Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[littlebabyjesus]

Perhaps you mean that I haven't answered the question in the way you would like it answered. I believe that my reply also applies at a society-level collective effort, probably even more so. In my opinion to make the best use of finite and limited resources we'll get the biggest bang per buck by focusing in prevention strategies.


I would explore all the options available, however even in your supposed real life scenario, killing animals was not necessary.

"Until 1936 diabetics were dependent on animal insulin, but it is important to establish that they were dependent on an animal product (which was obtained from the meat industry) as opposed to animal experimentation. In 1936 synthetic insulin was developed.

This history of diabetes and insulin is verified to reliable medical and historical texts, and shows that diabetics owe nothing to animal experimenters. The claim that they do does persist, and we would encourage anyone interested to look into this further."

Source

The options available to a type 1 diabetic are: a) you use the insulin the NHS gives you or b) you die.

Take your time exploring those options.

 

[spanglechick]

What I think creates the antagonism in these discussion is twofold: firstly, most vegans are making a choice that is ethics-based. This means that non vegan behaviour is a less ethical way of living. It perpetuates cruelty and so on. Vegans may be happy to keep these views to themselves, but both groups of people know they exist, and since it isn't nice to be judged negatively, many meat-eaters are keen to make vegans see them as ethical people, or to see themselves as less ethical than they imagine. It's futile, of course, but a reaction to knowing someone is judging you.

Then the type of debate is overwhelmingly centred around a number of perceived hypocrisies. This is because Veganism is commonly presented in absolutist terms. Lbj's earlier arguments about Compassion in World Farming were rejected. Gg's proposed "seaganism" was dismissed. While there's no great surprise in either case, from an ethical perspective both are simply wrong. But the inflexibility of the position invites a person arguing against the absolutist vegan position to find the cases around the margins: cosseted pet hens who lay eggs for the family table being less exploited and abused for human benefit than the mice killed in arable farming. Bees. Pig hearts. Vegans find these arguments irritating because the most important bits of veganism are being sidelined. Those arguing against can't resist them because an absolutist ethical position invites testing.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Actually performing animals is not a bad example. There is a two way axis of consideration. There is a gate, should any animal be reduced into captivity at all?

That was not the discussion I was having with Athos. He said he didn't see anything wrong with making animals suffer for human pleasure. I then asked him if, given this, he didn't have any problem with torturing elephants to perform circus tricks - if people get pleasure from watching the circus tricks. In response he has said that he does think it is wrong because it 'brings out the worst in people'. I assume he is referring to the trainers themselves rather than the circus goers (most of whom I suspect are oblivious to the torture that the animals go through, as are tourists who ride elephants in Thailand). I agree with him that it does bring out the worst in the trainers (though I suspect they are already fairly psychopathic to go that line of work in the first place) but I also think that working in factory farms and slaughter houses brings out the worst in humans too (as well as mental health problems of various kinds). So I don't think it's a distinction with too much weight.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I've explained why. Those other classes don't have the important characteristic: the potential for reciprocity.

With your second question, are you seriously asking why you should respect others human rights?

You were equivocating between 'being in the same group' and 'potential for reciprocity'. You are now sliding back to potential for reciprocity - and my question remains: why should I care about that? See my earlier examples of refugees, drone attacks and the global poor.

I'm asking why I should respect human rights for the reasons you give. I do respect human rights, but not for those reasons - which seem to be very unpersuasive and ill thought out.

 

[mrs quoad]

This is a commonly used justification for humans killing/mistreating animals. "If they can do it why can't we?"
I suppose there are examples of killer whales playing with a seal and then not even bothering to eat it, and domestic cats seemingly torturing their prey, but even if that were true, as you said our moral agency should be the thing that stops us "behaving like animals".

This isn't the harm principle as it was described, though. And nor does the harm principle - as set out - provide any reason for why it is only related to "maleficence". If, indeed, it is, then that is a substantial additional qualification, and one that is not contained within what (I think) someone described as the "single most beautiful ethical insight" of veganism.

 

[A380]

...working in factory farms and slaughter houses ...as well as mental health problems of various kinds...

This is a significant argument to support the cause of veganism. I've never seen any empirical or anecdotal evidence about higher levels of mental ill health in these industries before .

