Animal Rights Does it matter if veg*ans have a good reptuation?

[SummerRain]

Is it important for animal rights that vegans (or vegetarians) have a good reputation?

Just curious because this indirectly comes up a lot - PETA are bad because they make animal rights look nutty, avoiding trace ingredients does more harm than good because it makes veganism look difficult, why do some people think veg*ans are crazy or self-righteous?

But I wonder, does it really matter that veg*ans have a good reputation? Is it really true that people are "put off" veg*anism because of it's reputation/image, or is it more likely that people are put off veg*anism because it is difficult or because they disagree that animal suffering is important, and therefore it's a waste of time to worry about image? Is it more likely that people will be put off animal rights because it doesn't get enough attention, or because of it's image?

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think it is important for veg*ns not to 'protest too much', and also not to use veg*nism as a way to get back at society for one's own personal bitternesses; people can see what is going at some level, and they don't want any part of it.

 

[AeryFairy]

I think most people who say they won't be veg*n because they don't want the bad reputation are using it as an excuse.

However, that being said, I do my best to give veg*ns a good reputation personally, because I do think it's important. Vegans do have a bad reputation in a number of ways, and I may have switched over to being vegan a lot sooner if I hadn't thought vegans were a bunch of crazy people who took a good thing (vegetarianism) way too far. Knowing that I felt that way in the past, I try and make everyone I know think of veg*nism in a positive light. However, I don't think image is the AR movement's biggest issue, and I'm not opposed to anyone who doesn't take the same approach.

 

[nigel1]

Reputation is important if you intend to influence others to agree with you for any legitimate reason. Telling other people they are inadequate for not sharing your beliefs is a tactic that works with cults who prey on those with low self esteem, but it doesn't help anyone or anything in the long run. That's where PETA fails.

AeryFairy - "I think most people who say they won't be veg*n because they don't want the bad reputation are using it as an excuse." - what the **** kind of a subculture do you live in? I've never heard any individual make such a claim, so your claim of "most people" who do so boggles the mind. It's a weak argument.

 

[AeryFairy]

AeryFairy - "I think most people who say they won't be veg*n because they don't want the bad reputation are using it as an excuse." - what the **** kind of a subculture do you live in? I've never heard any individual make such a claim, so your claim of "most people" who do so boggles the mind. It's a weak argument.

I've heard people say it. Granted, it's not usually the only reason they provide for not going vegan, but I have heard it as a reason. It is only personal, anecdotal evidence I'm going on, but I don't think I live in such a bubble that some other people won't have heard the same thing.

So, my only claim was that, out of the people I have heard say that, I think that most of them are using it as an excuse to cover up other reasons. It wasn't exactly an argument, more of an observation really - apparently one which relies on anecdotal evidence that doesn't match your experience of the world.

 

[Clueless Git]

Reputation is important if you intend to influence others to agree with you for any legitimate reason.

That makes reputation important only amongst those who would reject/accept legitimate reason entirely dependant on if the person they heard it from is one they do/don't 'like'.

Accepting/rejecting legitimate reasoning entirely dependant on the basis of if you 'like' the person you heard it from, or not, shows a complete inability to understand what is/isn't legimitate reasoning in itself.

 

[beancounter]

That makes reputation important only amongst those who would reject/accept legitimate reason entirely dependant on if the person they heard it from is one they do/don't 'like'.

Accepting/rejecting legitimate reasoning entirely dependant on the basis of if you like the person you heard it from, or not, is NOT legitimate reasoning in itself.

People don't necessarily accept ideas soley on the basis of reputation, but it helps to "open the door", so that a person will be receptive (or at least be willing to consider) to new ideas.

 

[Clueless Git]

People don't necessarily accept ideas soley on the basis of reputation ...

Then it follows that people don't necessarily reject ideas soley on the basis of reputation too?

That would make reputation NOT a/the critical factor either way around.

The critical factor as to if a person will accept/reject legitimate reasoning when they hear it must then be something else.

 

[beancounter]

Then it follows that people don't necessarily reject ideas soley on the basis of reputation too?

That would make reputation NOT a/the critical factor either way around.

The critical factor as to if a person will accept/reject legitimate reasoning when they hear it must then be something else.

Like I said, it opens the door. If the "door" isn't opened, no progress can be made at all.

 

[Clueless Git]

Seperate but related thought ...

Like I said, it opens the door.

If that were so then there would be no doors closed (to acceptance of legimate reason) to veg*ns of good repute.

A 90-99% rejection (doors remaining closed) of legimate reasons to go vegan/vegetarian respectively suggests that either:

1. Virtualy no veg*ans have good reputation amongst non-veg*ans.

Or ...

2. Some factor(s) other than reputation is/are massively in play.

 

[beancounter]

Seperate but related thought ...


If that were so then there would be no doors closed (to acceptance of legimate reason) to veg*ns of good repute.

A 90-99% rejection (doors remaining closed) of legimate reasons to go vegan/vegetarian respectively suggests that either:

1. Virtualy no veg*ans have good reputation amongst non-veg*ans.

Or ...

2. Some factor(s) other than reputation is/are massively in play.

Not everyone agrees as to what is legitimate. But without an open door, legitimacy doesn't matter.

 

[nigel1]

I've heard people say it. Granted, it's not usually the only reason they provide for not going vegan, but I have heard it as a reason. It is only personal, anecdotal evidence I'm going on, but I don't think I live in such a bubble that some other people won't have heard the same thing.

