How should activists deal with criticism?

Graeme M

Forum Legend
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Reaction score
229
Age
64
Location
Canberra, Australia
Lifestyle
  1. Vegan
I watched this Joey Carbstrong clip about a recent Piers Morgan incident. In an interview with a vegan activist, Morgen was able to make her look pretty silly. OK, he's a bully and isn't going to give her an even break, but just the same it's not like he's come up with any new arguments. Activists really should be better prepared.

Still, does he have a point? What *are* the correct responses to these kinds of charges? He really only made a couple of points - that many crops cause environmental harm and that many small animals are killed to grow crops. How should an almond milk drinking vegan counter that? Sure, many non-vegans are drinking almond milk, the question is should vegans. If almond milk causes these harms, what is a vegan defence for doing so? The critic wins if the activist cannot provide a reasonable counter-argument.

 
  • Like
Reactions: vesper818 and Lou
I don't know about almond milk but most of the food crops we grow are grown to feed livestock to feed meat eaters. We actually reduce the amount of damage done by being vegan. We cannot be perfect and create 0 deaths but we can greatly reduce them.
 
IMO it is a specious argument - when you wash your pillows and sheets you kill off lots of mites too, does that mean you shouldn't clean your clothes and linens? if you pick fleas off your pets, if you vacuum your home......... the list is really endless. Doing these things does not give you the right to kill another human being, or a cow, or a whale.....

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com
 
Ha. You know I hate when I post an article and people reply to it without reading it. And here I am doing the same.

Yep, I didn't watch the video. I just didn't see the point. but I can respond to the stuff you put in your post

Activists really should be better prepared.

Well they should know this stuff but knowing it and putting it into words is two different things. And we get better with practice.

I do have a suggestion for anyone who is concerned with counter arguments. I'll put a link in at the bottom.



that many crops cause environmental harm and that many small animals are killed to grow crops.

As Bryan suggested, is that a huge percentage of crops are grown to feed animals. So carnists are just as responsible (if not more so) for environmental damage done by crops.

The small animal thing has mostly been debunked. There have been at least two studies that have proved that wrong. I'm not going to look them up now but one of them radio tagged mice. And you know what. Mice can hear the farm equipment and run the other way.

Maybe not to be brought up but in the radio tagged mice study, a few days after harvesting all the mice were gone anyway. The researchers thought that maybe with the reduction of cover, the were victims of predation.


How should an almond milk drinking vegan counter that? Sure, many non-vegans are drinking almond milk, the question is should vegans. If almond milk causes these harms, what is a vegan defence for doing so? The critic wins if the activist cannot provide a reasonable counter-argument.

I'm sort of anti-almond milk. so I'm not going to spend much time defending it. IMHO, vegans don't need to drink any kind of milk but if they do they should be drinking soy or oat. I drink soy milk.

But almond milk does produce the least greenhouse gasses. and in every category - almond milk beats the heck out of cows milk.


-------------------
This article pretty much covers the most common arguments.

For a really good discussion on "crop deaths", check this out
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC and Brian W
No point needed to be made. Anyone late middle age eating fries and cholesterol loaded burgers is in denial about what such substances are doing to their own bodies.
Time will tell.
 
I familiarized myself with this topic a number of years (>10?) ago. I believe that small field animals die from crop-growing activities- either from the equipment or from the sudden removal of cover during the harvest. I don't think either of these two ways of dying is more acceptable than the other. However, I doubt that the continuous removal of cover by domesticated grazing animals would result in fewer deaths over the long term. There is such a thing as predator saturation (I think that's the term): predators can only eat so many prey animals within a certain time. Some predators go on a killing spree if they come upon a large number of defenseless pray in a small area, but I don't know if this is the same situation as a suddenly-denuded field.

ETA: I also haven't seen that the "collateral" animal deaths from agriculture exceed those from raising and slaughtering livestock- certainly not when you include the field animals killed from raising corn, hay, etc for those livestock. All this proves is that it's not vegan to waste food.