I'd find it interesting to look at if you could point me in the directions of those studies or articles.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That was not the discussion I was having with Athos. He said he didn't see anything wrong with making animals suffer for human pleasure. I then asked him if, given this, he didn't have any problem with torturing elephants to perform circus tricks - if people get pleasure from watching the circus tricks. In response he has said that he does think it is wrong because it 'brings out the worst in people'. I assume he is referring to the trainers themselves rather than the circus goers (most of whom I suspect are oblivious to the torture that the animals go through, as are tourists who ride elephants in Thailand). I agree with him that it does bring out the worst in the trainers (though I suspect they are already fairly psychopathic to go that line of work in the first place) but I also think that working in factory farms and slaughter houses brings out the worst in humans too (as well as mental health problems of various kinds). So I don't think it's a distinction with too much weight.

Don't know if you've read any of GA Bradshaw's work on the psychology of elephants, but she also looks at the psychology of elephant keeping. Within that abusive relationship, the keepers/trainers can at the same time abuse the elephants and feel that they care for them, in a very similar way to abusive relationships between humans. Certain self-justifying myths have grown up to allow them to live with what they are doing, such as the idea that free-ranging elephants physically discipline their young - the scientists who study free-ranging elephants are in agreement that they never do this. Similar things are seen in dolphin/killer whale trainers, most of whom would sincerely claim to love their animals.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This is a significant argument to support the cause of veganism. I've never seen any empirical or anecdotal evidence about higher levels of mental ill health in these industries before .

I'd find it interesting to look at if you could point me in the directions of those studies or articles.

Here's a few for you:

I stopped eating animals because of human rights

Was Jack the Ripper a Slaughterman? – Modern Implications of Human-Animal Violence - Sarx (see section 'slaughterhouses and violent crime')

This book is also very powerful:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005ZC7I62/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a significant argument to support the cause of veganism. I've never seen any empirical or anecdotal evidence about higher levels of mental ill health in these industries before .

I'd find it interesting to look at if you could point me in the directions of those studies or articles.

Here's one on chicken farming in Georgia.

 

[Athos]

You were equivocating between 'being in the same group' and 'potential for reciprocity'. You are now sliding back to potential for reciprocity - and my question remains: why should I care about that? See my earlier examples of refugees, drone attacks and the global poor.

I'm asking why I should respect human rights for the reasons you give. I do respect human rights, but not for those reasons - which seem to be very unpersuasive and ill thought out.

There's no equivocation. The potential for reciprocity is the defining characteristic of the group.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

There's no equivocation. The potential for reciprocity is the defining characteristic of the group.

I asked why the potential for reciprocity was the basis for human rights and you said: 'The interest you have in the human rights of others is that they, like you are human, such that setting standards for their treatment is also to set them for yours.' My response to that argument was 'I am a member of many groups: why should my membership of humanity be the morally relevant one?'. Your response is 'the potential for reciprocity'. That's circular reasoning. You haven't as of yet shown the link between potential for reciprocity and human rights. And this is before we address the even thornier problem of humans who lack the potential for reciprocity and what their moral status is.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Excellent. I've not watched that video but will get around to it after reading that quote.
Coming back to the OP question. I don't think it's supposed "angry vegans" that puts of potential vegans, it's the amount of grief and hassle you get from the majority that try to harrass and bully you into conformity. Most people would rather have a quiet life and would rather not be singled out as a weirdo. However I think Kerry is spot on with that, if you believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do, then you need strength of character to be able to live your truth and face the possible consequences and the possibility of strong opposition.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Ghandi.

Indeed, and timely with yet another "holier than thou" baseless accusation that usually gets trotted out when rational arguments are in short supply, as Kerry mentions in that video...

"...and if I could labour the self-righteousness point, I think this is a sign that we're onto something. Self-righteousness is a term that comes up as an affront to people doing the right thing when there's no compelling evidence to suggest that they're not. So there's no argument against them, the best one can do is to say 'well I think you look very smug about doing the right thing, I don't think people will like you'.

Well I'm not ashamed of doing right and knowing it. Society appeals to our vanity to make us comply with destructive behaviours in order to fit in because the destructive behaviours make money, but I'm not so vain that I live in mortal terror of somebody mistakenly thinking I'm smug about what I eat, I mean how shallow would you need to be to lose sleep over that.

In any case if you do feel embarrassed about having to say to someone 'I don't eat that I'm a vegan', you just have to get a backbone about it, because where we do something that sets a good example to others we should strive to let people see that. It's not about us feeling good."

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's no equivocation. The potential for reciprocity is the defining characteristic of the group.

