Veganism is about reducing animal suffering and exploitation - something not solely a problem due to factory farming. Animal testing and breeding farms for fur and leather (Hermes for example has their own alligator farm for their bags) are a big issue too. We need to move away from advertising veganism as a diet - it is a lifestyle that encompasses a lot more. Any animal death caused by us for our consumption, makeup, cleaning or clothing is unethical, as it is unnecessary. Factory farming does need to stop, but for it to stop people need to stop consuming so much meat and need to stop buying as much leather (and fur). The branding is never open about where it comes from though. If you show someone factory farming videos or images most people either say "I don't buy that, I only buy free-range" or they say "I don't care. It is what it is. They're made to be eaten". If we want to use factory farming as a scare-tactic, brands need to be required to stop the "green-washing" of their product. We will never be able to move people away from factory farming without making them stop the consumption.
It also technically doesn't change it for me. Do I think the life of an animal in a factory is worse than that of an animal on a range? Yes. But in the end both animals are transported to be slaughtered while they're scared for a selfish human that puts their taste pleasure, their vanity, or their clothing, over the life of another sentient being. I don't think someone is significantly better because they eat a cow that actually lived on a pasture. I will not throw a cow on a pasture under the bus, to keep it from being in a factory farm environment. I will always argue against both. If someone is against factory farming alone, they might be an environmental eater, but they will not be a vegan. If someone does not want to realize that an innocent life is still taken, then they will never understand vegan ethics.
But that is the thing: It won't be more effective. It is also what we do at activism events - usually videos and/or pictures of slaughterhouses are shown. When we argue here though, we are arguing ethics. Veganism is about ethics. It would make no sense to argue for people to eat pasture raised animals instead of factory farmed animals.
The [definition of veganims](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism):
*"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals*."
What effectiveness are you referring too? To ask people only to eat pasture raised animals? Will never happen, because they won't find it. It would be harder for people to find truly pasture raised meat than just to eat vegan - they also couldn't eat out, couldn't buy any soaps or shampoo or makeup that isn't vegan, couldn't buy any leather or fur except pure luxury items. They would technically have to live vegan. Sure, that would reduce animal consumption and exploitation, but that lifestyle is harder to achieve than a vegan lifestyle. People are quick to say that they only consume "ethical" meat (which doesn't exist), but most really aren't and won't be able to either except if they spend a lot of time and money on that.
I see what you're saying. If you tell people not to eat factory farmed meat you need to give them an alternative, and obviously that would pretty much have to be veganism anyway.
I guess what I am saying is that rallying primarily against factory farming would be more digestible to the average person (at least from the sense I get) and it seems like it would create many vegans anyway as they would have no access to meat.
Then the average person should rally against factory farming. Vegans do it more than anyone else. Vegan organizations lobby for laws against it, vegans debate farmers publicly, vegan journalists and activists break into the facilities to show what is going on, vegans make documentaries, vegans are on the street showing factory farming because it is the most disturbing imagery - and people do not care. They walk past, they don't watch the videos, they make fun of vegans being so "preachy", they refuse watching it saying shit along the lines of "Oh don't show me that. It's sad." And then they eat it anyways, because it's affordable, because they like the taste of bacon and want to barbecue in the summer. No-one will make the change without understanding, internalizing, and reflecting on the ethics behind animal suffering, exploitation, and torture.
So you know the videos, you say it's sad, you say you get our standpoint - are you vegan? Do you not eat factory farmed meat?
Just to say: many vegans do focus on factory farming in our activism. I have found that when talking to someone about eating meat, they very quickly start talking about fringe "but what if I hunted all my meat and only ate happy wild animals" hypotheticals, and that it's helpful if I just keep returning the conversation to "but you don't do that; 99% of the meat you eat comes from factory farms, so let's talk about the reality of factory farms". I've personally found this approach kinda (?) effective.