I mean, cripes- people die in auto accidents. I remember that highway deaths were reduced when the speed limits were lowered, and casualties went back up when the limits were raised again. Are we vegs being criticized because we don't treat animals better than most people treat humans?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
Why bother going on a show like that?
That would be the main take-away from this. Joey said in his video that he asked to go on the show, but they refused him and accepted this young person who is a representative of some group called Animal Rebellion. Joey's belief is that they did that specifically to get an easy target for Morgan's bullying. Of course Morgan isn't interested in their views.

As Bryan suggested, is that a huge percentage of crops are grown to feed animals. So carnists are just as responsible (if not more so) for environmental damage done by crops.
That's true, but irrelevant to Morgan's point. Morgan is reflecting typical non-vegan criticisms and if they cannot be countered, then it leaves activists looking bad. The end result is that activists actually reinforce the negative opinions offered by the critic. Veganism is essentially a personal ethical stance. Yes, at the global scale certain benefits accrue, but vegans are choosing to do what they think is best to do at the individual level. Morgan's criticism covered two points - environmental damage and harm to other species. He particularly drew attention to harms to bees used to pollinate the crops, but also to environmental damage from growing almonds.

Now, he may be wrong about that as I have seen articles that dispute those claims. But his point remains. The goal of vegans is to prevent exploitation and unnecessary harm and suffering. The "least harm" thing isn't part of standard moral evaluation as I understand it - that emerges when we have two comparable cases of conflicting interests to attend to. In such cases, we might defer to the case wherein we do least harm. But comparing the harms accruing from cow's milk and then saying that almond milk is less harmful seems to be an inappropriate application of the principle.

The question is, does a choice we make cause harm and can we make a different choice. In the case of almond milk, I think we drink that primarily for pleasure. If it causes harms, then we need to consider if we have an alternative that is less harmful. We can't wave the charge away because some other completely different choice is more harmful.

The young lady in this clip was evasive but in the end had to agree that she did eat avocadoes and possibly almond milk. The better answer is to simply say either yes or no and go from there.

My question though is related to the issues Morgan raises. How should activists respond? We know there are only so many criticisms that people like Morgan can raise and these should be well known by now. She should have been aware that Morgan wasn't interested in her actual stance but merely wanted her to be the bunny for a "gotcha" moment. I think vegans have to face the fact that drinking soy milk or almond milk does cause environmental and species' harms and have an answer for such criticisms. And the answer isn't to wave it away by saying that someone else does worse. That is both hypocritical and deflates the moral argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian W and Lou
I used to volunteer for passing out pro-vegan booklets to strangers.

You have to remember that you are there for the animals, not for you.

No matter what, always stay polite. Always stay friendly. Always keep it about the facts.

I've seen people who appeared to be belligerent turn out, at least enough to be open minded about reading the booklets.

Just keep repeating to yourself something like

"I've been foolishly wrong about things in my life and did not know it. This person could be great guy/gal in other areas. Facts speak for themselves. Let me try what I can and then let go. Plenty of other to give the booklets too."
 
Last edited:
I used to volunteer for passing out pro-vegan booklets to strangers.

You have to remember that you are there for the animals, not for you.

No matter what, always stay polite. Always stay friendly. Always keep it about the facts.

I've seen people who appeared to be belligerent turned out, at least enough to be open minded about reading the booklets.

Just keep repeating to yourself something like

"I've been foolishly wrong about things in my life and did not know it. This person could be great guy/gal in other areas. Facts speak for themselves. Let me try what I can and then let go. Plenty of other to give the booklets too."
(Bold emphasis is mine.) Yes, never underestimate the impact you can have on people, even those who may push back. I've told this story before, but my veg*n journey began when I was at a party, and I had chicken on my plate. And a friend told me that I'd never eat chicken again if I knew how it got to my plate. I was taken aback, of course, and sort of just brushed it off, but that comment stuck with me and ultimately led me to going vegetarian and then vegan.

So even though someone might initially be defensive, that person could eventually come around.
 
