'BOW TECHNOLOGY' - I cannot believe I am reading this here?????????
if the bow can help ensure that hte animal is killed and not just hurt, then it is a good thing, since they're going to be hit with the arrow either way.
Well, I have had my fill of you lecturing me, Vivisanctor, so I guess I'll remember the 'don't feed the Trolls' warning and place you on 'ignore'!. Ahh, see, that feels so much better!
Here are some statistics for NJ since you rave about how many hunters kill to eat their prey, vivisanctor:
"BLACK BEARS are at the center of F&W’s (Fish & Wildlife) sights. Despite the fact that they were hunted to the point of near extinction under F&W’s “management,” F&W has been attempting in recent years to reinstate a black bear hunt. In their 1997 bear hunt proposal, F&W stated that they were attempting to “Re-establish a hunting season for black bear to provide recreational opportunity for the sporting public…” F&W claimed in 2000 that the purpose of a bear hunt was reducing human/bear conflicts, but finally called it what it is: a “sport” hunt. [NJ Register, 9/5/00]. A hunt took place in 2003 despite overwhelming public opposition. The planned 2004 hunt never happened due to the intervention of the DEP Commissioner. But the bears are still listed as a game species and need statutory protection for the future.
PHEASANTS, not native to New Jersey, were introduced into our state by F&W. Today, 50,000 pheasants are bred annually at F&W’s breeding farm. These birds spend most of their lives in small cages only to be thrown onto fields and killed the next day by hunters seeking “sport.” F&W states, “The current (pheasant breeding) program is strictly ‘put and take’ to supplement wild population in order to provide recreational pheasant hunting…” [NJ Register 8/4/97"
Also, 104,625 quail were killed during the 1999-2000 hunting season. Quail are not native to NJ and were factory farmed to insure that the hunters had an adequate supply to murder.
So all the above mentioned animals are knowingly hunted for sport (not to eat) and have been factory farmed in order to provide hunters with enough animals to murder.
And yet you will probably still find someway to defend hunting...
I'm not about to question those numbers. The source seems credible...
The question here is: If hunting were outlawed, would there be more or less suffering for animals?
Or it could be simpler than that... what if 'sport' hunting only were outlawed, but hunting where the animal is eaten was allowed to be legal? Would my ideas seem like less of a stretch to you then?
It is my belief that outlawing hunting in general (both sport and kill-eat) would cause MORE suffering for animals than is currently ocurring. This is the part that you probably take issue with.
BUT- It seems like an absolute fact that outlawing sport hunting while allowing kill-eat hunting to remain legal would definitely cause less suffering for animals than making all hunting illegal.
So maybe 'hunting' should be broken down into two categories.. kill-eat, and 'sport,' and then considered separately.
and then lets ask the anemic veal calf sitting in a cell in a factory farm..
remember the exchange? the ones killed in the wild take away from the demand on the factory farms...
Your logic doesn't make sense. First of all, you ignore anything that disproves your theory that hunters eat their victims. Regarding your above post, I highly doubt that some person who is in the mood for veal will say, "hmm, I have some nice dead deer in my freezer, I'll have that instead." They will still buy the veal. When you want a piece of vegan chocolate, are you satisfied with some broccoli instead? Even if you have the broccoli on hand and have to go out and buy the chocolate?
"My name is vivisanctor on this board. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Just FYI: this particular board frowns upon too much anti-vegan rhetoric. I don't think they'll have a problem with anyone discussing which forms of advocacy are more productive...
I have been more or less away from this forum for some days, and saw the above quote right now.... This is a forum for people who are pro veganism. It is not a board for meat eaters. Don't invite people who don't agree to our board guidelines/FAQ to join.
This is not censorship. It is filtering, with the purpose of creating a message board for likeminded people.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
You're shutting out the very people you wish to reach.
AS you might have noticed, there is a life outside this forum. Most of us know a lot of meat eaters, and there a re many vegan and vegetarian sites and forums. This just happens to be a forum for people who'd like have have some time together without the tedious arguments from meat eaters....
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
If the moderators would like to speak with me about my invitation to others, please feel free. I will explain to them becuase I do not want to lose my membership. My email is in my profile, if they're so inclined.