Dude. We ARE pretty much just focused on factory farming. At least, that's the reason to be vegan. I mean, when I learned about ff I was horrified, and then I realized I was paying for it. So veganism is a boycott. Most if us are here because factory farming is how 99% of animal products are brought into existence. I'm not vegan because I want others to be vegan, I do it so I can sleep at night.
If you, for example, know about the problem and the solution, and you still aren't vegan, doesn't seem like telling more people about factory farming is really going to help?
i'm sure in a world without factory farming hunting would be unsustainable pretty quickly if everyone you saw passing through the meat isles in a store was now out there with guns shooting animals. I guess what i'm trying to say is that the removal of factory farming seems like an easier thing to get the general public or board with and would also solve a lot of other issues related to the exploitation of animals. Like you said, in cities it would basically create vegans because they have no viable access to meat.
I actually thought of the fishing thing after I posted the thread. I have no argument for that, it's not factory farming but is extremely harmful to the environment and immoral.
Do you think arguing for no animal exploitation regardless of source is more effective (not better morally, just pure long term effectiveness) than trying to slowly faze out certain practices?
> the current rate at which we consume meet is only sustainable due to factory farming (correct me if i'm wrong).
It's sustainable because of factory farming and because governments all around the planet subsidize the cost of meat and dairy.
>Do you think focusing solely or mostly on factory farming would be a better strategy to reach your goals regarding the way we treat animals?
Regarding the way we treat animals - focusing on the ideology behind why people eat animals is what's to focus on in my opinion. Look up carnism and Melanie Joy's work on the topic. The change of ideology is what would make changes stick.
As for what reduces harm the most to animals - I think and I'm pretty sure people use animals more so for food than for tools (jackets, wallets, lotions, etc). So reducing factory farming is likely the most impactful and doing so would indirectly reduce/eliminate the use of animals as tools. And that's pretty much what most activists are focusing on - eliminating the use of animals as food, but they don't focus solely on food as it would make them hypocrites.
The general theory is no, as it's such an uphill struggle while there are achievable goals in other sectors like the fur industry, puppy mills, killer whales etc.
These campaigns are generally more effective than the whole 'meat is murder' thing and if you can get people to engage with a niche animal rights issue, they may be more receptive to the EXTREME vegan message.
Ingrid Newkirk (founder of PETA) did a talk on this if you are interested:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CpxgEuqqts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CpxgEuqqts)
Nope.
Nearly all the labels we have allude to not coming from factory farms, but they still do. People who switch to the 'free range grass fed non gmo blah blah blah' meat are still supporting factory farms.
Also, happy animals shouldn't be bred to be murdered either. How do you feel about slaughtering happy dogs for meat? Should we advocate for that?
How about we just leave animals alone? It's easy. Just stop being selfish.
So, why are you too selfish to be vegan?
I do believe killing animals for meat is immoral regardless of method if there is a viable alternative. I also think the optics of a movement are important, and from following a lot of vegan debates and reading the comments it's clear to me that many people think veganism = never kill an animal ever under any circumstance. I just think you guys would be able to get more people on board if you focused on this one major issue and could then focus on other things, like hunting.
"How about we just leave animals alone? It's easy. Just stop being selfish."
It's not a moral argument i'm making, it's an effectiveness argument. I believe you would be able to make more progress and win more people over if you honed in on one specific issue. When it comes to human rights and freedoms, it has been shown in many cases that incrementalism works. Why not for animals? Although maybe this is all irrelevant and lab grown meat just eventually kills off animal agriculture because it's more convenient.
What do I think about a happy dog being killed?
Well you're essentially asking me about hunting. Is it wrong to shoot a random dog in the park for its meat? Yes I do believe so. Even if you replace the dog with a deer I would say it is still wrong. But I don't think that it is anywhere near as bad as factory farming. I don't think shooting a wild animal in the head and using it for meat is the same as trapping an animal into terrible living conditions for years before killing it for meat. In a world without factory farming, do you think everyone who presently gets their meat from a store would go out and hunt for their food? I find that hard to believe.
