One of the most commonly cited documentary as the catalyst for people to become Vegan is Earthlings. It's freely available online and narrated by the actor Joaquin Phoenix, a life long vegan.
Many can't watch the whole film, some come out of it traumatized, while others remain untouched. Have you watched it? What did you think?
I stopped when it started to compare meat eating people to nazis and racists - So, 3:18. This film is preaching to the choir, and I doubt it would actually spur someone who eats meat to stop doing so. It's also, like most documentaries filmed with a slant (i.e. almost all documentaries), filled with "Hypothetheories" (not my word, but a good one) - untested arguments that affirm the position of the arguer, so they never think to apply even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Michael Moore is someone who is notably guilty of this, and I say that as someone who generally agrees with his point of view regarding gun laws and manufacturing. Demonizing the people you are trying to reach is a really, really bad way to make positive change in the world. ----- I have been reducing my meat intake, but not because I believe that I shouldn't eat meat, but because they cost SO MUCH WATER as a crop. Considering how much meat is raised in California (where, as we know, there is a huge drought that is in many ways worsened by human causes), and the amount of water it takes to raise beef to "slaughter" age, it's just not a continuable practice as we do it. Beef takes 2500 GALLONS of water PER POUND. I have also stopped eating almonds for similar reasons. Every almond you eat takes 1 gallon of water to grow. Let that shit sink in. one of these takes one of these to produce. THEN think about how many almonds it takes to create 2L of Almond Milk. This recipe adjusted to create 2L of almond milk uses 425g of almonds, and 2L of water (all the other recipes I checked also seemed to have a similar water : final volume ratio. I guess only so much comes out of the almonds, and you can only squeeze so much out of the wet almond paste). The average almond weighs 1.2g. That means you need approx 354 almonds to make this 2L recipe of almond milk. 2L of almond milk = 354 GALLONS of agricultural water used, plus the 2L needed to make the milk. that is un-fucking-sustainable. want more, cited information? watch this Stop trying to sell me, and other meat eaters on the "Animals are people/animals feel feelings" argument which will continually fall on deaf ears, and use the SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT AND IMPACTFUL ARGUMENT that the way we farm is legitimately environmentally unsustainable and needs to be changed.
It's also an ineffective way to convince people. organicAnt I highly recommend reading that, and looking into the Backfire Effect. You can't change people's minds with evidence they've done terrible things. Their subconscious simply won't accept it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying it's not the 'right way,' I'm not saying you can't use your free speech to post what you want. I'm simply saying: studies show your method doesn't work.Demonizing the people you are trying to reach is a really, really bad way to make positive change in the world.
That's a really interesting study. Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested to know if since being aware of this human psychological trait, you have been able to identify it when it comes up in yourself? I very rarely have confrontational and heated discussions in the real world. Yet here, particularly on hubski, almost all my words seem to be interpreted with ill meaning or "demonizing". Different people can easily read the same sentence and take a different feeling from it depending on our mood and beliefs. I wonder how much of my perceived meanness is due to the absence of tone of voice, eye contact and body language. Because I definitely do not think people are evil but the stubborn human ego can be.
Someone with no education in the area made an infographic about California water. Water used for pasture and alfalfa (mostly fed to cows) does represent a big chunk, far more than can be conserved by reducing residential consumption. Just wanted to repeat that.I have been reducing my meat intake, but not because I believe that I shouldn't eat meat, but because they cost SO MUCH WATER as a crop.
Demonizing the people you are trying to reach is a really, really bad way to make positive change in the world.
On reflection, I want to clarify that I have a lot of respect for organicAnt, by whose worldview we are most of us a lot of callous murderers. It is exceedingly difficult speak up for those you perceive as voiceless victims without antagonizing those you perceive as oppressors. I think we should all carefully examine our participation in institutions that may contribute to invisible suffering and either offer legitimate moral counterarguments or else back down. It is much like the abortion debate: if you can't give a coherent argument that abortion does not result in the death of a human, it's a weak excuse to complain about the way your opponents approach the subject.Just wanted to repeat that.
