Hey doods!
So I've been vegan for about 2 years now
Well tbh I was freegan for most of it, but not very often (never been dumpster diving, only occasionally ate non-vegan foods that were about to be thrown away). I decided to drop freeganism when I realised it was sending a confusing message to non vegans (some of whom would find it easier to believe I 'simply couldn't help myself'). Plus 2 of my most passionate vegan buddies are abolitionists who were quite persuasive in their anti-freegan arguments (both Francione fans, and I know you guys LURVVV him). I'm still kinda on the fence about it all tho.
I've been subbed to UV, ModVegan and most recently TVA and they all recommended this forum, and I wanted to hear more discussion over VG/Dillahunty debacle so here I am! I haven't browsed an old-school internet forum in a while (anyone remember DogsOnAcid?) but I'm absolutely loving everyone's attitude here and I'm finding all the discussion really interesting! Its definitely the kind of vegan discussion I want to get involved in so hopef I can find the time to post here lots more in the future
Suh from Glasgow
Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
Welcome cookie, hope you like it here.
I'd be interested in hearing the arguments your abolitionist friends made, although the fact of it being confusing to non-vegans is a good one.
I see you already started a thread, I'll check it out!
I'd be interested in hearing the arguments your abolitionist friends made, although the fact of it being confusing to non-vegans is a good one.
I see you already started a thread, I'll check it out!
- cookiedivine
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:21 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
Well their arguments against freeganism are the same as Gary's, in that you're reinforcing our current societys view of animals as things/food, for both non-vegans AND yourself (if you were a secret freegan you'd still be internalising that mindset). You're also sending an inconsistent message to non-vegans which they still might find confusing even after a full explanation of freeganism (in most cases, a carnist would rather believe you're just using elaborate excuses to indulge in your inescapable desires).I'd be interested in hearing the arguments your abolitionist friends made, although the fact of it being confusing to non-vegans is a good one.
The main benefit to advocating abolitionist veganism is that its clear and simple: don't use animal products, regardless of context.
I don't really agree with the abolitionist approach bcuz I don't agree with a moral binary. I think morality is a continuum and veganism is just a stage on the journey to becoming a better person (basically, veganism is just a form of reducitarianism). Drawing the baseline at veganism seems arbitrary to me (although there's something to be said for law being the moral baseline, but law is ever-changing and dependent on time & culture)
WITH THAT SAID, I can see how abolitionism could work as an approach to activism - its clear and simple. At some point in February I'll be shadowing my friends at a Go Vegan Scotland stall (a group that follows the abolitionist approach) and watch them talk to passers-by using that approach but atm I'd feel uncomfortable preaching a philosophy that I disagree with
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
That's fine in terms of speculation, but the opposite could also be true: what if being flexible helps prevent recidivism, and make veganism look more inviting and morally consistent?cookiedivine wrote: βWed Jan 24, 2018 11:27 am Well their arguments against freeganism are the same as Gary's, in that you're reinforcing our current societys view of animals as things/food, for both non-vegans AND yourself (if you were a secret freegan you'd still be internalising that mindset). You're also sending an inconsistent message to non-vegans which they still might find confusing even after a full explanation of freeganism (in most cases, a carnist would rather believe you're just using elaborate excuses to indulge in your inescapable desires).
Because it sounds like special pleading to advocate a hard line.
In terms of psychology of persuasion, we just need a lot more evidence and I don't think speculation on mechanisms (which could go both ways) or personal experience which is clouded by confirmation bias, are a good substitute for rigorous studies.
- cookiedivine
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:21 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
I totally agree, both sides make sense to me from a speculative standpoint but ultimately the evidence will tell which approach is more effective.That's fine in terms of speculation, but the opposite could also be true: what if being flexible helps prevent recidivism, and make veganism look more inviting and morally consistent?
Because it sounds like special pleading to advocate a hard line.
In terms of psychology of persuasion, we just need a lot more evidence and I don't think speculation on mechanisms (which could go both ways) or personal experience which is clouded by confirmation bias, are a good substitute for rigorous studies.
So which approach do you think I should use in my activism for the time being? Should I just stick with consequentalism as it makes more sense to me?
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
Arguing for reducetarianism seems to be most effective, for change relative to time taken. I usually recommend empirical arguments like discussing environment.cookiedivine wrote: βThu Jan 25, 2018 11:18 am So which approach do you think I should use in my activism for the time being? Should I just stick with consequentalism as it makes more sense to me?
- cookiedivine
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:21 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Suh from Glasgow
Noted. Thanks for the advice!Arguing for reducetarianism seems to be most effective, for change relative to time taken. I usually recommend empirical arguments like discussing environment.