#KeeptheBan: I agree but please stop the virtue signalling

keep the ban

Now this is just naked guilt mongering. Loads of these memes can be found on your Facebook feed.

Last week, Theresa May sent the British left into a frenzy by promising a free vote on repealing the fox hunting ban if the Tories win the election, which we all know they will. For those who don’t know, fox hunting in Britain is a sport in which a group of people, led by a hunt master, hunt down a fox using trained dogs that chase the fox and kill it. In 2004, the Labour government passed the Hunting Act, which effectively banned the practice of hunting mammals with dogs, but the Conservatives have been trying to repeal the ban for years.

Naturally, leftists all over the country went into a fit of rage, and reacted in the only way they know how, by spreading more annoying memes that serve no purpose other than to remind you that you’re supposed to be voting Labour, and if you vote Conservative you’re somehow some kind of monster. I see these memes all over my Facebook feed, and all they do is turn a legitimate cause (protecting foxes from a cruel and barbaric practice) into something that you just roll your eyes at because of how cringeworthy people get when they’re virtue signalling.

To make myself clear, I definitely oppose fox hunting. I see no reason why it should be legal (though I have yet to hear a convincing pro-hunting case), and I completely agree with the argument that fox hunting is unethical. This is perhaps one of the few things I could possibly agree with the left on, but even when they’re right, the left can’t help but fuck it up. Only the progressives can turn a noble animal rights cause into a noxious guilt trip, and in my view that’s exactly what’s happened with the #KeeptheBan campaign.

The reason I’m concerned with the way supporters of the fox hunting ban are going about this is because of the pattern that I’ve been seeing with left-wing campaigns. Over the past few years, leftists have conducted their campaigns not by winning people over with a strong argument, because they don’t have the winning argument, but by appealing to people’s emotions, and making it seem like you are immoral for not supporting their cause. I’ve seen this over and over again, and the end result is that eventually only a few people end up supporting, because it turns out that making yourselves look like the good guys and guilt-tripping people into supporting you isn’t a very effective tactic, and the fact that the anti-fox hunting people are using these same virtue signalling tactics (at least with the cringy leftist memes) is a sign of their idiocy.

Besides, whether or not you agree with the fox hunting ban, surely there’s nothing wrong with having a vote on whether or not it should be repealed. It could be that most of the MP’s vote in favour of the ban. If they vote to repeal, then by all means protest the decision. Start petitions if you want (not that it will do any good). Hell, you could go a step further and form your own advocacy groups against fox hunting. Why not? It’s perfectly legal after all. My main criticism of Theresa May’s proposal is that it seemed like she was blatantly taking advantage of her high electoral chances. That sounds cynical, but given how she’s pretty much guaranteed to win the election, what other conclusion could I come to?

Nonetheless, it seems to have distracted a lot of people from the Brexit issue, which is all the election is about when you really think about it. That’s ultimately the other reason I don’t care a great deal about the fox hunting ban right now. There are better times to fight on this issue, but right now there are more important things than fox hunting. The country needs a leader who can tangle with the adversarial leaders of the EU, so that we can get out of the EU, fulfilling the will of the people. As much as I agree with the anti-fox hunting crowd on the basic premise, I’m afraid this is a fight they aren’t going to win.

Born slaves for entertainment

orca show

Do such magnificent creatures really deserve being held captive?

Last year, a 103-year-old orca whale nicknamed “Granny” was spotted off Canada’s western coast. Granny stands out as an impressive feat of nature, but for SeaWorld, she represents a threat to their credibility. For many years, SeaWorld has maintained that the life expectancy of an orca whale is unknown, but as all animal welfare advocates know, that’s just their way of defending their practice of keeping them cooped up in tanks.

On average, orca whales born in captivity only live for around four-and-a-half years, and many captured whales die within less than two decades. Because of this grim reality, SeaWorld’s orcas are forced to breed at younger ages than they are expected to naturally (the right time for an orca pregnancy is usually at around 14.9 years old), and many orcas that are bred have been known to have a history of violence, a textbook sign that the whales have been maladjusted to their environment. And that’s not all. Many of the orcas born in captivity were born through orca inbreeding, and some are stillborn calves, meaning that they die at the moment they’re born.

In the tanks, the orcas are kept alive on a sea of drugs, and many of the drugs are so powerful that they put the trainers at risk as well. The contraceptives given to whales to regulate pregnancy have been known to potentially cause sterility in female orca trainers. The whales are constantly on antibiotics, and there is some testimony that indicates that the whales’ gills are stuffed with antibiotics, antacids, vitamins and other drugs. The male whales who are sexually mature are given drugs designed to reduce their testosterone levels, in addition to the benzodiazepines all the whales get to keep them calm in the tanks.

The conditions of captivity leave the imprisoned orca whales banging their heads against the tanks, grinding their teeth against the walls, floors and bars, and often fighting each other. This is the whales wanting to be free, but the sad irony is that the captive whales are so maladjusted that they cannot be released into the wild. A wild orca whale could literally kick a SeaWorld whale to the curb and it wouldn’t even be a fight. Also, the wild whales are used to swimming at greater distances and speeds than the SeaWorld whales, despite SeaWorld’s claim that they do not need to regularly swim hundreds of miles in the ocean. If released back into the whale without rehabilitation, want kind of a life would the orcas be given?

orca tanks

What kind of a life indeed?