Thanks wasoxygen, I appreciate you trying to see things from my perspective, which is really the voiceless victims perspective. Just to be clear I've never called anyone and I don't honestly think most people are "callous murders" but I do think most people are unaware and unwilling to look at reality as it is. Besides all the ad hominem I get, when I discuss this with people I witness plenty of mental gymnastics, hypothetical examination and intellectual analysis of edge cases, as people desperately search for the tiniest excuse to justify the gigantic core of animal abuse. I'd like to try a mental exercise with you and readers in order to understand your threshold of what is acceptable animal abuse. For example, what would you do if you saw a toddler kicking and beating a baby pet such as puppy? Hopefully most people would stop it. How do you feel about the image of a cat being skinned alive? Most people would feel outrage and anger. Why would anyone in their right mind do such heartless abuse, right? Now consider the fur trade, how do you feel about skinning other animals alive for fashion? Let's say the animals are killed before being skinned, does that make it ok to kill, say foxes, for human vanity? How about poaching of elephants, hippos or giraffes for fun? What if we bred elephants in cages for their whole lives so we could harvest their ivory, or drink their milk, would you be ok with that? How would you react if you found someone dunking your favourite pet in boiling water? Does that make you feel anything? If it does you're closer to how I and millions of other vegans feel, regardless of species abuse. Now please read the previous paragraph several times before answering, replacing the animals mentioned for pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys and fish. Stop reading it when you stop having the feeling of outrage (if you had it at all, I hope you did). Please let us know at what point you stopped feeling outraged and why. What is your threshold of animal abuse? (Perhaps this should be the title of a new thread?)
If you think it would be helpful, I could rank all those examples in order of outrage, beginning with boiling my favorite pet. I am not completely comfortable with any of them, but some bother me more than others. In each case, I would ask how big is the harm and how big is the benefit. Answers won't be easy, but I will probably count leather shoes as more beneficial than fur fashion accessories. I would probably count the benefit of providing food as greater than providing entertainment for a hunter. I would prefer that a hunter kill and eat an animal rather than simply killing it. To measure the harms, I would want to know how much the animal is capable of suffering, how long and acutely it suffers, and whether it would have existed and suffered at all if it were not created to serve someone's purpose. To be honest, I will be more sympathetic to cuter and gentler animals rather than, say, sharks. I think most people around here are opposed to needless, pointless suffering. There is some diversity of opinion over how big the benefit has to be to justify animal suffering. And I suspect that there is some intentional ignorance over what goes on with industrial food production to avoid difficult questions. I maintain some ignorance myself, it's not pleasant material to see or think about.
To be fair, I believe there's a responsible way to consume meat. Fish, for example, are much less strenuous on the environment, and almost any animal you take out of the wild is going to be environmentally fine (as long as it's not on a massive scale, which is why this position won't work for the vast majority of people). Deer, for example, have almost no remaining natural predators, since we've done a good job wiping a lot of them out. It kind of falls on human beings to be the apex predator and make sure that their population is manageable so we don't get huge disease outbreaks like this one. To this extent, I feel comfortable from an ecological perspective killing and eating deer--in fact, killing a few of them yearly is not only good for the environment, but usually gives me enough meat to last until next year.
Absolutely, I'm well aware of the environmental damage caused by modern, chemical based, mono-crop farming practices which are totally unsustainable. I posted a documentary in the past called Cowspiracy which is about this very issue. People complained that they don't watch "conspiracy theories". Now, I feel like I keep repeating myself over and over in these discussions. In every animal rights discussion you'll hear someone say "this is not the right way to discuss animal rights". And that's natural since there isn't a single "right way" of activism. As far I'm aware I'm free to use my free-speech to post whatever I want. Like everyone else I choose to post what resonates with me and everyone else has the choice to read, watch, listen to what I post or not. But just because YOU disagree with the content I share and my form of activism it doesn't mean that EVERYONE will disagree. And lastly, to be selling something I'd have to be earning something back and the only thing I earn personally is personal abuse, insults and the same old excuses not to discuss a subject that is central to our way of living.Stop trying to sell me, and other meat eaters on the "Animals are people/animals feel feelings" argument which will continually fall on deaf ears, and use the SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT AND IMPACTFUL ARGUMENT that the way we farm is legitimately environmentally unsustainable and needs to be changed.
