So what is the ultimate goal of veganism?

[bigbossomni]

oh and those asking about my hunts. I've been actually assaulted with violence on a legal hunt. The individual was calling me a murderer and told me eating animals was wrong so I imagined he was vegan. I ended up calling the gaming board and he was arrested they told me he has done this before. Other times it's rock thrown at me or people using air horn ect. I know hunt with a go pro camera in case I run into any trouble with these people.

And yes the cost question a elk tag can range in price sometimes upwards to 500 dollars and a moose you're gonna spend a pretty penny for that tag. One hunt can feed me and my family for a year if the bull is a decent size. So my food costs outside of that are just produce and whatnot. So It's cost effective for the most part.

[Lay Vegan]

You can actually taste a difference in quality in meat. Store bought beef is not nearly as tender as the game I hunt. The texture is very different as well. Have a non vegan eat some ground beef from the market then some thats free range. I bet 9 times out of ten they will prefer the taste of the free range.

This is relative, regardless, the average American consumer eats factory farmed meat. 99% of all poultry comes directly from factory farms. Do these people have issues with the taste of non-free range meat? Probably not, which is why so many people willingly continue to purchase it. Also, as another person mentioned, stress hormones are still common in "humanely slaughtered" animals who are aware they are about to die. The methods that we use to render animals unconscious, by bolting them in the head, or by dunking them in electric baths, is horribly ineffective. This has been well documented (link in my above comments).

To those who say free range farms are just as cruel you should actually go to one and take to the farmers. They take great care of their livestock.

Animals are still treated completely inhumanly in these "humane" farms. Again this is well-documented (link also in my above comments). "Free-range, organic, cage-free, and ethically sourced" are marketing gimmicks whose only purpose is the satisfy the egos of its consumers and help them to avoid cognitive dissonance. Meat eaters know that exploiting animals for food is wrong, so they create labels like "free-range" to fool the consumer into thinking that the poor bird at least lived a decent life before being slaughtered.

However, as vegans, we do not think that it is ethical to slaughter animals for human consumption, regardless of how "humane" we treated them while they were alive. Animals are not means to an end, they are ends in themselves. Animals, like humans, are sentient beings capable of conscious experience. They are capable of suffering and being harmed, and thus vegans take it upon themselves to protect their interests.

If there are more ethical alternatives to eating and wearing animals, why not choose those alternatives? Eating animals causes needless harm and suffering to animals, harms the environment, and by extension harms other humans. Any rational person would acknowledge that taste pleasure and convenience are not valid justifications to continue taking animals' lives.

So the goal is to not outlaw meat consumption? Still seems that way with how people protest blockading slaughterhouses and whatnot.

Vegans/vegetarians are not in a cult. I do not represent vegans who shame, force, or insult meat eaters into submission. Nor do they represent me. In any movement, people should strive to be self-critical and rational. This means evaluating how their tactics will affect how "outsiders" view their message. Name calling, shaming, and public disruption will not reflect positively on veganism. Some vegans even go as far as to equate the Jewish holocaust to factory farming. As an ethical vegan, I understand the sentiment, but as a consequentialist I'm concerned with how this will affect vegan outreach. No rational person morally equates humans to nonhuman animals, so doing this in activism will turn more people away from veganism than not.

Your goal is to just make meat consumption less than what it is?

No, this is not the goal of veganism, nor is it the goal of most reasonable vegans. Our goal is to have non vegans recognize that animals are sentient beings capable of conscious experience who have interests that should be protected. We want non vegans to recognize that animals are ends in themselves, not tools used to achieve some end goal. Animals are not merely the passive objects of our actions. Realizing this will cause people to abstain from the subjugation of animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.

[bigbossomni]

so is this a witch hunt? I feel you guys got this tribalism going on the "us vs them" mentality.. Guess what it doesn't paint the movement in a good light. Yea the livestock people eat are sentient but they aren't sapient. Seems everything I say just angers you folks because I won't convert...

[Lay Vegan]

so is this a witch hunt? I feel you guys got this tribalism going on the "us vs them" mentality.. Guess what it doesn't paint the movement in a good light.

Would you like to explain? If you are alluding to the above examples I gave, then I'd agree that those tactics are not effective.

