I'm splitting the following post made by Joe Espinosa into this dedicated thread to keep the original one on topic. Thanks. Here's Joe's post:

---

There is something fundamentally dishonest about engaging in discourse on a topic and ignoring big evidence and sound reasoning that does not agree with the point or position one is trying to make and highlighting the smaller evidence that would serve to advance your point. If the typical experience for farmed animals was not horribly painful, then it would be time to talk about whether or not it is ok to use animals in general if they have a decent life. As it is, millions of farmed animals, indeed many more than all the animals killed in vivisection, for fur and in shelters combined, actually suffer to death on the floors and in the cages of today's farms. If we care about justice, it seems most reasonable and respectful that this terrible suffering should be of primary concern.

Concern that trying to improve things (reduce suffering) for those animals who will go through the system will make consumers feel comfortable in eating animal products is a reasonable concern. It is quite possible that efforts to abolish the worst or most visible farmed animal cruelties such as battery cages, veal crates and gestation crates would serve to increase consumers' comfort with eating animal products under the false belief that the animals now have good pain free lives and deaths and so sentencing animals to life on the farm and death in the slaughterhouse is of less concern to consumers.

It is also possible that bringing the realities of the worst visible cruelties to the public and asking them to oppose those will serve to break the overall denial we have regarding farmed animals' suffering. The stark contrast of that harsh and undeniable cruelty compared to the peaceful country images most people entertain regarding life on the farm may move people out of denial and to the realization that is obvious to many of us, but was not always, that animals used on farms suffer immensely, that they have the same capacity to experience pain as us, and that that pain deserves consideration.

Each and every event that occurs in a farmed animal's life, from debeaking right through to the bones broken in gathering for transport and the live scalding or live dismemberment, happen for reasons of maximizing producer's profit. Abolishing the worst cruelties done to farmed animals, beyond sparing many millions of animals some of their worst suffering, will serve to increase the cost of the resultant animal products, which translates into decreased consumption and decrease in the number of animals raised and killed.

The concern that trying to abolish the worst procedures done to animals endorses the concept that animals are ours to use/eat is a sound one. However, Ronald McDonald, Colonel Sanders and Jimmy Dean have already done a pretty good job of letting people know that it is ok to use/eat animals. Surely the idea did not originate with the efforts of those who work to decrease animal suffering. In evaluating what is most likely to help the most animals the animals are best served by us choosing an intervention that is most likely to be heard and result in people changing their behavior towards animals. We have to admit that not everyone will be willing to become vegan at this time, but many might be willing to decrease suffering by reducing consumption of animal products or choosing the products that cause lesser suffering (190 chickens to make the same amount of edible flesh as just 1 beef steer). Those people can contribute very real decreases in animal suffering and consumption, and so deserve our education, encouragement and support, not scorn because they do not meet our standards of personal purity.

Like social justice movements of the past, the change regarding our treatment of animals will take time and work. The move to expanded rights for vulnerable populations in the past certainly began with concern for the suffering that they endured, indeed rights are simply a way of codifying the protection from suffering. While I certainly wish I could wave my magic wand and have people understand that using animals is wrong, reality does not work that way, and reality presents itself at this time in a manner that calls upon us to try to address the worst net suffering first as opposed to simply calling out that all animal use is wrong and getting little response.

After the dust settles, what we do is much more important and honest that what we say or think. Taking our efforts to the people with the power to spare animals the misery of modern farming, lots of those people, not just the small circle of people we encounter in our daily lives, is vital. Presenting an understandable message to the audience most likely to hear it (young people) that invites people to open their hearts and minds to the plight of animals today seems like a better intervention than demonstrating how smart we are to the relatively few people we will talk with in our lives with big words and concepts, no citations, and little result.

For the record, I really think that this post was on topic, having come out of my participation in the original discussion. However, Dave saw fit to move it away, a pattern that has repeated itself again last week.

I'm glad this topic got its own thread and I hope Joe's follow up message will jump start it.

I am of the opinion that both the welfarist movement and abolitionist movement have important roles in our society and I think that welfarism is a noble movement for a vegan to be a part of. However, I understand what Dave has been saying that welfarism doesn't necessarily lead to veganism. I was listening to a vegan radio podcast yesterday where there were some PETA activists being interviewed. There was some broken logic that really hit home for me. One of the activists was outlining some of the horrific practices in factory farming that they were demonstrating against and then he said that because of these practices, you should become a vegan. Now to an omnivore, this doesn't seem imperative. Becoming vegan could be a natural reaction to horrible farming practices but it's only one of many.

I think it is terrific that people are working to improve the quality of enslaved animals' lives but to use methods of factory farming as THE reason to go vegan, does a disservice to the vegan movement because anyone that is vegan probably believes that animals have inherent rights that preclude them from being enslaved and exploited. If you ask a vegan why they are vegan, their truthful response will usually be an abolitionist one.

I'm glad this topic got its own thread and I hope Joe's follow up message will jump start it.

I am of the opinion that both the welfarist movement and abolitionist movement have important roles in our society and I think that welfarism is a noble movement for a vegan to be a part of. However, I understand what Dave has been saying that welfarism doesn't necessarily lead to veganism. I was listening to a vegan radio podcast yesterday where there were some PETA activists being interviewed. There was some broken logic that really hit home for me. One of the activists was outlining some of the horrific practices in factory farming that they were demonstrating against and then he said that because of these practices, you should become a vegan. Now to an omnivore, this doesn't seem imperative. Becoming vegan could be a natural reaction to horrible farming practices but it's only one of many.