When you are arguing for something, you need to "sell" your argument to others. This ability is incredibly important to the effectiveness of your argument. As much as we would all love to be able to just drop facts on people and have them listen, the truth is that the facts often do not speak for themselves. As a result, we must speak for them. When someone says that you need to "sell" an argument, that is what they mean. They don't mean that you see some benefit. You can post whatever you wish. If you can't get people to even watch what you're showing them, let alone look at it (as you mentioned with "Cowspiracy"), then their own practices in a critical manner, you are pissing into the wind, and not being a good advocate for the very cause you support. I'm not even talking just about the cause of animal rights, I'm talking about any argument or advocacy you do anywhere. What good is your argument if all it does is preach to the choir? I'm for animal rights (to a point), and I think a lot more people are than would admit it, because the words "animal rights" bring up images of inadequately informed rich people who live in an echo chamber of their own experience. This image is reinforced by the documentaries that you've posted - They don't talk about the political and societal realities of choosing to, or choosing to NOT eat meat. They don't talk about the perception of meat as a representation of wealth, and what the political repercussions are for removing the availability of cheap, factory meat for people who can't afford to buy properly raised meat. Just saying "eat meat less often" is removing their agency in their own diet, and in their own lives. Yes, a vegetarian diet is often cheaper, but what does it mean, in America (or even in North America, or "first world society"), to be unable to afford to eat meat if you choose? Those are the things that NEED to be covered in documentaries that are sorely lacking.As far I'm aware I'm free to use my free-speech to post whatever I want. Like everyone else I choose to post what resonates with me and everyone else has the choice to read, watch, listen to what I post or not. But just because YOU disagree with the content I share and my form of activism it doesn't mean that EVERYONE will disagree.
What do you mean?I'm for animal rights (to a point)
Look at all these responses to your point of view. Look at all these opportunities for debate. Don't dare say that we've dodged the subject.the same old excuses not to discuss a subject that is central to our way of living.
There's no need to get defensive. I am grateful for the chances to discuss the subject of animal rights, sadly if you into it closely most of the threads are about what an awful person I am. Or pointless remarks like this one that don't touch on the subject matter at all.
The point of my remark was to disprove your lie, not to join the discussion. I feel that there is no point in pretending to be civil to you and I am glad that you have taken the same course in your response to me. Thank you.
I wasn't lying and you didn't disprove anything. The fact that you're not prepared to join the discussion just confirms my point. I'm sorry if I come across harsh, consider it a form of self defence when it feels that everyone is against you. You resorted to character assassination because you feel somehow threatened by what I said. Yet another ad hominem attack with no guts to join the debate. But you are right, I'm a right ass hole for pointing out the unnecessary suffering caused by human greed and selfishness. By choosing not to partake in it and pointing it out, I'm the evil one. Take care.
I'm sorry - but this is wildly incorrect. Millions of people around the world (and even in the evil USA) track, hunt, kill, and butcher their own meat. And they love it.It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians
~19:00
One of those people here. Hunting is almost ubiquitous in Nebraska, you can talk about it with just about anyone (it's less so in the cities, which is where I live, but still you've got a good chance). Do do track, hunt, kill, and butcher our own meat. I've been doing it since I was 12. I can field dress a deer and find the best cuts of meat, and I still love eating meat.
Just out of curiosity, how do feel about killing dogs? The following is acceptable in some countries:
I'm not fond of any killing. if a family has to kill a dog to eat and survive - so be it. If people are killing boxes of dogs for "fun" or because some other idiots couldn't handle a pet or wouldn't have their pet fixed - them shame on them. I don't know why people bother with pets in the first place... But that's another topic for another day (which I know I am weird and probably in the WAY minority on).
If I understand you right, you disapprove of dog killing where it's perfectly acceptable in some cultures. May I ask why you feel that way about dogs and not about other animals that are killed unnecessarily, such as all the cows, pigs, chickens and so on? Just to try and explain where I'm coming from, the feeling that you and most people have when they think about dogs being abused and killed with complete ruthlessness is exactly the same feeling that vegans feel about any other animal killed purely for human enjoyment.If people are killing boxes of dogs for "fun" or because some other idiots couldn't handle a pet or wouldn't have their pet fixed - them shame on them.
Nice straw man. I said I'm not fond of killing. Dogs, cows, pigs... I make no distinction. Look. I get where you're coming from. I'm glad you have your convictions. I appreciate your perspective up to a point. Your militant proselytizing is working against you. There I was, somewhat agreeing with you that a large part of the U.S. population is lazy about what and how they consume meat. And you flipped out and threw a box of dead dogs at me. Nice try - but I regard dogs EXACTLY the same as I regard squirrels, bees, cows, fish, etc.: they all serve a purpose on this rock. Your blatant baiting for an argument has backfired. Where you once had a sympathetic ally, you now have someone who is reminded why militant vegans are as bad or worse than lazy meat eaters. It makes me hungry for a nice cheeseburger. Make it a double, and add bacon.