That's not the way it works here. We have discussed similar situations several times before, both on this forum and on 'Veganforum1'. I can't discuss the board guidelines every time someone suggests that they should be changed -I just don't have time for that. If you want to use this forum, please accept what kind of forum this is. If you don't like the concept, have a happy journey to another message board. I think it's good that various boards have different guidelines. In short, you can't first break the rules, and then invite the people who are behind this forum (including those who have donated to a veganforum.com they way it actually IS) to change the rules. Sorry. I'm also sorry I haven't responded to this earlier, but it has been a crazy week, working 16 hours pr. day & traveling a lot across Europe.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
Just like to say, inviting non-vegans here to debate is like inviting non-victims to a rape support group. This forum, for me at least, is a support for similar people, with the exception of one section for inquiries and the like.
Please let these people understand that your invitation was based on a misunderstanding - and please read the FAQ again, if needed....
yeah i already let them konw. I didn't intend to argue with you about what you allow and what you don't. I just said that I figured at some point you'd need to have a conversation with me, which is what's occuring here.
sorry bout the confusion.
how come the thread isn't showing up on the main board anymore?
Your logic doesn't make sense. First of all, you ignore anything that disproves your theory that hunters eat their victims. Regarding your above post, I highly doubt that some person who is in the mood for veal will say, "hmm, I have some nice dead deer in my freezer, I'll have that instead." They will still buy the veal. When you want a piece of vegan chocolate, are you satisfied with some broccoli instead? Even if you have the broccoli on hand and have to go out and buy the chocolate?
But, the fact remains that if the animal that was hunted is eaten it does indeed take away from the factory farming demand.
you're grasping at straws here. Of course when someone craves a certain thing they'll go get it. But if the hunted animal gets eaten then the effect is made.
Of course most hunters still will purchase from FF sources also, but just because they don't eat what they hunt at the exclusion of all other meat sources is not a valid reason to believe that some hunting/eating isn't beneficial to the overall problem of animal cruelty.
The meat eaters are not getting it. Should we change our opinions to please them? No.
No, never change your opinions that animals shouldn't be harmed. I'm suggesting changing the way in which we advocate.
Good example: Lets say there's a bill about to be voted on somewhere.. and it calls for an extra 15 feet of space for pigs in factory farms. Now lets say I'm vegan and I hear about the bill, but instead of rallying for the bill, I go out and protest the fact that they're in the factory farm. In essence I did not support the bill. So the bill doesn't get passed because so many vegans/ARA's didn't join in. And the pigs are stuck in the same old horribly small pens. When if we had swallowed our pride, and rallied behind it, the pigs would have been more comfortable. Now the vegans protesting the pigs being there at all may have reached a few people and helped turn a handful of people vegan, but the bill would have reached ALL pigs.
The key here is: THERE ARE GOING TO BE PIGS THERE EITHER WAY!!
The key here is: THERE ARE GOING TO BE PIGS THERE EITHER WAY!!
In the short term, yes. In the long term, maybe not. We need to gradually dismantle the system that perpetuates the oppressive injustice that's visited upon animals. In the short term, this might mean backing welfare standards, but at the same time, it might also mean illustrating the problems at the base of the entire system so that, perhaps, it is toppled in time. No system is completely inevitable. The future is modeled by the past, but not determined by it. Things *can* change. Perhaps that's what we disagree upon.
I'd not be the first person to argue that this system that exploits animals is analogous to slavery. For some of us, it breaks down to this: is it ok to have slavery if it is more humane? Most of us would say no because it is still slavery. This is how some of us feel about the animal production system. Even if it is more humane, even if animals have more room, we still think it is wrong. This doesn't mean that we're opposed to more positive changes, just that those changes shouldn't stand in for the only progress that can be made.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, maybe not. We need to gradually dismantle the system that perpetuates the oppressive injustice that's visited upon animals. In the short term, this might mean backing welfare standards, but at the same time, it might also mean illustrating the problems at the base of the entire system so that, perhaps, it is toppled in time. No system is completely inevitable. The future is modeled by the past, but not determined by it. Things *can* change. Perhaps that's what we disagree upon.