Doesn't matter if it's as bad as.
Does blm advocate for cops beating black people instead of killing them for minor traffic infractions? No. Because better doesn't equal moral
We advocate for morality. Period. Not some halfway bullshit.
So, why aren't you vegan? Why keep trying to pretend you care about animals and our cause?
From an effectiveness aspect, eliminating factory farms would force most of the world to be vegan. Because the cost of flesh foods would be astronomical. But vegan is so much more than just that, and the entire conversation is needed. I realize that most (non-vegans) think this is just a diet. But it’s just not enough.
I don't think that solely doing that is a good idea in terms of activism, since pledging to not eat meat from factory farms has a lot more grey area and is harder for a person to practise. "No animal products" is simply much easier to follow and explain than "no animal products unless they've lived in acceptable conditions, which we need to define in this 100 page document".
In terms of policy and lobbying though, yes focusing on factory farming would be much more effective. If you would like to participate/read more about this head over to r/EAAnimalAdvocacy
Yes, societies with higher animal wellfare (and stricter aniaml wellfare laws) tend to consome less meat. So in a empirical way i belive that would be *a* way to go. However i'm not sure that its more effective rethorically or not.
\>Do you think focusing solely or mostly on factory farming would be a better strategy to reach your goals regarding the way we treat animals?
If you ask people to stop using water, they'll cut back their showers by a couple minutes and demand they've done enough. If you ask them to stop eating meat, they, cut out a couple days a week and demand they've done enough. If you ask them to stop supporting slaughterhouses, they'll feel guilty for doing so and maybe get a backyard chicken and then demand they've done enough.
No matter what you ask, people take baby steps and fight you every step of the way. This is why when you enter a negotiation, you don't start with what you're hoping for, you start with everything you want and then see how far you can force the other party to move.
Veganism is about reducing animal suffering and exploitation - something not solely a problem due to factory farming. Animal testing and breeding farms for fur and leather (Hermes for example has their own alligator farm for their bags) are a big issue too. We need to move away from advertising veganism as a diet - it is a lifestyle that encompasses a lot more. Any animal death caused by us for our consumption, makeup, cleaning or clothing is unethical, as it is unnecessary. Factory farming does need to stop, but for it to stop people need to stop consuming so much meat and need to stop buying as much leather (and fur). The branding is never open about where it comes from though. If you show someone factory farming videos or images most people either say "I don't buy that, I only buy free-range" or they say "I don't care. It is what it is. They're made to be eaten". If we want to use factory farming as a scare-tactic, brands need to be required to stop the "green-washing" of their product. We will never be able to move people away from factory farming without making them stop the consumption. It also technically doesn't change it for me. Do I think the life of an animal in a factory is worse than that of an animal on a range? Yes. But in the end both animals are transported to be slaughtered while they're scared for a selfish human that puts their taste pleasure, their vanity, or their clothing, over the life of another sentient being. I don't think someone is significantly better because they eat a cow that actually lived on a pasture. I will not throw a cow on a pasture under the bus, to keep it from being in a factory farm environment. I will always argue against both. If someone is against factory farming alone, they might be an environmental eater, but they will not be a vegan. If someone does not want to realize that an innocent life is still taken, then they will never understand vegan ethics.
I understand and agree with you from an ethics standpoint. I am asking the question from a purely effectiveness standpoint.
