You see the Christmas wreaths on the doors and windows? You see how the dessert bar is adorned with holly and garland, and the pillar holding the ceiling up is wrapped in candy cane stripes? You see the red and green Christmas bows on every lamp in the building? You see that little Christmas tree by the coffee machine, with the little Christmas presents beneath it? Why isn't all this enough for you? Why are you so bent up about not having a 'Merry Christmas' sign on the door to the freaking broom closet? Yes, there is a 'Happy Happy Hanukah sign displayed in an effort to include Jewish customers in the festivities. Why is that so offensive to you? Do you hate Chanukah? Are you an anti-Semite? Would you prefer that we exclude Jews from our celebration? Huh? Well answer me!" Yeah, clearly Souplantation is fighting on the front lines of America's war on family values by not including a "Merry Christmas" banner among their many, many Christmas decorations.

And what's everybody's problem with "Xmas"? "Oh, that's secular America's attempt to take Christ out of Christmas!" they keep telling me. Bull freaking crap. If you bothered to do any amount of learning up on the subject before you started complaining, you'd know that the Greek letter Chi, which is identical to our letter X, is the first letter in the Greek spelling of "Christ", and has been used for nearly 20 centuries as a shorthand abbreviation for His name. That's taking Christ out of Christmas, alright. Just like "E-mail" is a plot to take "electronic" out of "electronic mail service".

As long as we're on the subject, am I the only one who finds it ironic that people get themselves so worked up about this supposed usurpation of Christ from Christmas, and how we need to remember the true meaning of the holiday... meanwhile they're stepping over homeless people freezing to death on the street, on their way to Wal-Mart to spend extravagant sums on unnecessary gadgets and toys that were made by 9-year-old sweatshop workers who slave 60+ hours a week to just survive? That's the true meaning of Christmas, alright. Glad you're here to defend it against those damn liberals who are trying to keep us from worshipping materialism -- I mean Jesus Christ -- this Christmas season.

So if you don't like the dechristianization of Christmas, instead of bitching about it all day long, why don't you do something to put Christ back into it? Stop worrying about buying stupid crap for people, and instead worry about what you can do to make someone's life a little better. Instead of handing your money over to line Sam Walton's pockets, why don't you use it to put food in someone's mouth, or shoes on some kid's feet? Turn off the Christmas lights and use the money you save on your electric bill to buy a few Meals on Wheels for people who can't leave their homes. Go visit some old people in the local nursing home; the only human contact those poor folks usually get is people trying to shove pills down their throats. Or how about taking all the time and energy you'd spend protesting "Xmas" and putting it towards helping out that single mom who works 50 hours a week and has three kids to take care of? You wanna get Christ back into Christmas? Go show His love to the people who need it most.

And stop shopping at freaking Wal-Mart.


Above: A man dressed in a Santa suit protests Wal-Mart's "Home for the Holidays" ad campaign, saying that it denies Christ and cheapens the meaning of Christmas, which apparently is Santa Claus.

Trader Joe's has been my favorite grocery store for years. I've always enjoyed their quality products at quality prices, and especially their commitment to listening to the needs and desires of their customers. But all that has changed. After more that 25,000 customers, myself included, emailed the company HQ to ask that they follow the lead of their top two competitors - Whole Foods and Wild Oats/Henry's - and carry only cage-free eggs, the company blew us off as "an activist group" and posted a response on their web site, chock full of lies and misinformation, defending their refusal to listen to the concerns of their customers. Among said lies is the claim that egg production is carried out under strict FDA and USDA guidelines for humane treatment. The truth is, there are NO government guidelines whatsoever concerning treatment of laying hens. They also pointed out that the eggs they carry are "Animal Care Certified". Naturally, they failed to mention that the Better Business Bureau has declared twice that "Animal Care Certified" is a misleading label unsubstantiated by reality, and that the "Animal Care Certified" promotion is currently the subject of a false advertising lawsuit, as well as pending legal action by the Federal Trade Commission.

In 2002, Trader Joe's stopped carrying duck meat because of customer concerns over the inhumane treatment of ducks. But really, how many people buy duck, anyway? They could stop carrying duck meat, and not even have a noticeable cut in profits. But there's a lot more money to be made in eggs, so when faced with the exact same concern for a big money-making product, it's a lot cheaper to write off the customers as political zealots and bleeding-heart propagandists. It's nice to see Trader Joe's true values come to light. It's not the customers. It's not the community. It's not quality. It's MONEY. Nothing more, nothing less. They're just another greedy corporation that doesn't care about anything other than the bottom line. Well, I'm not gonna take it, and neither should you.