I'd not be the first person to argue that this system that exploits animals is analogous to slavery. For some of us, it breaks down to this: is it ok to have slavery if it is more humane? Most of us would say no because it is still slavery. This is how some of us feel about the animal production system. Even if it is more humane, even if animals have more room, we still think it is wrong. This doesn't mean that we're opposed to more positive changes, just that those changes shouldn't stand in for the only progress that can be made.
But, the fact remains that if the animal that was hunted is eaten it does indeed take away from the factory farming demand.
It has been used many times - as an argument pro eating and killing wild animals - that they are 'available' in areas where plants are not available, for example in some seasons or in arctic areas. By allowing hunting, we declare that these beings are 'available'. If you grow up in an area or a family where animal foods are much more available than in other areas or families, people will eat more animal foods. I have seen several cases of people who have come from hunting or fishing, and call friends and offer them some fish or meat because they have a lot of it. By making meat both available in shops and declare that the animals in the woods also are 'available' as food, some people will for sure eat more meat, just like a son of a slaughter might eat more meat because he have easier access to inexpensive meat. So I don't think the situation is as simple as you suggest.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
No, never change your opinions that animals shouldn't be harmed. I'm suggesting changing the way in which we advocate.
Good example: Lets say there's a bill about to be voted on somewhere.. and it calls for an extra 15 feet of space for pigs in factory farms. Now lets say I'm vegan and I hear about the bill, but instead of rallying for the bill, I go out and protest the fact that they're in the factory farm. In essence I did not support the bill.
[...]
The key here is: THERE ARE GOING TO BE PIGS THERE EITHER WAY!!
Don't make things too complicated. It's obvious that if someone asks me 'I'm going to kill an animal next month - do you want to to have a very uncomfortable life before it dies or do you want it to have an extremely uncomfortable life before it dies?', the answer is obvious. You seem to miss at least two major parts of the reality here:
1) If I happen to be in a position where I can influence how a slave can live it's life, by voting yes or no in a given situation, using a minute of my life to vote yes or no won't prohibit that I can work for ending all slavery...
2) The 'There are going to pigs there anyway' is a potentially very dangerous approach to the situation. There have probably been a lot of people saying 'There will be slavery anyway' as well. If a person who has decided or just feels that he is against killing animals wants to spend time on any kind of activity trying to help these animals, it's IMO important not to get lost in trying to waste energy on making life a little more comfortable on the death row, but to insist that animals are not here for us to eat. If he is using his energy on this, there will be less pigs, chicken, cows etc killed. Let the people who are OK with killing animals use their energy on improving the life of those they will kill - if they want to. I'm sure you have seen the numbers showing how many animals a non-vegan human consumes in his lifetime, and by...
go(ing) out and protest the fact that they're in the factory farm
...the total numbers of...
PIGS THERE EITHER WAY!!
... might be reduced a little.
Or increased, if he is behaving in a way that makes animal rights people appear as violent lunatics. My point is that that since vegans represent a small minority, it wouldn't be wise to forget the essence of veganism and instead focus in numbers of square feet on the death row. There are other people dealing with square feet - people who never will spend a minute of their life on promoting the idea that we don't need or have the right to kill other living beings, so why should vegans stop trying trying to reduce the numbers of animals that get killed for food and instead focus only on animal welfare?
I haven't read all your posts from the last week.... but - are you pro or against hunting? Of course I could read them all (and will), but it's easier for me right now to ask you....
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
In the short term, yes. In the long term, maybe not. We need to gradually dismantle the system that perpetuates the oppressive injustice that's visited upon animals. In the short term, this might mean backing welfare standards, but at the same time, it might also mean illustrating the problems at the base of the entire system so that, perhaps, it is toppled in time. No system is completely inevitable. The future is modeled by the past, but not determined by it. Things *can* change. Perhaps that's what we disagree upon.
I'd not be the first person to argue that this system that exploits animals is analogous to slavery. For some of us, it breaks down to this: is it ok to have slavery if it is more humane? Most of us would say no because it is still slavery. This is how some of us feel about the animal production system. Even if it is more humane, even if animals have more room, we still think it is wrong. This doesn't mean that we're opposed to more positive changes, just that those changes shouldn't stand in for the only progress that can be made.
then you and I don't really disagree.
The people I take issue with are the people who refuse to back those 'intermediate' positive changes because of the 'bigger picture.'