Yea the livestock people eat are sentient but they aren't sapient.

You're correct, however, being a sapien has no relevance on moral consideration, or on one's ability to suffer. This is why pet owners come to accept pets into their own families as nonhuman relatives.

Imagine if I collected a stray dog from the street and cooked and ate him. If my neighbors found out, they'd be appalled. To them, dogs are not objects to be eaten. It would be considered cruel to do such a thing to an animal of whom they are morally concerned.

Now imagine if I replied with "But it's not a human." My neighbors likely would not accept this as valid justification, as it does not negate the dog's interests to live. Its being nonhuman is not a morally relevant difference.

However, if the dog were brain dead or road kill, this would be a morally relevant difference, as a permanently unconscious dog has no interests. Nor can it be harmed or benefited. Hence, sentience is the only morally relevant difference.

Seems everything I say just angers you folks because I won't convert...

I hope you're not projecting your own sense of obstinance and anger onto us. We're simply answering your question on the goal of veganism, and presenting rational arguments to hopefully persuade you to abstain from consuming animal products. As vegans we should recognize that most people are not rational, and will use all kinds of defense mechanisms to justify their behavior. The key is by countinue to engage with them respectfully (as we're doing in this forum) until they see their error of their ways and change their behavior.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi bigbossomni,

You might not be open to veganism, but are you open to getting all of your meat from hunting, and not purchasing farmed meat anymore?
Trying to get a sense of where you are flexible/if you are open minded to some change.

Even if you don't agree with the ethical arguments, the environmental arguments against animal agriculture (except rope-grown oysters, which are filter feeders so we don't have to grow food for them) are pretty irrefutable.
Some kinds of hunting may be environmentally sustainable, but there are concerns with wildlife management inflating the numbers of target animals like deer to make more money.

They are ends in themselves, not means to an end.

I'd be a little wary of that kind of Kantian language, since it may suggest a deontological anti-consequentialist outlook.
The same with the "subject vs. Object" language.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/
We are all subjects and objects, and being objectified isn't inherently wrong: it's only bad if it's harmful.
Likewise, it's OK to be treated as a means to an end (for example, if I open a door and go through, and somebody with groceries follows me and nudges the door) as long as it doesn't harm me.

The question is always harm, and this kind of language (which seems to derive from Kantian beliefs) can obfuscate that.

We're not attempting to maximize animal harm reduction, otherwise we'd become freegan or commit suicide.

I've commented on this at some length elsewhere, but I don't think suicide does the most good.
We can't only consider harm, we must also consider the good people do in the world, including inspiring others to reduce harm and just generally helping others live better and happier lives.

Somebody who makes some effort to minimize harm can do a lot more good than harm in the world.
And that may even go for hunters who are against factory farming.

[bigbossomni]

Well one member in this thread simply bats aside anything I say with " i don't believe that" and doesn't bring any facts to the table and someone openly said why should he ever like a non vegan. Discrimination does not paint vegans in a good light

[bigbossomni]

if this is the entire thought process of the movement I think I've gotten my answers

[Jebus]

if this is the entire thought process of the movement I think I've gotten my answers

Perhaps you should read and reflect on the answers to your questions instead of trying so hard to read between the two lines while looking for hostility.

[bigbossomni]

kind of funny coming from you saying why should you ever like a non vegan..you were the hostile one not I. I'm a first impression type of guy and you'rs was not good. I'd rather not speak with you jebus

[brimstoneSalad]

Did you ignore my post bigbossomni?

kind of funny coming from you saying why should you ever like a non vegan..you were the hostile one not I. I'm a first impression type of guy and you'rs was not good. I'd rather not speak with you jebus

You misunderstood him. He clearly said he likes SOME non-vegans, he was asking why he should like non-vegans as a general rule.

I don't like all non-vegans or all vegans. I like some non-vegans and I like some vegans, the reason I like people is usually based on more qualities than that. Veganism isn't some kind of litmus test, that if you pass it we like you and if you fail it we dislike you.

He likes some people despite them not being vegan, or likes some things about people, but doesn't like everything about anybody. He's not saying he dislikes people simply because they are non-vegans, and thus ignores anything good they do.

Please answer my post, if you would.