I think it is terrific that people are working to improve the quality of enslaved animals' lives but to use methods of factory farming as THE reason to go vegan, does a disservice to the vegan movement because anyone that is vegan probably believes that animals have inherent rights that preclude them from being enslaved and exploited. If you ask a vegan why they are vegan, their truthful response will usually be an abolitionist one.

Thanks Mark, I figured this deserved its own thread and not buried off topic in another. I'm sorry Joe disagrees but i thought it was the right thing to do.

Anyway I agree that advocating on behalf of the welfare of animal is an admirable practice but yeah it's not related to veganism. Veganism is simply the act of "not using animals" and the most logical response to welfare concerns would be to improve the welfare and still use the animals. Many animal groups try to win and placate their audience by using emotional appeals with little challenge to the oppressive culture for which they contribute. You’ll hardly ever even see them use the word “vegan”. I wonder if this is because they’re afraid to put people off or because they know themselves that veganism is inherently flawed.

I’m more and more inclined to believe veganism is no answer and is not necessary to work on behalf of animal oppression. Many leaders of movements have hypocritical actions to their philosophy and I think veganism as an action has a debilitating effect on any real change. There is so much focus on the action of veganism that little idea gets transmitted. I don’t think getting people vegan will cause awareness of animal oppression and I don’t think recognizing animal oppression requires veganism. That probably sounds completely wrong for vegans to hear but the dogmatic holiness we strive for is really just that. Also none that you’ll often hear advocates say “be a vegan”. That use of “vegan” as a noun, as something you should be is telling. It really isn’t about the animals, it’s about you being something. Maybe that’s just a sexy way to sell something but is getting people to be a type of person who doesn’t use animals gonna say anything about animal interests?

It’s nice to hear that the broken logic jumped out at you. It took me 10 years before I understood this fallacious approach even after saying the same thing myself year after year. It may be a challenge to find another way but I think it’s worth exploring.

I subscribe to Mahatma Ghandi's sentiment, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

I still don't quite understand your view, Dave, that it is okay to use animal products while advocating against the oppression of animals. Hypocrisy is always a negative thing that is belittling to the cause. The fact that there is a precedent of hypocrisy in other movements doesn't make it acceptable.

I understand your point that too much focus gets placed on ourselves but that doesn't justify the oppression of animals through the use of animal products.

Back to the interviews I mentioned in my last post, it was kind of ironic that these activists were participating in the meat tray demo which I think is actually much closer to the abolitionist message that we are all animals and none of us deserve to be oppressed. That demonstration spoke nothing about farming practices, just the fact that we are killing animals for meat.

I subscribe to Mahatma Ghandi's sentiment, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

I still don't quite understand your view, Dave, that it is okay to use animal products while advocating against the oppression of animals. Hypocrisy is always a negative thing that is belittling to the cause. The fact that there is a precedent of hypocrisy in other movements doesn't make it acceptable.

I understand your point that too much focus gets placed on ourselves but that doesn't justify the oppression of animals through the use of animal products.

Back to the interviews I mentioned in my last post, it was kind of ironic that these activists were participating in the meat tray demo which I think is actually much closer to the abolitionist message that we are all animals and none of us deserve to be oppressed. That demonstration spoke nothing about farming practices, just the fact that we are killing animals for meat.

Ah yes, well personally I subscribe to my own sentiment which is "Do the change you want to see in the world." It's a lot less likely to encourage a quest for personal purity for which so many vegans and other religious followers aspire.

I don't see hypocrisy as such a negative thing. It was quoted recently that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Joe alluded to a fear of intellectualism like philosophers who use "big words" and Vegan Outreach amongst similar groups use conciliatory appeals like "one vegan meal a week/day" etc so even vegan activists and groups understand the foolishness of inconsistency. Vegans on the other hand strive for consistency and see hypocrisy as the ultimate corruption but it is not an ideal anybody can achieve. We're all hypocrites in different ways and different levels.

So I'd hate to get on too much of a tangent so back to the matter at hand. If the factions of welfare and abolition could give up fighting to take the Vegan Hill maybe they could actually get something done. Welfare people can focus on making the miserable lives of animals better without asking for veganism and abolitionists could stop wringing their hands over welfarists not being vegan enough and get on with their own work (whatever that is). Both think veganism is the answer but I think they're both wrong.

Putting groups up against the wall and deciding who's welfarist and who's abolitionist is so petty. Just like you said, that PeTA demo you saw was one that seemed like an abolitionist stance yet the activist spoke on welfare. The message isn't even quite parse-able enough to categorize so stringently into either camp. Activists are desperate and will use any argument that might hook the audience be it welfare, health, environment, whatever. What they're trying to do is justify their own doctrine. Once they've started down that path though, they've already lost.

"I think it is terrific that people are working to improve the quality of enslaved animals' lives but to use methods of factory farming as THE reason to go vegan, does a disservice to the vegan movement because anyone that is vegan probably believes that animals have inherent rights that preclude them from being enslaved and exploited. If you ask a vegan why they are vegan, their truthful response will usually be an abolitionist one." - Mark

Mark,
That is where our beliefs are as vegans, but that is not for most of us, what we were thinking as meat eaters nor how we got vegan. Most of us looked into how animals are treated in modern farming and out of concern for the cruelty done to animals, their most dire rights violation, decided to change our behavior. Most behavior change is progressive, not instantaneous, and beliefs typically change in the same progressive fashion. So the important thing is to remember back to our thinking when we ate animal products or fathom the mindset of current meat eaters. Focusing on cruelty and suffering is the most compelling reason we can use in our advocacy to change people's behavior. It gets easier and easier for them to come to a rights perspective once they are no longer sentencing animals to horrible suffering and death and can be more honest with themselves about justice for animals.
Joe