I urge you to do what I've already done about it. E-mail Trader Joe's and politely, but firmly, tell them that you expect them to practice what they preach and actually listen to their customers, and that you want them to stop carrying battery-cage eggs. In addition to e-mailing, call their customer comment hotline at (626)599-3817 (West Coast) or (781)455-7319 (East Coast) and politely tell them you want the company to sell only cage-free eggs.

As for me, until Trader Joe's repeals their statement branding me a political extremist and uninformed boob, I will be taking all of my business to Henry's, Baron's, and Whole Foods Market.

UPDATE: On November 7, 2005, Trader Joe's announced that all of their TJs brand eggs will henceforth be cage-free. As their brand constitutes the vat majority of the eggs they sell, this is fantastic news for chickens.

Is it just me, or is the Christmas spirit dying a little more each year? I don't think it's just because I'm getting older, either. I think there are fewer Christmas specials on TV, fewer decorations in public places, and overall holiday cheer is going the way of Polio.

But the most unsettling part is the lack of Christmas charities. What happened to all the Toys for Tots bins that used to be in front of stores? Is there a shortage of marines or something? And I've only seen one Salvation Army bell ringer so far this year. They used to be outside of every Target and supermarket. What's going on?

It's like Santa Claus got pissed off at the churches for reminding people of the true meaning of Christmas, which threatens his job security, so he and his elf goons went around muscling up anybody who tried collecting things for the poor and needy. Well your guido scare tactics aren't gonna work, fat man! I'm gonna buy less and less stuff than ever before, just to spite you. I'm not even going to use wrapping paper. Getting nervous?

I know one person isn't going to make much of a dent in your profits, but once everybody checks out Buy Nothing Christmas, I bet your fur-trimmed wallet's gonna start feeling a little lighter. Oooh, is it getting hot in here, fatso?

You're the worst monster in Big Business. You're an enemy to all things good and holy and kind. You make the Grinch look like Martin Luther King, you greedy a-hole. Bite me, Santa. Get bent. I hope your sleigh crashes into an iceberg.

- Caleb

I figured California would be the first to do it, but the tiny, isolationist nation of Bhutan has just enacted the world's first total ban on tobacco. If you're one of the estimated 7,000 smokers in the country, never fear; you're still free to smoke – so long as you do it within the confines of your home, and the fumes don't mix with the outside air. And you'll have to have your cigs imported from neighboring India, too, because it's illegal to buy or sell tobacco products within the country's borders. Not only that, but you can look forward to paying a 100% sales tax on the imported smokes in addition to the purchase and shipping costs.

I know Bhutan has never been much of a trend-setter, but I really hope this idea catches on. The world needs it. If this was a high school newspaper, I would have said, "The rest of the world would do well to catch this law second-hand," but I'm not gonna lower myself to that level.

Amazed that smoking is still allowed in 193 countries,

- Caleb

Being a vegan isn't always easy when you live in a conservative town like San Diego. Ignorance comes in all shapes and forms, from the daily bombardment of jokes and wisecracks (promptly followed by "no offense," as if that changes anything); to the flabbergasted "You mean you don't even eat eggs???" asked with the same amazement and chagrin that would follow if I'd just revealed that I'm into bestiality; to the ever-popular, "Why the hell would you want to be a vegan?"; and everything in between.

Maybe I should revise my statement. Being a vegan isn't any harder in San Diego than it would be in Berkeley. There's no force compelling me to eat a cheeseburger or buy a new pair of leather tennis shoes. I mean, suppose you don't like alcohol. Not drinking isn't going to be a chore for you, even if you're a freshman at San Diego State University. Seeing as I'm thoroughly disgusted by animal products, not giving them my patronage is as natural to me as not driving a rusty screwdriver through my temple. Yes, saying it isn't easy isn't really accurate. I guess it'd be better to say it's frustrating. Frustrating because I'm surrounded day in and day out by self-absorbed ignorami who, for some reason or another, feel that because my lifestyle is different from theirs, I should therefore become the object of their scorn and contempt.

I was born lucky. I happen to be a white European male in slightly-upper-middle class southern California. I've never been the object of any form of racism or any major sexism, and my God is affiliated with the religion that happens to be the most popular one in America. I spent two decades enjoying the easy life that my DNA and geography happened to afford me, and it wasn't until I made the decision to stop eating animals that I was really on the outs with anybody. One deviation from mainstream culture and suddenly you've gone from an "us" to a "them." If you ever want to see which of your friends are real friends and which are just ignorant sods, all you have to do is go vegan. Trust me, it's much easier than going homosexual, and you'll get the same effect.


Answering criticism that their Chicken McNuggets are made from disgusting mechanically separated and recongealed chicken flesh, McDonalds announces their new "McIdentifiable" chicken product.

A 23-year old animal rights activist formerly called Karin Robertson has legally changed her name to GoVeg.com.

And I honestly don't know of anything else to say to that.