So, my only claim was that, out of the people I have heard say that, I think that most of them are using it as an excuse to cover up other reasons. It wasn't exactly an argument, more of an observation really - apparently one which relies on anecdotal evidence that doesn't match your experience of the world.

Nice re-qualification of your claim.

I think you were simply talking out of your ***. Don't slough it off as differences of "experience of the world."

 

[Mischief]

I hang out with a lot of people who do animal rescue in some form or another, and many more who go to extraordinary lengths for their own companion animals, and even in those circles, AR generally has a really bad reputation because of PETA. People associate PETA with AR, and PETA's poor reputation really creates a negative impression of anything with the AR label. The more strident, less knowledgeable AR proponents also hurt the AR movement.

It's funny, because most of these pro animal people I'm talking about really have AR views to some extent, but they don't realize it because of their anti AR bias due to PETA and other idiots.

 

[AeryFairy]

Nice re-qualification of your claim.

I think you were simply talking out of your ***. Don't slough it off as differences of "experience of the world."

Okay, I'm not quite sure what I've said to justify the rudeness and accusations of talking out of my ***.

Again, my claim was a single sentence about how I have known people to say they wouldn't want to be veg*n due to the bad reputation veg*ns have, and the reason I believe to be behind it. Your issue with that seemed to be that people don't say that (unless I misread you?). My response to that was that they do, although judging from your response it isn't something you had come across (different experiences). So what is the issue you're drawing from my statement and response?

 

[Moll Flanders]

Is it important for animal rights that vegans (or vegetarians) have a good reputation?

I think it helps if people are somewhat sympathetic to vegetarianism or veganism. I always believed that vegetarians and vegans had a healthy diet, even before I gave up meat and fish. I think education is vital and if I had been aware of the AR reasons that people go vegan then I would have turned vegan a lot sooner. I know I'm probably unpopular but I think PETA have some worthy information on their website. Some people seem to link veg/vegan people with groups like the ALF and I think people like Ellen Degeneres have softened the image and reached the public in a very important way.

 

[Pirate]

People don't necessarily accept ideas soley on the basis of reputation, but it helps to "open the door", so that a person will be receptive (or at least be willing to consider) to new ideas.

I agree.

If someone thinks all vegans are crazy assholes they arent going to be very receptive. I honestly know someone who think animal rights are stupid because a dog cannot vote. they seriously think that PETA is campaigning for dogs to vote. when I tried to explain the correct meaning of animal rights I just got called a Petard and they wouldnt listen.

That said, I cant imagine someone refusing to go vegan because they dont want that label - if anything theyd just call themself a vegetarian??

 

[nigel1]

Okay, I'm not quite sure what I've said to justify the rudeness and accusations of talking out of my ***.

Again, my claim was a single sentence about how I have known people to say they wouldn't want to be veg*n due to the bad reputation veg*ns have, and the reason I believe to be behind it. Your issue with that seemed to be that people don't say that (unless I misread you?). My response to that was that they do, although judging from your response it isn't something you had come across (different experiences). So what is the issue you're drawing from my statement and response?

To go back, you said:

I think most people who say they won't be veg*n because they don't want the bad reputation are using it as an excuse.

No mention of "people you have known" here.

I may have issues, but this certainly isn't one of them! You made a statement then made an oh-gee-well rationalization when I questioned it. Person up and deal with it.

 

[nigel1]

That makes reputation important only amongst those who would reject/accept legitimate reason entirely dependant on if the person they heard it from is one they do/don't 'like'.

Accepting/rejecting legitimate reasoning entirely dependant on the basis of if you 'like' the person you heard it from, or not, shows a complete inability to understand what is/isn't legimitate reasoning in itself.

No it doesn't show a "complete inability to understand what is/isn't legimitate (sic) reasoning in itself." I doubt that you'll disagree that you are a (sometimes deliberately) contentious voice on this board. Sometimes people might completely ignore your posts for the sake of saving their own time and investing it in something meaningful. Does that make them ignorant, or economical with time?

I don't waste my time with FOX News or Granma. Is that wrong?

 

[AeryFairy]

No mention of "people you have known" here.

I may have issues, but this certainly isn't one of them! You made a statement then made an oh-gee-well rationalization when I questioned it. Person up and deal with it.

When I made the original post, I wasn't aware that I needed to make explicit the fact that I was talking from my experience and knowledge. When you questioned it, I clarified what I meant. I don't think there's anything to deal with or admit to, besides the fact that my first post was apparently poorly or insufficiently worded. Sorry if you think that makes me disingenuous, but what I said in my second post is no different than what I meant with my first.

 

[Clueless Git]

Not everyone agrees as to what is legitimate. But without an open door, legitimacy doesn't matter.

No it doesn't show a "complete inability to understand what is/isn't legimitate (sic) reasoning in itself." I doubt that you'll disagree that you are a (sometimes deliberately) contentious voice on this board. Sometimes people might completely ignore your posts for the sake of saving their own time and investing it in something meaningful. Does that make them ignorant, or economical with time?

That would depend entirely on the validity, or lack theroef, of whatever it was I said.

I don't waste my time with FOX News or Granma. Is that wrong?

Not wrong, no.

You may be missing a lot by doing so though.

I love gutter press/news/programming myself.

It can make a fascinating study of how people intelligent enough to produce such stuff percieve the hoi-poloi and their manipulations thereof.