I prefer not to touch on the slavery analogy because it takes us away from direct discussion of the topic. Positive changes are the best thing for us, and unfortunately, only small baby steps are possible with humanity's treatment of animals at the present time.
It has been used many times - as an argument pro eating and killing wild animals - that they are 'available' in areas where plants are not available, for example in some seasons or in arctic areas. By allowing hunting, we declare that these beings are 'available'. If you grow up in an area or a family where animal foods are much more available than in other areas or families, people will eat more animal foods. I have seen several cases of people who have come from hunting or fishing, and call friends and offer them some fish or meat because they have a lot of it. By making meat both available in shops and declare that the animals in the woods also are 'available' as food, some people will for sure eat more meat, just like a son of a slaughter might eat more meat because he have easier access to inexpensive meat. So I don't think the situation is as simple as you suggest.
I would never take part in the killing of animals or the distribution of meat.
My point comes only from the logic that since hunters are going to eat meat(less than .0001% of all hunters turn vegetarian), let them eat the free range kills they kill, so that they will be less likely to eat factory farmed meat. It's just the lesser of two evils.
The issue of whether its ok for a person in an arctic area to eat meat is not a part of my thinking on this issue. But for argument's sake I do think that at that point its an unfortunate issue of survival of the fittest. Though to get into a discussion on this point would be OT for this thread. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread.
I'll reply to your other post in a few minute.. gotta go home from work.
so why should vegans stop trying trying to reduce the numbers of animals that get killed for food and instead focus only on animal welfare?
I haven't read all your posts from the last week.... but - are you pro or against hunting? Of course I could read them all (and will), but it's easier for me right now to ask you....
I am against killing animals. But, since they're going to be killed, I believe the more productive task is finding ways to make sure they're taken care of better. To be more 'complicated,' as you put it, is to be more REALISTIC, IMO.
Much of the time spent by vegans/ARA's doing hardcore proselytizing is A WASTE. People will not change from one side to the complete other in the blink of an eye. Baby steps is the only way this thing is going to go, unfortunately. I prefer to help the baby steps along, instead of being a hindrance. And I do feel that the hard core, no compromise attitudes are a hindrance... That's my basic main point. They only piss people off, or make them stop listening. I know when the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house and start their thing I stop listening before they start. We must find common ground with these people before we can expect them to respect what we think.
I have never told a hunter that I feel he has a right to hunt. I have never told him its ok. I tell them its a 'logically acceptable' alternative to factory farms, given the fact that he cannot and is not going to give up meat. Most of the time I use health concerns as reasons why they should cut down, and then by cutting down, they feel they have in some way met my approval, and actually become interested in other things I have to say.
EDIT: In my life there have been many types of people I've talked to who I have convinced to cut down by half or more their intake of meat. Have I helped animals? Or have I wasted my time? The nature of this problem dictates that HUGE changes are simply not possible. So the only realistic way to bring about big changes is by lots of little ones.
Of course, we still keep our no compromise attitude, deep down. Never should we be comfortable with the way animals are treated, until such a time as they are not harmed in any unnecessary ways. But until then we need to get our heads on straight and work with reality as it presents itself, IMO.
I am against killing animals. But, since they're going to be killed, I believe the more productive task is finding ways to make sure they're taken care of better. To be more 'complicated,' as you put it, is to be more REALISTIC, IMO.
Of course, we still keep our no compromise attitude, deep down. Never should we be comfortable with the way animals are treated, until such a time as they are not harmed in any unnecessary ways. But until then we need to get our heads on straight and work with reality as it presents itself, IMO.
Some of us believe that the apologist approach does less for animal welfare than the constant pressure of there are no circumstances that animals should be killed for food.
If some vegans go around saying that hunting is better than FF then the message is confused with the overwhelming vegan perspective that no hunting is acceptable.
In this space we don't have to keep our no compromise attitude deep down; it is one of the reasons I come here since my housemates do not want to know what I really think and I have to take care of my words all the time.
Permitting one form of killing vs. a less desirable form will lead to your tiny steps, but you will find that those that are uncompromising, get much greater progress even though it is not the whole quotient of their demand - that comes in the next push.
