Impose a way of life to others according to an ideology: antispecism and fur

The fur on my McMurdo® hood is chemically synthesized. I did not have the choice to buy. Yet I prefer the touch of animal hair to that of this artificial fur but it is not politically correct, why?
Since Derrida junk intellectuals want to impose beliefs in all areas. Antispecism is a sort of egalitarianism not only homo sapiens but all living beings is the ultimate and most extravagant avatar. A priori this belief is in the realm of freedom of expression. It is not the same when individuals seize it to impose it on others and to establish a totalitarian vision of the world including by violence. With attacks on butchers or fur retailers, we are there.


Let's quickly destroy the scientific nail of anti-specism.
There is no scientific proof that there are sealed walls between plant, animal and human. It is extremely stupid to believe that picking lettuce is a neutral action without suffering, but grilling snails is an immoral act. And recent science confirms this (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1068, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27543416), the plants we eat a leaf suffer and call for help by spreading a message through a neurotransmitter, glutamate, which is the same as in human pain (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22304711). Humans have always used animal muscles for protein, long bones for the marrow, horns for different symbols or creating sounds, hairy skin to protect themselves from the cold. Each one is for the moment free of their choices in the matter but there is no scientific guarantee which is worth to condemn these uses.

But is there an ethical question?
Of course, the manipulation is to focus on the ban on the use of animals and not on the conditions of production. Recent societal developments, despite what the catastrophists say, produce less violence (https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2017/11/17/steve-pinker-la-diminution-fr-violence-dans -the-world-is-a-phenomenon-massive-and-incontestable_1610799). Livestock farming and its constraints must adapt to this evolution. The conditions for killing animals too. There is no need to vandalize a fur store. On the other hand, it is useful to regulate production conditions, eliminate subsidies when they exist and ensure that negative externalities are in the costs. In this field, a bad example is quickly elevated to the rank of generality thanks to the epidemic diffusion of the images in the pipes of information which constitutes a real ethical question: that of the determination of the truth.

Is it possible for humans to survive without predation of the living world?
Life feeds on life and it is impossible to survive with water and some natural minerals. There is no difference between feeding on plants and covering oneself with cotton or flax and eating animals or protecting oneself from the cold with their skin: it is a predation in the living world. Make believe that we will produce meat test tube, fat in the laboratory and everything and everything is a chimaera.

Does the long story help us understand these beliefs?
If societies choose to commit suicide, it has already happened, others will survive because they have placed survival first, including reproduction and moral values second and in relation to the evolution of morals, not the other way around. The human is not the generator of all the evils of the planet, it is programmed to survive in an environment which has not become less hostile than at the Paleolithic. Gaia is not nice she is cruel.

The relatively free societies we live in allow everyone to make their choices and it would be dangerous for groups of postmodern ayatollahs to dictate their way of life to their contemporary.


https://medium.com/@ReasonedVegan/whats-behind-jordan-peterson-s-hostility-to-veganism-cb98bd7b2ae8