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.

 

[pinkpetalbird666]

Militant vegans are my favorite kind.

 

[g0rph]

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.

I am really confused at what you're trying to say here.
Milk as in mammalian milk is for baby mammals. And adults do not need it. In fact the default is that adults are lactose intolerant. In the west where we drink a lot of mammal milk that got reversed.
Milk as in the squeezed juices from plants is fine (perhaps not the milk from a rubber tree ) . But completely different.
I see nothing wrong with this argument.

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

I think the cruelty free message is fine.
No, of course animals get caught in the crossfire, and many are purposely removed for crops. But compared to breeding new animals with one goal in mind, it is cruelty free.
But I do get what you're saying.

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.

It really doesn't take much knowledge. That's myth. I was taking supplements before I went vegan. I still do. So my fairly default (no meat, eggs, milk) diet is healthy by default (aside from the Beyond burgers etc).
The average "American diet" is way less healthy than even an unplanned vegan diet.
Basically all humans who do not plan carefully, vegan or omni, should be taking at least multivitamins.
But yes, the Med diet is considered also very healthy. But then veganism is not about health primarily.

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

I agree on this.
I dislike the terms "rape" and "murder", especially the first one, which IMO is very insensitive to people who have been personally affected. i.e. Comparing artificial insemination to rape is at best, callous.
"Murder" is an odd one. I mean it's defined as unlawfully killing another human. And the equivalent animal term "slaughter" IMO sounds way worse!

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.

Yes. I have said for years that we should always strive to tell the truth and not exaggerate or sensationalise. It detracts from the very real horrors of animal farming, especially factory farming.
There is literally no need to do this. The truth is horrible enough.

 

[g0rph]

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?!?

I don't think Graeme is a troll. But he is not vegan (as far as I remember he eats donated eggs - Graeme, please correct me if that's incorrect ). Ultimately, nor am I, mainly because of my views rather than diet...although I do regard oysters and mussels as non-sentient and as such, fair game.

But I do think he is living a more ethical lifestyle than 95+% of the world when it comes to animals.
But yes, the milk thing is puzzling.
There was, in the past a good reason to drink cow's milk. And of course because money is involved it continued.
But it's not particularly healthy and absolutely not necessary.

 

[Graeme M]

I am really confused at what you're trying to say here.

I was referring to many social media posts by vegans stating that humans shouldn't drink milk after they are weaned suggesting that's a weak behaviour. I saw one such post just the other day making fun of men who drink milk as adults. yet clearly vegans want to drink milk (as the example of plant-based milk alternatives shows). The point is that many people, vegans included, regard milk as an enjoyable drink (or as some other enjoyable food such as ice cream). In fact Leslie Cross acknowledged that when he started the Plantmilk Society.

I get the point, but the average consumer does not so it just becomes another example of vegan hypocrisy/stupidity. It's much better to simply make the point of why veganism objects to cow's milk, rather than make all sorts of spurious/inaccurate claims. That just opens vegans and veganism up to ridicule.

In fact a farming page I follow on Facebook had a go at vegans for this exact thing just the other day, which annoyed the heck out of me. So I wrote the following response:

"Veganism objects to our unfair use of other animals, so the goal is not to use products from animals when we can do that. But that doesn't mean we don't like the taste of milk or using milk in various forms, so like in other contexts it's worth developing alternatives that don't require animal use. In fact finding/developing alternatives is a central plank in vegan principles. Luckily from a production/consumption point of view, all vegans are doing is transferring demand from one kind of producer to another."

I think the cruelty free message is fine.

I don't agree, IF the claim is that vegans don't cause animals to be harmed or killed. We do, just the same as buying meat or eggs does, yet far too many vegans claim veganism is zero cruelty or least harm or causes no harm, etc. It just is not. The thing is that we are not buying animal-sourced products because we object to cruelty, but because animals are being used unfairly. Yes, cruelty is still an element of that but if cruelty were the prime directive, so to speak, we should be just as opposed to crop production under current methods.

I don't think Graeme is a troll. But he is not vegan (as far as I remember he eats donated eggs - Graeme, please correct me if that's incorrect ).