Permitting one form of killing vs. a less desirable form will lead to your tiny steps, but you will find that those that are uncompromising, get much greater progress even though it is not the whole quotient of their demand - that comes in the next push.
well i will never stop pushing.
the compromise comes in the steps, not in the overall outlook on the situation. I WILL NEVER stop wanting better treatment for animals. I'm as die hard as any of you. I just see people being pushed away from our cause by our attitudes, and it sucks.
Much of the time spent by vegans/ARA's doing hardcore proselytizing is A WASTE. People will not change from one side to the complete other in the blink of an eye.
Both me and my husband went vegan due to hardcore proselytizing as did a friend of mine and her husband. I can probably find many, many more people who went vegan due to those hardcore tactics that you despise. You might prefer to approach veganism like a baby but many do not and to condemn them unilaterally for their approach is harmful to the vegan movement.
Both me and my husband went vegan due to hardcore proselytizing as did a friend of mine and her husband. I can probably find many, many more people who went vegan due to those hardcore tactics that you despise. You might prefer to approach veganism like a baby but many do not and to condemn them unilaterally for their approach is harmful to the vegan movement.
those who turn because of 'shock' tactics or hardcore proselytizing are the minority. This is a truth.
those who turn because of 'shock' tactics or hardcore proselytizing are the minority. This is a truth.
And where do you get your truth from? I guess the same source as the one about most hunters eat what they kill. I honestly don't know the answers to most of what has been purported as being the truth in this thread and that's where we differ. You insist you know the truth while others here have suggested that you might be partially right or *shudder* even wrong in some instances. Talk about rigid and judgemental.
My point comes only from the logic that since hunters are going to eat meat(less than .0001% of all hunters turn vegetarian), let them eat the free range kills they kill, so that they will be less likely to eat factory farmed meat.
Did anyone in here suggest that hunters should not be allowed to eat the animals they killed?
The issue of whether its ok for a person in an arctic area to eat meat is not a part of my thinking on this issue. But for argument's sake I do think that at that point its an unfortunate issue of survival of the fittest.
Call it what you want, but veganism it is not.
Vivisanctor
I am against killing animals. But, since they're going to be killed [...]
Less chicken is going to be killed if people understand ie. that they don't need to eat chicken. If vegans who today try to promote the fact that we can live perfectly well without chicken instead of wasting time on trying to help chicken with a few more square feet, more chicken will be killed.
Much of the time spent by vegans/ARA's doing hardcore proselytizing is A WASTE.
I partially agree, but I also know of many people who have dropped animal products because of PETA. I'd say that for a vegan to argue against PETA instead of spending the same time and energy supporting the ideas that he and PETA have in common is closer to my definition of wasting time.
And I do feel that the hard core, no compromise attitudes are a hindrance... That's my basic main point. They only piss people off, or make them stop listening.
I think everybody in here understand that this is your opinion by now, but it's also a fact that while maybe you are frustrated with PETA, others find their campaigns effective. This kind of discussion might also result in some people not being interested in listening.
EDIT: In my life there have been many types of people I've talked to who I have convinced to cut down by half or more their intake of meat. Have I helped animals?
That's impossible to give an answer to without knowing how these people would have reacted if you would have convinced them in a different way that made them drop 100% instead of 50% instead.
Of course, we still keep our no compromise attitude, deep down.
No, we shouldn't hide it deep down. You are keeping it deep down if you rather want to rally for some extra square feet on the death row instead of letting the people you meet know what veganism really is about - and that's not square feet.
we need to get our heads on straight and work with reality as it presents itself, IMO.
...which - of course - nobody will disagree with, we just have opposing views on parts of that reality.
If all vegans should follow your advice on rather helping the earlier mentioned pigs to get some extra square feet to live on instead of keep insisting that pigs are not here for us to eat - there wouldn't be any vegan movement anymore. It would have been replaced by an animal farm reform movement. Is that what we want?
If you ask any meat eater you know about his opinion on the conditions animals who live in really tiny physical areas before they are killed for food, none of them will insist that 'I think they should almost no space at all', they'll almost all agree that their conditions should be improved and that farms should be reformed into more 'humane' food factories. Many of them will probably donate money to the farm reform movement if they are asked. What you do here, is to suggest 'animals will be killed anyway, let's just accept it, and rather try to improve their life quality before they're killed instead of focusing on the fact that we are against killing them in the first place.
I can't imagine anything worse happening to the vegan movement that following that advice.
