Militant veganism?

[IndianVegan]

Does militant veganism do more harm than good?

If our goal is to minimise animal suffering, I think it's better to nudge people gently to make better choices. Encouraging meat eaters to be vegan just one day every week could save several animal lives.

The reason I think militant veganism is counterproductive is because it could cause some idiots to do things like "eating twice as much meat to offset the effect of a vegan".

 

[Tom L.]

If our goal is to minimise animal suffering, I think it's better to nudge people gently to make better choices. Encouraging meat eaters to be vegan just one day every week could save several animal lives.

The reason I think militant veganism is counterproductive is because it could cause some idiots to do things like "eating twice as much meat to offset the effect of a vegan".

I doubt militant veganism has that effect on people these days, because of the high cost of meat (if for no other reason). Also, it's rather evident that a diet high in meat is also high in saturated fat- which would tend to shorten vindictive meat-eaters' lives, so that they didn't eat any more meat over the course of their lives than they otherwise would have. (Hmmmm... at least I THINK even lean meat has a fairly high fat content... Google time. BRB.

Edited to add: the following data is from the Mayo Clinic's website: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-...thy-eating/in-depth/cuts-of-beef/art-20043833

"Prime" grade beef is considered to be the best-quality grade, as far as flavor or taste goes, with "Choice" and "Select" being progressively less desirable. They also have progressively less fat content. In other words, higher fat content generally means tastier, and tastier means higher fat. But high fat content is correlated with a higher health risk.

 

[Graeme M]

I think the main problem of "militant veganism/animal rights advocacy (VARA)" is turning people off the message. Animal rights etc is quite different from human rights because the average person believes a human being is quite a different thing from all other animals, particularly in the context of being able to speak for ourselves. Worse, choosing not to eat animals is also seen as a survival risk (many cultural beliefs and traditions centre on animal use for group success). So, I think VARA is up against before we even start and extremely vocal and militant agitation etc is viewed quite negatively by everyone else.

However, what has probably been a major shortcoming of recent advocacy is that the messaging hasn't withstood scrutiny, with advocates/activists found to be violating their own arguments (eg vegans saying milk is only for baby cows, you aren't a baby, etc yet promoting plant-sourced milks). Messaging should have remained on point and encouraging, not making up stories and discouraging people by condemning them.

 

[1956]

I think the main problem of "militant veganism/animal rights advocacy (VARA)" is turning people off the message. Animal rights etc is quite different from human rights because the average person believes a human being is quite a different thing from all other animals, particularly in the context of being able to speak for ourselves. Worse, choosing not to eat animals is also seen as a survival risk (many cultural beliefs and traditions centre on animal use for group success). So, I think VARA is up against before we even start and extremely vocal and militant agitation etc is viewed quite negatively by everyone else.

However, what has probably been a major shortcoming of recent advocacy is that the messaging hasn't withstood scrutiny, with advocates/activists found to be violating their own arguments (eg vegans saying milk is only for baby cows, you aren't a baby, etc yet promoting plant-sourced milks). Messaging should have remained on point and encouraging, not making up stories and discouraging people by condemning them.

Humm… @Graeme M - Cows milk is Only for baby cows! That is Why plant-sourced mylks were created and have also become Very popular!
It was created to Replace cows milk! Humans became used to using the milk of cows - so a replacement was made - How is that “violating” - in Your words their own arguments?!?
Messaging from reputable sources regarding Veganism has remained on point and has withstood Scrutiny - where have you seen “made-up” stories about Veganism?
Your previous posts on this Forum have often in my opinion been Very questionable - to the extent that I considered you a Troll - lately though until now they have been more “on point” towards Veganism - Now once again I’m not sure whether you are a Troll or not?!?

 

[Graeme M]

Messaging from reputable sources regarding Veganism has remained on point and has withstood Scrutiny - where have you seen “made-up” stories about Veganism?

Reputable sources perhaps, but not what we see on social media and even in public.

The milk message has been one of those, where the implication is often that you don't need milk as an adult. There are many memes about how odd it is for humans to be still drinking milk as adults, or claiming milk is for babies, or that it is questionable for men to want milk etc? I see those a lot.

Or the "cruelty free" message - pretending that vegan diets mean no animals are harmed or killed.

Many people have claimed a vegan diet is the healthiest, yet that's open to question with most authorities and evidence pointing to a Mediterranean style diet as the healthiest. A vegan-friendly diet can be healthy, but it does require knowing what you are doing - it's not healthy by default.

