Vegan elitists and slaughterhouse sympathizers on social media have long objected to the use of the word ‘product’ to refer to animals and animal parts sold as products. They even have gone so far as to request that people using the word ‘product’ remove it from their posts. One such person complied with that request this morning. That’s why I’m writing this now.
SHOCKING. That someone would fold that easily to the whims of elitists and slaughterhouse sympathizers without first examining the issue and reasons people call what’s for sale a product.
That action of compliance in no way helps the plight of those who suffer the atrocities of enslavement, torture and slaughter. In fact, that the person folded so quickly and did what they were told by a complete stranger is more a lesson in how not to be persuaded by a person who completes his/her demand with a ‘thanks for the giggle’ phrase. What the hell does ‘thanks for the giggle’ mean? It’s a stool softener, to loosen up the grip one has on their own rectum, so they won’t resist the demand to remove an objectionable word from your post – in this instance it’s the word ‘product’. This is probably just the beginning of a massive movement designed to control what people post by instructing people to edit their posts by removing certain words they deem objectionable.
It’s called Alien-Induced Self-Censorship (AISC).
Their argument: non-human animals are not products.
Why would slaughterhouse sympathizers demand someone remove the word ‘product’ when referencing animals? They pose as vegan for the purpose of dividing and conquering. They get vegans fighting each other. People pile on when there’s a fight and they read the words, thinking it’s vegan against vegan, when it could be two non-vegans posing as vegans, or one vegan posing as a non-vegan to give the ludicrous arguments non-vegans give for eating animals. Most non-vegans won’t stay in the fight long, so they recruit social media actors to play the parts.
They don’t like the word animal-free either. The vegan elitists fight to make the word vegan king, while the SS people don’t want that word read, seen, spoken. It sounds too much like quitting smoking or quitting drinking or quitting drugging – all the activities that people engage in, that purveyors of body-damaging goods/products need to convince you to buy so they can get rich and stay rich.
Animal-free has a negative connotation for those who indulge in enslavement torture slaughter. It puts the animal in the faces up close. Free of the animal. What? No animal in here? Vegan is a much less confrontational word. Nobody really know what it means, since the elitist vegans attached so many non-vegan requirements to it – such as non-GMO, gluten-free, including the harvesting of non-vegan items that adversely impact the environment or habitat of a particular species, whole foods, organic, raw and on and on. So of course they’re at war with the plant-based people who stole their headliner status right from under their turned up noses. Egos are in play here.
They also don’t want the animal-free chef rising unless they as a group have total control over what gets communicated. I’m not vegan enough. I don’t fit into their gold standard. But I’m the one whose moving the world toward plants faster than all of them put together. I stick with the animal till the animal is free. They don’t. A lot of them jumped ship and went the paleo route.
Now, to get to the subject matter: the word PRODUCT.
The Animal-Free Chef’s Response:
There are many definitions for product. Humans are by-products of their environment.
Manufacturers at this time are not going to put on their labels ‘contains no animals’ . But that’s what I’m working toward. Right now it’s ‘contains no animal products’. It’s straight forward in a language people understand.
No matter the species, once the carcass of the animal undergoes a process for sale, it is referred to as a product. I test animal-free products. People know what that means. In writing for learning purposes I refer to all animals including humans in much more descriptive, graphic terms. I reference the flesh, blood, milk and other body parts.
Imagine a label that reads: Contains no flesh, no blood, no animal hormones, no milk. Bone, how about bone? And which animal does it contain? Jews and Muslims don’t want pig, but they’ll go for the other animals. Unless it’s an allergen it’s difficult to get specific – labels aren’t big enough.
A manufacturer won’t put on their product label ‘contains no secretions’, because the word turns people away. Even flesh contains secretions.
Contains no animal products covers a wide range, meaning no part of any animal from any species.
One could say that separating humans (one species) from non-humans (all other species) when speaking about animals implies a superiority by keeping the humans separate from all the other species. It becomes cumbersome to mention every species.
How would this sound? I test flesh and bone and secretion-free products? Then you’ve got to get the hair in there. I prefer ‘contains no animal’. But in the marketing world people are accustomed to the word product. And I’m trying to sell the world on food preparations that don’t contain any part of the animal to the best of my knowledge. I also develop animal-free products. I in no way feel that I am disrespecting the animals I have designed my life to serve by referring to a food preparation as containing no animal products (which includes the entire animal). Products are also services. A person many times will be referred to as a package.
In business I go for the quicker result; in writing ideology, I go for the short and long term.
What will work now to get me to a better place in the future without having to make major changes? In changing patterns, the closer you start to where you want to be, the quicker it takes to reach the goal.
Changing the word ‘product’ to ‘flesh and secretions’ is doomed to fail, except when discussing ideology and agendas.
Parts of animals are often times mixed with non-animal products to form a new product. If somebody grows their hair, cuts it and sells it to wig companies; they’re selling a product that will then go through a process, even though it’s part of an animal. It’s still a product.
A product denotes a process of preparation that gets something ready for sale. The finished product.
Contains No Animal. Contains No Animal Products. Contains No Animal. Animal-Free. Yeah, I am definitely sticking with the animal. Better to be in your face and honest, than hiding behind multiple other categories.
The elitist vegans couldn’t stop the plant-based words from becoming popular and the SS movement won’t stop the animal-free chef from testing animal-free products or from developing animal-free recipes.
I don’t think animals should be political but they are. Humans are also used for political purposes. Historically, they’ve been enslaved, tortured and slaughtered for political agendas.
Is an insect an animal? YES.
POOP? It contains animal cells plus waste. If a person collects it and makes jewelry out of it, then it’s an animal product.
Semen? Humans sell their semen, which is produced by the body, which makes it an animal product.
Milk? The body produces milk, which makes it an animal product. Humans sell their milk as a product.
PRODUCTION = PRODUCT
If it’s for sale it’s a product. That’s the way the marketplace works. Merchants needed a word that denoted something or somebody for sale. Product evidently came to mind. ‘Goods’ probably came first.
Yes, words matter, but focusing on minutia designed to sideline or railroad hinders rather than facilitates. It’s used as a stumbling block by an opponent.
Defined: A product can be a service or an item. It can be physical or in virtual or cyber form. Every product is made at a cost and each is sold at a price. The price that can be charged depends on the market, the quality, the marketing and the segment that is targeted.”
Like it or not, animals are a huge part of the manufacturing process.
Removing the ‘product’ label from the animal at this point in time or even in the near future, in effect is saying that they are not subject to the manufacturing process. That would be a denial of the enslavement torture slaughter that they endure as a result of that process.
Although animal-free was never intended to instill fear, it had that effect on the Slaughter Sympathizers. It scares them that animal-eaters will start regarding eating animals as an addiction that needs to be overcome or even treated.
Madison Avenue is like Wall Street, they scare easily. How do we sell a product associated by wordage with addiction? An addiction that causes heart disease, vascular disease, kidney disease, diabetes, cancer with many animal faces attached?
Be free of…that’s what I’m talking about. Animal-free.
Yeah, we need the word ‘product’ in order to more easily raise awareness by comparison.
We have two products here. One doesn’t have a brain and the other screams in pain. Which one should we let go? The apple or the animal?
We better make the right choice this time.
I am an animal product.