That doesn't define away the possibility of extending the group, though. I think the potential for reciprocity with, say, a cat is probably pretty limited, but there are other animals with whom much greater potential would appear to exist, but where that potential faces the not inconsiderable barrier of communication. I'm thinking of the obvious examples of killer whales and elephants here. In the case of whales, the evidence is mounting that they look at us and recognise an intelligence in us comparable to their own, and that they may very well be rather puzzled by some of our actions towards them and have an active desire to create a different relationship with us. If that sounds far-fetched, I'd ask for other ways to explain various species of whale's reaction to the whaling industry and their changing attitudes now that whaling has stopped (in the areas where it has stopped).

There's certainly no reason per se to believe that a potential for reciprocity can only exist between humans. In fact, I would argue, given what we're starting to understand about certain other animals, that there's reason to believe that this is likely wrong.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

The options available to a type 1 diabetic are: a) you use the insulin the NHS gives you or b) you die.

Take your time exploring those options.

Well as I am not in that situation, it's not something that I need to spend too much time worrying about for the moment. In any case your hypothetical doesn't require mean that an animal has to die so that my child may live.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well as I am not in that situation, it's not something that I need to spend too much time worrying about for the moment. In any case your hypothetical doesn't require mean that an animal has to die so that my child may live.

It's kind of pointless talking to you, isn't it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This is a significant argument to support the cause of veganism. I've never seen any empirical or anecdotal evidence about higher levels of mental ill health in these industries before .

I'd find it interesting to look at if you could point me in the directions of those studies or articles.

Here's another:

The Psychological Damage of Slaughterhouse Work

A slaughterman quoted in the first hyperlink in the article:

“The worst thing, worse than the physical danger, is the emotional toll. If you work in the stick pit [where hogs are killed] for any period of time—that let’s [sic] you kill things but doesn’t let you care. You may look a hog in the eye that’s walking around in the blood pit with you and think, ‘God, that really isn’t a bad looking animal.’ You may want to pet it. Pigs down on the kill floor have come up to nuzzle me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them. … I can’t care.”

 

[PaoloSanchez]

It's kind of pointless talking to you, isn't it?

Well I don't believe so, but I sense yet another flounce coming, so you're free to stop replying to me whenever you feel you can manage it. You appear to get a bit flustered when people don't agree with your opinion or share your views. I'm used to people disagreeing with me so maybe that's why it doesn't bother me as much as it appears to bother you.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

That doesn't define away the possibility of extending the group, though. I think the potential for reciprocity with, say, a cat is probably pretty limited, but there are other animals with whom much greater potential would appear to exist, but where that potential faces the not inconsiderable barrier of communication. I'm thinking of the obvious examples of killer whales and elephants here. In the case of whales, the evidence is mounting that they look at us and recognise an intelligence in us comparable to their own, and that they may very well be rather puzzled by some of our actions towards them and have an active desire to create a different relationship with us. If that sounds far-fetched, I'd ask for other ways to explain various species of whale's reaction to the whaling industry and their changing attitudes now that whaling has stopped (in the areas where it has stopped).

There's certainly no reason per se to believe that a potential for reciprocity can only exist between humans. In fact, I would argue, given what we're starting to understand about certain other animals, that there's reason to believe that this is likely wrong.

The abstract of a recent paper:

The presence of direct reciprocity in animals is a debated topic, because, despite its evolutionary plausibility, it is believed to be uncommon. Some authors claim that stable reciprocal exchanges require sophisticated cognition which has acted as a constraint on its evolution across species. In contrast, a more recent trend of research has focused on the possibility that direct reciprocity occurs within long-term bonds and relies on simple as well as more complex affective mechanisms such as emotional book-keeping, rudimentary and higher forms of empathy, and inequity aversion, among others. First, we present evidence supporting the occurrence of long-term reciprocity in the context of existing bonds in social birds and mammals. Second, we discuss the evidence for affective responses which, modulated by bonding, may underlie altruistic behaviours in different species. We conclude that the mechanisms that may underlie reciprocal exchanges are diverse, and that some act in interaction with bonding processes. From simple associative learning in social contexts, through emotional contagion and behavioural mimicry, to empathy and a sense of fairness, widespread and diverse social affective mechanisms may explain why direct reciprocity may not be a rare phenomenon among social vertebrates.

Direct reciprocity in animals: The roles of bonding and affective processes

Though I think Athos has in mind a much more demanding notion of reciprocity requiring a high level of abstract cognitive reasoning ability.