Vivisanctor
I prefer to leave animals alone and/or treat them well, without eating them or harming them. But, unfortunately this option IS NOT AN OPTION for hunters.
Yes, it is.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
Normally they make a phone call. I know it sounds like I'm making it up. This is a commonplace thing here in the US. Maybe it doesn't happen so much there.
Tihs is normally only done with deer. The gov't doesn't want rotting corpses laying around. So a freshly killed deer is taken to be used for food. Just takes a phone call. A hunter calls, someone shows up. They take it and do all the grisly preparation stuff. Takes care of two problems at once.
Vivisanctor
well i will never stop pushing.
the compromise comes in the steps, not in the overall outlook on the situation. I WILL NEVER stop wanting better treatment for animals. I'm as die hard as any of you. I just see people being pushed away from our cause by our attitudes, and it sucks.
But as you know, some people are also being pushed away from your attitudes. What is the result of that?
Push as much as you want, but if you want to push hunting, as you did in another post (by pushing a link to a place for hunters - which I soon will remove) - please do it somewhere else.
It seems like you think that 'Hunters for the hungry' is a good idea. From a vegan point of view, killing animals in itself is not a good idea, feeding hungry people with a diet that has been proven again and again to cause a lot of health problems is also a bad idea compared with a campaign pro growing and donating vegan food to the hungry. The 'Hunting for the hungry'-concept that you seem to agree with is just a relevant issue from a vegan point of view. It is a relevant issue to consider for hunters, and this is not a place for hunters.
You say that you will stop wanting better treatment for animals, but if you succeed in your attempt to make hunting look like some sort of Mother Theresaish activity, you are not going for better treatment of animals - you just make it easier for some hunters to continue hunting instead of dropping it.
You seem to take a basic fact, namely that it's better for anyone who is going to die to have had a great life in the wilderness instead of on a factory farm, and tweak this into some sort of 'It's better if vegans help the animals that are going to die to have a better life instead of making an attempt to promote the idea that we don't need to or have the right to kill other living beings' kind of ideology.
I saw a site recently (by following a link from someone who wanted to register with us) that 'out of sympathy' with poor animals that might be killed in car accidents suggested that we rather should make sure these animals were killed by hunters instead.
There are areas where many humans have been killed in car accidents as well. Nobody would ever suggest that we should kill these humans so they won't run the risk of ending their life in a car accident. People just seem to make up all kinds of excuses to justify their hunting, most likely because they - deep down somewhere - feel that it's wrong.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
one thing I do agree with is that we should never give up our 'no compromise' FEELINGS. What I disagree with is the way it is brought out in our advocacy most times.
I have definitely brought it up in the wrong place, and if I feel the need to do it again, I will do it somewhere else. The only thing I ask is that people look out for what I described: meateaters shutting down because of our tactics.
The majority of people, IMO, shut down to our message when we preach, just like I shut down to Jehovah's Witnesses. And the unfortunate part is that they will see us as overbearing condescending people even if we are being respectful, due to previous conversations with other vegans/ARA's or simply because they're defensive. Their defensiveness is something we have to work with and work through.
Jehovah's Witnesses have one thing in common with the majority of the people in this world: belief in God. This could be why I shut down to the JW message, becase I have no such belief. Perhaps discussing common ground before getting into demands will be more productive for us..
The dialogue that most have spoken about, where they feel most benefit to animals can be had: the dialogue between ARA's and hunters/meateaters, just doesn't seem to exist as often as it COULD, as most hunters/meateaters seem irritated with us. I feel that using the ideas I've put forth here will help to open up more dialogue. The few that are reached are reached through family/friends. This is because we(and they) are more likely to be tolerant of the ideas of those who are closer to us.