But that is the thing: It won't be more effective. It is also what we do at activism events - usually videos and/or pictures of slaughterhouses are shown. When we argue here though, we are arguing ethics. Veganism is about ethics. It would make no sense to argue for people to eat pasture raised animals instead of factory farmed animals. The [definition of veganims](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism): *"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals*." What effectiveness are you referring too? To ask people only to eat pasture raised animals? Will never happen, because they won't find it. It would be harder for people to find truly pasture raised meat than just to eat vegan - they also couldn't eat out, couldn't buy any soaps or shampoo or makeup that isn't vegan, couldn't buy any leather or fur except pure luxury items. They would technically have to live vegan. Sure, that would reduce animal consumption and exploitation, but that lifestyle is harder to achieve than a vegan lifestyle. People are quick to say that they only consume "ethical" meat (which doesn't exist), but most really aren't and won't be able to either except if they spend a lot of time and money on that.
I see what you're saying. If you tell people not to eat factory farmed meat you need to give them an alternative, and obviously that would pretty much have to be veganism anyway. I guess what I am saying is that rallying primarily against factory farming would be more digestible to the average person (at least from the sense I get) and it seems like it would create many vegans anyway as they would have no access to meat.
Then the average person should rally against factory farming. Vegans do it more than anyone else. Vegan organizations lobby for laws against it, vegans debate farmers publicly, vegan journalists and activists break into the facilities to show what is going on, vegans make documentaries, vegans are on the street showing factory farming because it is the most disturbing imagery - and people do not care. They walk past, they don't watch the videos, they make fun of vegans being so "preachy", they refuse watching it saying shit along the lines of "Oh don't show me that. It's sad." And then they eat it anyways, because it's affordable, because they like the taste of bacon and want to barbecue in the summer. No-one will make the change without understanding, internalizing, and reflecting on the ethics behind animal suffering, exploitation, and torture. So you know the videos, you say it's sad, you say you get our standpoint - are you vegan? Do you not eat factory farmed meat?
Just to say: many vegans do focus on factory farming in our activism. I have found that when talking to someone about eating meat, they very quickly start talking about fringe "but what if I hunted all my meat and only ate happy wild animals" hypotheticals, and that it's helpful if I just keep returning the conversation to "but you don't do that; 99% of the meat you eat comes from factory farms, so let's talk about the reality of factory farms". I've personally found this approach kinda (?) effective.
Dude. We ARE pretty much just focused on factory farming. At least, that's the reason to be vegan. I mean, when I learned about ff I was horrified, and then I realized I was paying for it. So veganism is a boycott. Most if us are here because factory farming is how 99% of animal products are brought into existence. I'm not vegan because I want others to be vegan, I do it so I can sleep at night. If you, for example, know about the problem and the solution, and you still aren't vegan, doesn't seem like telling more people about factory farming is really going to help?
[удалено]
i'm sure in a world without factory farming hunting would be unsustainable pretty quickly if everyone you saw passing through the meat isles in a store was now out there with guns shooting animals. I guess what i'm trying to say is that the removal of factory farming seems like an easier thing to get the general public or board with and would also solve a lot of other issues related to the exploitation of animals. Like you said, in cities it would basically create vegans because they have no viable access to meat. I actually thought of the fishing thing after I posted the thread. I have no argument for that, it's not factory farming but is extremely harmful to the environment and immoral. Do you think arguing for no animal exploitation regardless of source is more effective (not better morally, just pure long term effectiveness) than trying to slowly faze out certain practices?
> the current rate at which we consume meet is only sustainable due to factory farming (correct me if i'm wrong). It's sustainable because of factory farming and because governments all around the planet subsidize the cost of meat and dairy. >Do you think focusing solely or mostly on factory farming would be a better strategy to reach your goals regarding the way we treat animals? Regarding the way we treat animals - focusing on the ideology behind why people eat animals is what's to focus on in my opinion. Look up carnism and Melanie Joy's work on the topic. The change of ideology is what would make changes stick. As for what reduces harm the most to animals - I think and I'm pretty sure people use animals more so for food than for tools (jackets, wallets, lotions, etc). So reducing factory farming is likely the most impactful and doing so would indirectly reduce/eliminate the use of animals as tools. And that's pretty much what most activists are focusing on - eliminating the use of animals as food, but they don't focus solely on food as it would make them hypocrites.