 

[Athos]

The abstract of a recent paper:

The presence of direct reciprocity in animals is a debated topic, because, despite its evolutionary plausibility, it is believed to be uncommon. Some authors claim that stable reciprocal exchanges require sophisticated cognition which has acted as a constraint on its evolution across species. In contrast, a more recent trend of research has focused on the possibility that direct reciprocity occurs within long-term bonds and relies on simple as well as more complex affective mechanisms such as emotional book-keeping, rudimentary and higher forms of empathy, and inequity aversion, among others. First, we present evidence supporting the occurrence of long-term reciprocity in the context of existing bonds in social birds and mammals. Second, we discuss the evidence for affective responses which, modulated by bonding, may underlie altruistic behaviours in different species. We conclude that the mechanisms that may underlie reciprocal exchanges are diverse, and that some act in interaction with bonding processes. From simple associative learning in social contexts, through emotional contagion and behavioural mimicry, to empathy and a sense of fairness, widespread and diverse social affective mechanisms may explain why direct reciprocity may not be a rare phenomenon among social vertebrates.

Direct reciprocity in animals: The roles of bonding and affective processes

Though I think Athos has in mind a much more demanding notion of reciprocity requiring a high level of abstract cognitive reasoning ability.

I do. And on an inter (rather than intra) species basis.

 

[Athos]

I asked why the potential for reciprocity was the basis for human rights and you said: 'The interest you have in the human rights of others is that they, like you are human, such that setting standards for their treatment is also to set them for yours.' My response to that argument was 'I am a member of many groups: why should my membership of humanity be the morally relevant one?'. Your response is 'the potential for reciprocity'. That's circular reasoning. You haven't as of yet shown the link between potential for reciprocity and human rights. And this is before we address the even thornier problem of humans who lack the potential for reciprocity and what their moral status is.

I have explained why i consider reciprocity important. Essentially, self-interest. We respect others rights, that others will respect ours. I'm not sure such an exchange is possible with other species. And, although you criticise self- interest as a basis for rights, I'm yet to hear a more convincing one.

 

[Athos]

That doesn't define away the possibility of extending the group, though. I think the potential for reciprocity with, say, a cat is probably pretty limited, but there are other animals with whom much greater potential would appear to exist, but where that potential faces the not inconsiderable barrier of communication. I'm thinking of the obvious examples of killer whales and elephants here. In the case of whales, the evidence is mounting that they look at us and recognise an intelligence in us comparable to their own, and that they may very well be rather puzzled by some of our actions towards them and have an active desire to create a different relationship with us. If that sounds far-fetched, I'd ask for other ways to explain various species of whale's reaction to the whaling industry and their changing attitudes now that whaling has stopped (in the areas where it has stopped).

There's certainly no reason per se to believe that a potential for reciprocity can only exist between humans. In fact, I would argue, given what we're starting to understand about certain other animals, that there's reason to believe that this is likely wrong.

I don't rule out the possibility. But, to date, I see no convincing evidence for that idea.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

What I think creates the antagonism in these discussion is twofold: firstly, most vegans are making a choice that is ethics-based. This means that non vegan behaviour is a less ethical way of living. It perpetuates cruelty and so on. Vegans may be happy to keep these views to themselves, but both groups of people know they exist, and since it isn't nice to be judged negatively, many meat-eaters are keen to make vegans see them as ethical people, or to see themselves as less ethical than they imagine. It's futile, of course, but a reaction to knowing someone is judging you.

Then the type of debate is overwhelmingly centred around a number of perceived hypocrisies. This is because Veganism is commonly presented in absolutist terms. Lbj's earlier arguments about Compassion in World Farming were rejected. Gg's proposed "seaganism" was dismissed. While there's no great surprise in either case, from an ethical perspective both are simply wrong. But the inflexibility of the position invites a person arguing against the absolutist vegan position to find the cases around the margins: cosseted pet hens who lay eggs for the family table being less exploited and abused for human benefit than the mice killed in arable farming. Bees. Pig hearts. Vegans find these arguments irritating because the most important bits of veganism are being sidelined. Those arguing against can't resist them because an absolutist ethical position invites testing.