The use of human-centric terms to describe what happens to animals in farming.

There are more examples like this. My point isn't that these are directly wrong, but that they can easily be dismantled or even illustrate a lack of genuine commitment from those making the claims. All of which weakens the vegan message.

 

[Tom L.]

I think the main problem of "militant veganism/animal rights advocacy (VARA)" is turning people off the message. Animal rights etc is quite different from human rights because the average person believes a human being is quite a different thing from all other animals, particularly in the context of being able to speak for ourselves. Worse, choosing not to eat animals is also seen as a survival risk (many cultural beliefs and traditions centre on animal use for group success). So, I think VARA is up against before we even start and extremely vocal and militant agitation etc is viewed quite negatively by everyone else.

(bold emphasis mine) I do think that it is difficult or impossible to argue that "animals have rights because there is little or no difference between a human and an animal". Specifically: 1) Some animals are predators, and live by taking the lives of other animals. For example: A human would not be allowed to forcibly take part of another healthy, living person's liver if they needed a transplant, even though the liver donor would most likely survive the operation. (I think there have been rare, tragic cases where a liver donor died from the operation). If animals have rights in the sense that humans do, then aren't those rights violated by non-human predators every day? What would give a predator the "right" to kill their prey, just because they would starve if they didn't kill? Also: 2) Presumably, a being must be sentient to have rights; I don't see how anyone could credibly argue that a non-sentient living being (such as a bacterium or amoeba) would have rights. But the simpler an animal's nervous system is the more questionable it is that they are sentient. I give even animals such as insects and earthworms the benefit of the doubt, and make some effort not to harm them- but to accord them the same degree of concern as I give mammals or birds would drive me insane.

Apart from all that... I think that when many people hear an argument such as: "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy", they hear: "a human being is nothing more than an animal". I might be mistaken about this.

However, what has probably been a major shortcoming of recent advocacy is that the messaging hasn't withstood scrutiny, with advocates/activists found to be violating their own arguments (eg vegans saying milk is only for baby cows, you aren't a baby, etc yet promoting plant-sourced milks). Messaging should have remained on point and encouraging, not making up stories and discouraging people by condemning them.

WHOA. Did you really think before posting this? Plant-sourced milks are not produced by taking milk produced by mother mammals to the detriment of their offspring, and calling such foods "milk" does not violate vegan ethics.

Face it: the biggest problem with promoting veganism is that too many people don't currently think animal welfare is important at all.

 

[silva]

IMO the message that impacts the most change is about health, practicality, and economics. Honestly the people that I discuss plant based diets with that actually make lasting changes aren't about veganism. I see a real problem with people going vegan out of sheer emotion and guilt without having a real foundation for the changes. I hear people tell me how they 'were' and had to quit far too often, while many discuss wanting to eat more plant based as a true change that really reduces their use of animal products, more slowly, but lasts. Like they feel guilty about eating animals without believing there is a very plausible alternative. I despise when I read comments from people saying things like it doesn't matter if being vegan is healthy for them or not, as long as no animal suffers. The reality is that just doing your own research will show people do not need animals to be healthy, it's just a different way.
Mammal milk is not equivalent to plant based milks in nutrition, more so in application. If Graeme is saying we should call plant milk something like beverage, I kinda agree, but really most people seem just fine with calling them milks so why change? It's the trolls that argue

Humans are the only animals that that actively cause depletion of animals food supply, their homes and whole species extinction. Changing out diet to one more favorable to all involved really is the least we can do. You don't need to 'love' them, just respect their right to exist

 

[Lou]

I am not a militant vegan. but only because I'm a bit cowardly.

I can't help but see the parallels with militant vegans and the abolitionist of the 18th and 19th century (or 17th if you are British).

All of us vegans know how cruel and awful the meat and diary industries are and we simply just boycott those industries.
But militant vegans see that as just passive resistance (or less). Their consciouses require more of them.

PETA tells us for PR purposes not to equate animal lives with human lives. Not to compare today's Animal Liberation movement with the Abolitionist Movement of the 19th and 20th centrury. And not to use the phrase Animal Holocaust or Pig Triblanka because that would be counter productive.

But looking back with a historical lens we think that people like Harriet Tubman, John Brown, Oscar Schindler, Irene Sendler are heroes.

I wonder how people in the future will look on Wayne Hsiang, Zoe Rosenberg, Alexandra Paul, etc.

BTW, while I was tying this about half a million chickens were slaughtered.