Obviously people have had enough. Across America, people have opened their eyes to the atrocities SeaWorld commits against its animals. In California, there is a bill in the works that would stop SeaWorld from being able to keep orcas in captivity. However, all the cries of protest don’t seem to have swayed SeaWorld. In spite of the lawsuits and protests they’ve faced, their bottom line remains entertainment and profit. They have a huge team of high-priced lawyers at their disposal, and they’ve used them to silence former trainers who speak out against them. As long as there is no law against holding orcas in this manner, nothing has changed.

Prior to hearing of this, I had no opinion on this at all, but now I’m very firmly against keeping orca whales captive in tanks for entertainment. I feel that the way SeaWorld imprisons the orca whales is perhaps the most damning symbol of mankind’s arrogance in thinking nature is to be conquered. Through the actions of people willing to go against SeaWorld, by voicing their objections and campaigning against them, I remain adamant that SeaWorld will not be able to continue doing this. Eventually, I think that we as human beings will do the right thing, and when that happens, we will prove that we still have some respect for nature, and all the splendour it offers.

The farce of animal rights

The environmentalist movement is pretty stupid. But you know what’s even stupider, the concept of animal rights. You’re probably thinking: “How can it be be stupid? Animals have rights just like all of us!”

You could say that, except they don’t. Why? Because the concept of rights is an entirely political concept. Animals aren’t sentient, and don’t have politics, therefore, animals can’t have the same rights as us, because they can’t defend whatever rights people think they have.

The whole concept of animal rights is stupid because it assumes that animals have a voice in the way our world works, when, as I already said, they don’t. Why? Because they can’t! And even they could, if they saw who mind-numbingly idiotic our political system is, would they want a part in it? I don’t think they would. All animals care about is whether or not they’ll live to the next day. They only care about three things: food, shelter, and mating. They wouldn’t be interested in protesting either, because the idea of protesting is alien to them.

This is the reason why I think that the liberals, and the media in general, are stupid for falling for it. Either they are, this has to do with something more cynical: they want to use this issue to act like they have the moral high ground, when really they don’t. The liberals use it to reinforce the false notion that they are more ethical than the rest of us for opposing it; and the media uses it to sell inferior products that do nothing and cost more. When you’re trying to sell anything, you will never have the moral high ground because your intent is commercial in nature.

I mean, really, the only animals their making us care about it is because cute and cuddly animals are used for experiments. Well, other animals are used for experiments, but do we ever care about them? No we don’t. Also, did it ever occur to those bleeding-heart hippies that not only do the scientists not have cruel intentions, but also that animal experimentation is absolutely necessary? What else can we do, experiment on humans? Did it ever occur to them that we experiment on animals because experimenting on humans is even more wrong? No it did not, because they want their beliefs forced onto the scientific community. Not only are they stupid, but they’re pretentious jerks, and they’re slowing down the progress of mankind.

Let’s move on to the environmental activists. They’re completely stupid because they advocate a cause that has absolutely zero benefit for humanity. There are many of them. But none of them are stupider than the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or, as they’re popularly known, PETA.

peta

Basically these guys, and Al Sharpton.

I must admit, they have done some good things (they’ve campaigned against cockfighting and dog fighting; two things that I for one wouldn’t approve of). But otherwise, they’re just a bunch of over-glorified hippies who sensationalise and interfere with various animal rights issues so they can gain publicity. Even co-founder Ingrid Newkirk said that “it is their duty to be press sluts”, which can only mean that they want be taken seriously because it gives them attention.

Their campaigning is equally asinine, and sometimes they come across as borderline misogyny. I say that because in this regard, they are using women for their bodies, which counts as objectifying the women. I don’t even think that the featured women can even be taken seriously. Just look at this example:

This is Alicia Silverstone, and she’s a tired out prostitute.

Here’s why I don’t think this was taken seriously. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this one out. They use little known female actors. In this ad, they used freaking Alicia Silverstone, the same actress from the near-universally reviled Batman & Robin, the very same movie which practically killed her career. Excuse my French, but I don’t think that a washed up actress like her will ever be taken seriously again.

PETA also suffers from that classic liberal trait that is false moralism. They claim to be on the side of animal underdogs – who don’t even need representatives to begin with, much less human respresentatives – and they claim to be on the moral high ground, while simultaneously exploiting women and killing thousands of animals a year within its confines. There’s an entire site dedicated to the findings of PETA’s animal killings (I don’t actually support them):

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

How can someone claim to love and want to liberate all animals, whilst killing thousands of them? These are the same people who want us all to be vegans, they want us all to not wear leather or fur, they want us to not have milk or honey. They pretty much oppose our entire way of life as a species, something no sane person would tolerate. They don’t even give a damn is farmers lose their jobs, so long as animals are doing whatever they please.

Also, they’ve been giving funding to such terrorist organizations as the Animal Liberation Front, and the Earth Liberation Front. They reject non-violent methods, and support groups that prefer violence to achieve their goals, which counts as terrorism apparently.

We claim to be a society that opposes terrorism in all of its forms. Yet we the people are stupid enough to fall in love with a terrorist organization. We’re dumb enough to believe that animal rights is a legitimate cause, when in reality, animals aren’t liberal jackasses.

brian

Like him.

In fact, as I already mentioned, they don’t care what laws we pass to try and “protect them”, or “us from them”, and have no politics of their own.

To summarize, there’s really no need for, nor such thing as animal rights. But if we really cared animals, we’d stop pretending to want them to have rights. Caring for animals in need is the job of veterinarians and animal hospices, not radical terrorists who do more harm than good, and clearly care less about animals and more about imposing their yoke upon ordinary people. If you really care about animals, then support your nearest animal shelter, report cases of animal abuse to the police, in other words, do anything that terrorist organizations like PETA won’t do; a competent job.