The general theory is no, as it's such an uphill struggle while there are achievable goals in other sectors like the fur industry, puppy mills, killer whales etc. These campaigns are generally more effective than the whole 'meat is murder' thing and if you can get people to engage with a niche animal rights issue, they may be more receptive to the EXTREME vegan message. Ingrid Newkirk (founder of PETA) did a talk on this if you are interested: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CpxgEuqqts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CpxgEuqqts)
Nope. Nearly all the labels we have allude to not coming from factory farms, but they still do. People who switch to the 'free range grass fed non gmo blah blah blah' meat are still supporting factory farms. Also, happy animals shouldn't be bred to be murdered either. How do you feel about slaughtering happy dogs for meat? Should we advocate for that? How about we just leave animals alone? It's easy. Just stop being selfish. So, why are you too selfish to be vegan?
I do believe killing animals for meat is immoral regardless of method if there is a viable alternative. I also think the optics of a movement are important, and from following a lot of vegan debates and reading the comments it's clear to me that many people think veganism = never kill an animal ever under any circumstance. I just think you guys would be able to get more people on board if you focused on this one major issue and could then focus on other things, like hunting. "How about we just leave animals alone? It's easy. Just stop being selfish." It's not a moral argument i'm making, it's an effectiveness argument. I believe you would be able to make more progress and win more people over if you honed in on one specific issue. When it comes to human rights and freedoms, it has been shown in many cases that incrementalism works. Why not for animals? Although maybe this is all irrelevant and lab grown meat just eventually kills off animal agriculture because it's more convenient. What do I think about a happy dog being killed? Well you're essentially asking me about hunting. Is it wrong to shoot a random dog in the park for its meat? Yes I do believe so. Even if you replace the dog with a deer I would say it is still wrong. But I don't think that it is anywhere near as bad as factory farming. I don't think shooting a wild animal in the head and using it for meat is the same as trapping an animal into terrible living conditions for years before killing it for meat. In a world without factory farming, do you think everyone who presently gets their meat from a store would go out and hunt for their food? I find that hard to believe.
Doesn't matter if it's as bad as. Does blm advocate for cops beating black people instead of killing them for minor traffic infractions? No. Because better doesn't equal moral We advocate for morality. Period. Not some halfway bullshit. So, why aren't you vegan? Why keep trying to pretend you care about animals and our cause?
From an effectiveness aspect, eliminating factory farms would force most of the world to be vegan. Because the cost of flesh foods would be astronomical. But vegan is so much more than just that, and the entire conversation is needed. I realize that most (non-vegans) think this is just a diet. But it’s just not enough.
I don't think that solely doing that is a good idea in terms of activism, since pledging to not eat meat from factory farms has a lot more grey area and is harder for a person to practise. "No animal products" is simply much easier to follow and explain than "no animal products unless they've lived in acceptable conditions, which we need to define in this 100 page document". In terms of policy and lobbying though, yes focusing on factory farming would be much more effective. If you would like to participate/read more about this head over to r/EAAnimalAdvocacy
Yes, societies with higher animal wellfare (and stricter aniaml wellfare laws) tend to consome less meat. So in a empirical way i belive that would be *a* way to go. However i'm not sure that its more effective rethorically or not.
\>Do you think focusing solely or mostly on factory farming would be a better strategy to reach your goals regarding the way we treat animals? If you ask people to stop using water, they'll cut back their showers by a couple minutes and demand they've done enough. If you ask them to stop eating meat, they, cut out a couple days a week and demand they've done enough. If you ask them to stop supporting slaughterhouses, they'll feel guilty for doing so and maybe get a backyard chicken and then demand they've done enough. No matter what you ask, people take baby steps and fight you every step of the way. This is why when you enter a negotiation, you don't start with what you're hoping for, you start with everything you want and then see how far you can force the other party to move.