To be maximally persuassive, never talk to anyone over a meal about the problems with their food.
Not so sure about that advice.
I'm surprised Ptree agreed with you. She just said she was introduced to veganism while eating chicken
 
Not so sure about that advice.
I'm surprised Ptree agreed with you. She just said she was introduced to veganism while eating chicken
Yes, but in general, I think such discussion should take place away from the dinner table. That was more in response to the pushback some vegans get when trying to promote veganism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
I watched this Joey Carbstrong clip about a recent Piers Morgan incident. In an interview with a vegan activist, Morgen was able to make her look pretty silly. OK, he's a bully and isn't going to give her an even break, but just the same it's not like he's come up with any new arguments. Activists really should be better prepared.

Still, does he have a point? What *are* the correct responses to these kinds of charges? He really only made a couple of points - that many crops cause environmental harm and that many small animals are killed to grow crops. How should an almond milk drinking vegan counter that? Sure, many non-vegans are drinking almond milk, the question is should vegans. If almond milk causes these harms, what is a vegan defence for doing so? The critic wins if the activist cannot provide a reasonable counter-argument.

Thank you for sharing. The video was not surprising. He is an omnivore who had a dominance mentality, who resents
anyone making a different choice and pointing out why. He does not want to change his compassion. His show seems
to be constantly defending his choice for food and finding rediculous excuses and comparisons for doing so.
As an ethical whole food vegan for over 25 years I have found that most humans consume animals because they were
raised to do so, and it is an addictive habit. Omnivores are deliberately, completely, distanced from the animal suffering.
What develops is a lack of empathy and a complete lack of emotions for the animal they want to eat. They are just "food".
Consuming the "happy" ("humanely raised", "pastured"...) does not make an omnivore more empathetic, but they want to
believe it does. They make this choice because they convince themselves that this choice is better for the animal (while alive),
they are worthy of paying more for quality, and because they prefer the taste and nutrition.
My lengthy point here is that these flesh and blood eaters (defenders) should be placed in a commercial slaughterhouse for a
full days shift and forced to murder and bloody the animals they eat.
They will see a much different side of the addiction habit of omnivorism after that experience (and will have to wash the blood off their
hands and clothing. Cheers!.
 
Yes, but in general, I think such discussion should take place away from the dinner table. That was more in response to the pushback some vegans get when trying to promote veganism.
Sure. Most humans are not happy when they are eating the dead and someone says something about it. However, just putting
the idea in someone's head can have an effect and get them to think. Martina Navratilova was talking to a friend (who was vegan) on the phone
one day and martina remarked she was going to make/have chicken for dinner. The vegan friend said "what do you think the chicken
thinks about that?". That simple remark got martina to think and then become vegan. You never know....
 
I used to volunteer for passing out pro-vegan booklets to strangers.

You have to remember that you are there for the animals, not for you.

No matter what, always stay polite. Always stay friendly. Always keep it about the facts.

I've seen people who appeared to be belligerent turn out, at least enough to be open minded about reading the booklets.

Just keep repeating to yourself something like

"I've been foolishly wrong about things in my life and did not know it. This person could be great guy/gal in other areas. Facts speak for themselves. Let me try what I can and then let go. Plenty of other to give the booklets too."
Your thoughts are valuable about this subject. be factual and reach humans that way.
 
That would be the main take-away from this. Joey said in his video that he asked to go on the show, but they refused him and accepted this young person who is a representative of some group called Animal Rebellion. Joey's belief is that they did that specifically to get an easy target for Morgan's bullying. Of course Morgan isn't interested in their views.


That's true, but irrelevant to Morgan's point. Morgan is reflecting typical non-vegan criticisms and if they cannot be countered, then it le
That would be the main take-away from this. Joey said in his video that he asked to go on the show, but they refused him and accepted this young person who is a representative of some group called Animal Rebellion. Joey's belief is that they did that specifically to get an easy target for Morgan's bullying. Of course Morgan isn't interested in their views.