No, I'm not a troll, but I don't claim to be A vegan either. I think being a vegan is a personal call, but I also think it's a diversion. The ethics are what they are, IF you want to commit to applying those principles to the Nth degree that's up to you and no-one else. Just as is applying them to whatever extent you think reasonable.

What we should be doing is promoting the adoption of vegan ethics and not worrying about how far people go. Sure, encourage complete adoption because that's important, but let's not judge people if they don't go all the way. The long game is important and helping people, even if by making baby steps, can change the broader social perspective. In my opinion, at least.

 

[Tom L.]

@Graeme M I absolutely agree with the points you make about dairy being enjoyable, but there being animal-welfare reasons to not consume it.

It's also true that the production of vegan foods normally causes unintended-but-real harm to animals. (Well, some of it might be intended- if the grower kills animals who are eating some of his crop, for example). But to equate the unintended deaths of animals (from plowing or harvesting a crop) with killing them deliberately to eat them is mixing apples and oranges.

Example: I recently looked up what the effect of first lowering, then raising, the speed limit had on the frequency of highway accidents in the U.S. The original intent of lowering the speed limit was to conserve gasoline: motor vehicles use generally less fuel per mile at lower speeds. But the accident rate- and the DEATH rate- on our highways were also reduced. After a time, the speed limits were raised again... with more injuries and deaths. If I thought more about this, I would probably come up with more instances where more care could be taken to avoid people dying.

People generally consider human life to be more important than animal life. Do you really expect vegetarians and vegans to make more effort to avoid killing animals than most people apparently make to avoid killing each other? As I see it, the vegan counterpart to driving recklessly would be to waste food.

 

[1956]

I was referring to many social media posts by vegans stating that humans shouldn't drink milk after they are weaned suggesting that's a weak behaviour. I saw one such post just the other day making fun of men who drink milk as adults. yet clearly vegans want to drink milk (as the example of plant-based milk alternatives shows). The point is that many people, vegans included, regard milk as an enjoyable drink (or as some other enjoyable food such as ice cream). In fact Leslie Cross acknowledged that when he started the Plantmilk Society.

I get the point, but the average consumer does not so it just becomes another example of vegan hypocrisy/stupidity. It's much better to simply make the point of why veganism objects to cow's milk, rather than make all sorts of spurious/inaccurate claims. That just opens vegans and veganism up to ridicule.

In fact a farming page I follow on Facebook had a go at vegans for this exact thing just the other day, which annoyed the heck out of me. So I wrote the following response:

"Veganism objects to our unfair use of other animals, so the goal is not to use products from animals when we can do that. But that doesn't mean we don't like the taste of milk or using milk in various forms, so like in other contexts it's worth developing alternatives that don't require animal use. In fact finding/developing alternatives is a central plank in vegan principles. Luckily from a production/consumption point of view, all vegans are doing is transferring demand from one kind of producer to another."



I don't agree, IF the claim is that vegans don't cause animals to be harmed or killed. We do, just the same as buying meat or eggs does, yet far too many vegans claim veganism is zero cruelty or least harm or causes no harm, etc. It just is not. The thing is that we are not buying animal-sourced products because we object to cruelty, but because animals are being used unfairly. Yes, cruelty is still an element of that but if cruelty were the prime directive, so to speak, we should be just as opposed to crop production under current methods.



No, I'm not a troll, but I don't claim to be A vegan either. I think being a vegan is a personal call, but I also think it's a diversion. The ethics are what they are, IF you want to commit to applying those principles to the Nth degree that's up to you and no-one else. Just as is applying them to whatever extent you think reasonable.

What we should be doing is promoting the adoption of vegan ethics and not worrying about how far people go. Sure, encourage complete adoption because that's important, but let's not judge people if they don't go all the way. The long game is important and helping people, even if by making baby steps, can change the broader social perspective. In my opinion, at least.

However @Graeme M on this very forum you state that your lifestyle is Vegan!
This is something that I find Objectionable given Many of your posts… Many of the people reading these forums would be confused by the statement that your lifestyle is Vegan, but many of your ideas and actions are not Vegan… This is part of the reason why I have questioned whether or not you Are a troll… Perhaps changing your lifestyle on this forum might be a good starting point?!?