I do feel that we need all kinds of advocacy. Meaning the kinds I speak about and the 'no compromise' kinds other speak about. Each has its place. In political demonstrations we don't want to not speak our minds. But in one-on-one conversation, there is little benefit in making someone feel like they can't win.. (most people do wish to have others' approval, but they will only go so far before they say **** it.)I dont' think they'll just give up and become vegan because they think they can't win otherwise. What will happen instead is they will decide that they can't win so screw trying. We need to nurture whatever 'baby steps' they're willing to do. In doing so, we can create FURTHER baby steps. It's almost like an exercise in psychology, or human nature... EXAMPLE: To tell a man he's a murderer is not the best way to get him to stop murdering animals. Especially if he feels its ok. he'll just think you're a crazy proselytizer. Point out what he's interested in first, like the health benefits of a vegan diet. Then from there, once you have him making a difference, try going into other aspects.. then point out that by cutting down on his meateating, even though he's done it for health reasons, he's actually cut down the sufferintg he's caused in many different ways(this would be a time to show him a petatv.com movie or some pictures, etc.) Tell him he's helped to stop this type of horrible treatement, or other such comments. It will make him feel good, and/or productive. Then he's already feeling ok that he's done SOMETHING, and he has common ground with you, and a chance to move forward WITH you instead of AGAINST you. This has worked wonders for me in the past.. Many many times I have brought people to bring their consumption of meat way down, and thereby helping animals in some way or another.. Some have gove veggie.. But the majority were never in a place where they would ever become veggie so I simply brought them as far as they were capable of going. And its still working out, so there may be more changes in the future for some of them..
I have not enjoyed upsetting any of you. I simply said what i said because I feel it has been beneficial for animals. Next conversation you have with a meateater, try my less 'demanding' tactics first.. see if they don't open up quicker.
Push as much as you want, but if you want to push hunting, as you did in another post (by pushing a link to a place for hunters - which I soon will remove) - please do it somewhere else.
I linked only to an 'animal rights and welfare debate' forum. How is that a problem? It is not a place 'for hunters.' It is a place for everyone.
I figured some people on here might want to post there as well, and not only about this topic. I could always use the help of other vegans on there... to further our message..
What I disagree with is the way it is brought out in our advocacy most times. I have definitely brought it up in the wrong place, and if I feel the need to do it again, I will do it somewhere else. The only thing I ask is that people look out for what I described: meat eaters shutting down because of our tactics.
That's fair, and it's fair to let us know, I agree that AR activists some times push people away by their behavior, and it's totally relevant to discuss this in here - which we have done over 10 pages now.
Jehovah's Witnesses have one thing in common with the majority of the people in this world: belief in God. This could be why I shut down to the JW message, becase I have no such belief. Perhaps discussing common ground before getting into demands will be more productive for us.
So what you are saying that you resistance against JW is not only based on what they say and do, but also on your own (lack of) beliefs. I think JW represent a valid example that illustrates a way to try to convince people that often fails. At the same time as I agree that discussing what some AR activates say and do is relevant, it's also important to remember that for some people, methods that doesn't work for you, might work for others.
[...] most hunters/meateaters seem irritated with us.
Of course they are, and they probably would be no matter how diplomatic vegans would present the idea that hunting is something we don't support. But you know what? People who enjoy killing animals might even need to be told things in a totally direct and no-compromise way. I don't know. My feeling is that if you discuss animal rights with a hunter, you discuss whatever you want to discuss with him the way you feel works for you, and I do it my way. 10 pages of discussions about me telling you how to behave or vice versa might be waste of mental bandwidth.
According to you, less that 0,0001% of all hunters become vegans anyway, so maybe we shouldn't be to optimistic about the outcome of any dialog with hunters anyway.
EXAMPLE: To tell a man he's a murderer is not the best way to get him to stop murdering animals. Especially if he feels its ok. he'll just think you're a crazy proselytizer. Point out what he's interested in first, like the health benefits of a vegan diet.[...]Next conversation you have with a meateater, try my less 'demanding' tactics first.. see if they don't open up quicker.
We are repeating ourselves now, and have been for a while. If you think that reminding people that when they buy meat they're actually part of the reason a living being is killed, or murdered, is not a good idea, don't say it. If someone else decides that she wants to say it that way, let her do it. If you want to tell her that this isn't very smart, tell her, and tell her why, which you have done a lot lately. But let's end this loop for now.
Regarding the link you provided to the homeless/hunting organization, your memory might have played you a trick. But never mind - I'm closing this thread now as we have ended up running in cycles anyway, and as we know, that doesn't lead us anywhere.
I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.
PinkFluffyCloud
So have I, but I never heard a Vegan arguing the case of the Hunter like you do!
5 posts in a row. i need to shut up :) :)
good points.
Bookmarks