That's true, but irrelevant to Morgan's point. Morgan is reflecting typical non-vegan criticisms and if they cannot be countered, then it leaves activists looking bad. The end result is that activists actually reinforce the negative opinions offered by the critic. Veganism is essentially a personal ethical stance. Yes, at the global scale certain benefits accrue, but vegans are choosing to do what they think is best to do at the individual level. Morgan's criticism covered two points - environmental damage and harm to other species. He particularly drew attention to harms to bees used to pollinate the crops, but also to environmental damage from growing almonds.

Now, he may be wrong about that as I have seen articles that dispute those claims. But his point remains. The goal of vegans is to prevent exploitation and unnecessary harm and suffering. The "least harm" thing isn't part of standard moral evaluation as I understand it - that emerges when we have two comparable cases of conflicting interests to attend to. In such cases, we might defer to the case wherein we do least harm. But comparing the harms accruing from cow's milk and then saying that almond milk is less harmful seems to be an inappropriate application of the principle.

The question is, does a choice we make cause harm and can we make a different choice. In the case of almond milk, I think we drink that primarily for pleasure. If it causes harms, then we need to consider if we have an alternative that is less harmful. We can't wave the charge away because some other completely different choice is more harmful.

The young lady in this clip was evasive but in the end had to agree that she did eat avocadoes and possibly almond milk. The better answer is to simply say either yes or no and go from there.

My question though is related to the issues Morgan raises. How should activists respond? We know there are only so many criticisms that people like Morgan can raise and these should be well known by now. She should have been aware that Morgan wasn't interested in her actual stance but merely wanted her to be the bunny for a "gotcha" moment. I think vegans have to face the fact that drinking soy milk or almond milk does cause environmental and species' harms and have an answer for such criticisms. And the answer isn't to wave it away by saying that someone else does worse. That is both hypocritical and deflates the moral argument.

aves activists looking bad. The end result is that activists actually reinforce the negative opinions offered by the critic. Veganism is essentially a personal ethical stance. Yes, at the global scale certain benefits accrue, but vegans are choosing to do what they think is best to do at the individual level. Morgan's criticism covered two points - environmental damage and harm to other species. He particularly drew attention to harms to bees used to pollinate the crops, but also to environmental damage from growing almonds.

Now, he may be wrong about that as I have seen articles that dispute those claims. But his point remains. The goal of vegans is to prevent exploitation and unnecessary harm and suffering. The "least harm" thing isn't part of standard moral evaluation as I understand it - that emerges when we have two comparable cases of conflicting interests to attend to. In such cases, we might defer to the case wherein we do least harm. But comparing the harms accruing from cow's milk and then saying that almond milk is less harmful seems to be an inappropriate application of the principle.

The question is, does a choice we make cause harm and can we make a different choice. In the case of almond milk, I think we drink that primarily for pleasure. If it causes harms, then we need to consider if we have an alternative that is less harmful. We can't wave the charge away because some other completely different choice is more harmful.

The young lady in this clip was evasive but in the end had to agree that she did eat avocadoes and possibly almond milk. The better answer is to simply say either yes or no and go from there.

My question though is related to the issues Morgan raises. How should activists respond? We know there are only so many criticisms that people like Morgan can raise and these should be well known by now. She should have been aware that Morgan wasn't interested in her actual stance but merely wanted her to be the bunny for a "gotcha" moment. I think vegans have to face the fact that drinking soy milk or almond milk does cause environmental and species' harms and have an answer for such criticisms. And the answer isn't to wave it away by saying that someone else does worse. That is both hypocritical and deflates the moral argument.
I would say he was comparing the life of an avocado and almond (or bee) to the life of sentient animals. Also, most humans in the
world are OMNIVORES who also consume avocado and almonds. Omnivore surely consume 95% of the worlds almonds and
avocado compared to vegans. Another way to look at it is, Morgan does not want to start an argument and listen, he wants to be
a bully and talk over people. He has no interest in changing, he likes eating the dead and bragging about it. It might be interesting
however to give him a full blood workup and show him his cholesterol, clogged arteries, clogged intestines, E.D., etcetera. It will be
ironic when he, because of his diet, is told by his doctors he HAS to become vegan. Perhaps he would make the other choice not to.
 