I don't get your response to my sincere question. I was trying to make the point that different cultures have different beliefs of what's acceptable animal abuse. I showed you the abused dogs to try understand where you stand on animal abuse since you said "Millions of people around the world (and even in the evil USA) track, hunt, kill, and butcher their own meat. And they love it." I wanted to know if abusing dogs was ok for you as it obviously is ok in certain Asian countries. I'm trying to show you the selective animal discrimination or specie-ism that we're taught and brought up with. It's a shame that you see that as being militant. If that makes me a vegan extremist, what does it make of meat eaters? As for your last sentence, I'm sorry but that's just childish and coward to take your frustration on the defenceless and voiceless.
As for your question about dogs, a utilitarian may not have an issue with it as long as the dogs are treated humanely. What that actually means depends on what kind of utilitarian they are (preference, hedonic, negative, etc.) Whether that's even possible within the current system, however, is another question.
I'm more curious to know how you feel rather than hypotheticals. Are you an utilitarian? What utility can be derived from killing a dog? As for being "treated humanely" what does that mean? Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?
Well, if a family derives pleasure from dog meat, then that would be utility. Under classical utilitarianism, if the pleasure of that family outweighs the harm done to the dog, then it would be ok, though no utilitarians today actually believe in this naive formulation of utilitarianism, due to problems that should be obvious. Under negative utilitarianism, which shifts the focus to reducing suffering rather than increasing pleasure, there wouldn't be sufficient grounds for subjecting a dog to the dog meat industry unless the industry caused negligible harm to the dogs. Harming dogs would be permissible, however, if it prevented greater harm to other humans and animals (like with medical research). No, because I, like most people, happen to believe that we have extra duties towards humans that transcend the basic utilitarian framework.As for being "treated humanely" what does that mean? Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?
It's a shame that you answered with hypotheticals rather than your personal views. When I said "Is it ok to kill someone if we treat them well while they are alive?" I was actually referring to animals. I don't see them as things I see them as individuals with their own personalities, social bonds and capacity to enjoy life, even if they can't always express it in a way that we understand. Following your view that humans have extra duties (i.e. rights) that don't apply to animals, who would you feel more connected to a child rapist paedophile or a puppy? And why?
Well, ok, I generally consider myself to be a negative utilitarian and a preference utilitarian (that is, harm is defined as frustration of preferences, not just bad feelings). But on top of that I also understand that human society is necessarily governed by social contract, which to an extent creates extra rights and duties within the human community, the national community, and the family. I never said I don't see animals that way. Indeed, as far as I know we're scientifically compelled to. Again, it depends. The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being. If it was my puppy, I would have greater moral obligations to it as a result of our relationship. If it was just a feral puppy, probably not.I don't see them as things I see them as individuals with their own personalities, social bonds and capacity to enjoy life, even if they can't always express it in a way that we understand.
Following your view that humans have extra duties (i.e. rights) that don't apply to animals, who would you feel more connected to a child rapist paedophile or a puppy? And why?
Great, so in this particular case you wouldn't grant special rights to the paedophile simply because he was human. The puppy on the other hand would enjoy well deserved protection. Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile? Now my final question is, do you think that the selective animal discrimination ingrained in our Western cultures, where dogs and cats are treated with love and care and pigs, cows, sheep, chickens and so on are bred, subjugated and killed to serve our pleasure, is fair? I'm referring to animals in modern societies where we've gone past survival and we now know that it is scientifically possible to live without animal products.The pedophile has violated the social contract and basic moral norms, and any sane society would ostracize him/her. As for this puppy, it would deserve protections as a result of its being a sentient being.
Yes, we never disagreed there. However, I think the provision of those extra rights comes from membership in a civilization, country, and family, rather than membership in a species. Hence, animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.Up until here do we agree that species should not be the sole measurement of provision of rights since the puppy would enjoy more rights than the paedophile?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?animals we keep as pets, which belong to our communities, are entitled to those extra rights, whereas livestock animals that do not belong to our communities are only entitled to rights and protections granted by the basic utilitarian framework.
Custom, I guess? That's not morally relevant within my framework as long as the proper rights and protections are given to the animals in each role (which, as you've indicated, we usually don't do, which is unethical).So what's the criteria for selectively using some animals for companionship and others for taste pleasure in an age when we can live without those?