I think there's something to what you're saying if I've understood you correctly. In general people don't like to feel that they're being judged. Vegans tend to make choices based on what they believe to be the right thing to do from either a health, environmental, ethical or compassionate standpoint or any combination of those. Some might focus only on one of those, others might embrace all of them. This can represent a challenge to people who are not vegan and can cause them to launch pre-emptive strikes against vegans in order to try and defend their position.

wrt to arguments being "rejected" or "dismissed", I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. As is often the case in debates, there are differences in opinion and sometimes at the end of the debate, there is still no agreement and the differences remain. I disagreed with lbj's idea of "humane slaughter" and I don't think it would be something that I would ever agree with unless I take a blow to the head or something. Just because he has a different opinion to me that doesn't mean that I should start getting stroppy say things like "you're talking bollocks" or him a "cunt". I accept that his perspective is different and I'm prepared to move on. Unfortunately some of the more strident, or dare I say "angry" omnivores appear to not be able to conduct themselves in a civilised manner and use the false accusation of the "smug vegan" to justify their behaviour.

I've found the elaborate hypothetical side issues (pig hearts etc) to be more amusing than irritating, although I do believe they are a bit of a ridiculous waste of time. To me they seem like rather desperate attempts to find something wrong with vegans and therefore justify the omni position, hunting for vegan hypocrisy so that they don't have to feel guilty about killing animals. I'm waiting for the next outrageous scenario. "...what if you had bum cancer and were about to die and the only way you could live was if they had to grow a new bum hole on a pig, would you agree with animal testing then? Or would you just shrug your shoulders and die?"

 

[danny la rouge]

I have explained why i consider reciprocity important. Essentially, self-interest. We respect others rights, that others will respect ours. I'm not sure such an exchange is possible with other species. And, although you criticise self- interest as a basis for rights, I'm yet to hear a more convincing one.

"Reciprocal altruism" is the term used in animal behaviour. It definitely applies within social species. I'd argue it can happen between social species too. Dogs and humans, for example, know they're useful to each other.

 

[danny la rouge]

(Sorry for jumping in on page 63: full disclosure - I haven't read back).

 

[DotCommunist]

Dogs and humans, for example, know they're useful to each other.

'You know they can make light come and go when they like? light and warm'

'bollocks, thats just a trick to keep all the food'

'watch this'

*extended barking followed by a light switch being turned on by irate human*

'well, shit. Do they do it for free?'

'No, you have to look after them. Look they don't see very well in low light and they have to change skins daily'

'are you shitting me?'

'no they literally have to change their hide every day. Just look after the small ones and the food will follow'

'they're mental'

'judge not lest you be judged. Now its time to eat this poo we found young un'

 

[Athos]

"Reciprocal altruism" is the term used in animal behaviour. It definitely applies within social species. I'd argue it can happen between social species too. Dogs and humans, for example, know they're useful to each other.

Not sure it can happen at the level we're talking about though; a reciprocal recognition of rights.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure it can happen at the level we're talking scout though; a reciprocal recognition of rights.

Hmm. If you mean by "rights" a legalistic charter, then maybe so. But if you mean something less bureaucratic, like respect for social boundaries/mores, then I think it can.

My dog was taught (by us) as a puppy that nipping us with her teeth was against the rules, for example. She'd do it (as is natural for a razor-toothed puppy); we'd emit a pantomime squeal, and turn away from her. She very quickly learned it was something that broke a social bond, and stopped.

 

[Athos]

Hmm. If you mean by "rights" a legalistic charter, then maybe so. But if you mean something less bureaucratic, like respect for social boundaries/mores, then I think it can.

My dog was taught (by us) as a puppy that nipping us with her teeth was against the rules, for example. She'd do it (as is natural for a razor-toothed puppy); we'd emit a pantomime squeal, and turn away from her. She very quickly learned it was something that broke a social bond, and stopped.

I font think it's a question of legalism so much as conceptual complexity beyond immediate cause and effect.

 

[danny la rouge]

I font think it's a question of legalism so much as conceptual complexity beyond immediate cause and effect.

I disagree. I think morality is a very basic impulse for social animals, and "rights" just a way of us describing really quite fundamental behaviours. It's the description of it/them that's complex.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Hmm. If you mean by "rights" a legalistic charter, then maybe so. But if you mean something less bureaucratic, like respect for social boundaries/mores, then I think it can.

My dog was taught (by us) as a puppy that nipping us with her teeth was against the rules, for example. She'd do it (as is natural for a razor-toothed puppy); we'd emit a pantomime squeal, and turn away from her. She very quickly learned it was something that broke a social bond, and stopped.

Bolded an important bit.