I watched this Joey Carbstrong clip about a recent Piers Morgan incident. In an interview with a vegan activist, Morgen was able to make her look pretty silly. OK, he's a bully and isn't going to give her an even break, but just the same it's not like he's come up with any new arguments. Activists really should be better prepared.

Still, does he have a point? What *are* the correct responses to these kinds of charges? He really only made a couple of points - that many crops cause environmental harm and that many small animals are killed to grow crops. How should an almond milk drinking vegan counter that? Sure, many non-vegans are drinking almond milk, the question is should vegans. If almond milk causes these harms, what is a vegan defence for doing so? The critic wins if the activist cannot provide a reasonable counter-argument.

Have you read the study that stated young males in the UK stated they would rather die early than give up "meat"? interesting addiction...
Mr. Morgan seems to be making a free-will choice and I bet he would agree with them.
 
Thanks for the thoughts on this one. I should clarify. In this particular case, Morgan simply set out to do what he did. He never had any interest in the activist's opinion so there probably was nothing she could have done to change that. The correct approach is to refuse to go his show.

My question more relates to the general criticism that Morgan raises. It is one that has been done for a while now, the old "crop deaths" argument. Most vegans wave that away but it is a very telling one to non-vegans. And I agree that it can very often be a fatal flaw in vegan argumentation. That's why I say that in this video, Joey Carbstrong's responses just don't cut it. He seems to be all over the place. I am wondering if there is a simple way to defuse that argument.

Here is what I think is what is going on, using the particular example Morgan raises - almond milk.

1. Vegans do not buy dairy milk because the cows are harmed, but rather because they are used as a means to an end. That is, they are exploited. Our first duty is to not own and use other animals as resources; buying dairy milk contributes to that happening.

2. The problem of harm and suffering by cows is not relevant to the vegan argument. That is a welfare issue. If we could eliminate the ownership of cows to produce milk, there would be no welfare concerns.

3. Almond milk is an alternative food to dairy milk, but the problem of what animal harms it causes is not related to the fact that dairy cows may suffer. It is an entirely separate issue. We don't drink almond milk because it is less harmful than dairy, we drink almond milk because it doesn't require exploitation of other species.

4. Almond milk is a food choice, not a necessity, thus we remain under a duty to prevent unnecessary animal cruelty and suffering. As Piers observes, invertebrate pests are animals (and very likely to be sentient animals). Extending them the benefit of the doubt in that regard means we should also be seeking to prevent their harm caused by buying a food that is not necessary. If a vegan dismisses that problem and claims that buying almond milk is a least harm proposition or is less harmful than cow's milk, then they are quite simply wrong. And thus behaving hypocritically.

Most vegans seem to conflate the harms of cropping with the harms of animal husbandry, but I think that's wrong. We aren't setting out to buy almond milk because it is less harmful than dairy milk. The decision to buy almond milk is ethically unrelated to the decision to buy cow's milk and it has to be subject to its own ethical evaluation. Waving away that duty because somehow crops don't attract an ethical evaluation seems hypocritical.

This is what Morgan is getting at, even if he doesn't know it. How can a vegan really respond? In this case, let's say her answer is yes, I drink almond milk. Morgan can now legitimately refer to all the harms of growing crops and ask why she ignores those. Typically, a vegan will simply wave it away on the grounds that it is less harmful. But as I think about it, that's irrelevant. The harmfulness of dairy farming is not why a vegan isn't buying dairy milk.

Or is it? My wife is vegan and won't drink milk. Why? Because vegans don't drink milk. That's it. Whether animals are killed to grow crops to make soy milk is irrelevant to her. She doesn't care that much about mice, rabbits and insects.

That's fair enough, I just don't think it works as an explanation to anyone else. Which would be OK if all we are talking about is your own choices, but activists want to change other peoples' minds. And they don't do that when they fail to defuse such arguments as Piers Morgan makes...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou