So what is the ultimate goal of veganism?

[bigbossomni]

I generally hear 2 things. Most folk on youtube demand the absolute outlaw of eating or using animal products..which raises a few issues and is utterly silly and unrealistic. Because animals will always die during the growing. harvesting and transport of said crops. Plus it's a totalitarian view which history has shown to never have been majorly successful. The other is to change certain factory farm practices. Having worked in the industry I think some changes can be made but have no issues with how said animals are killed. ( usually bolt to head or stun and bled halahl is something all together)

To change how animals are handled in factory farms seems realistic. Battery cages, space issues and whatnot. Because if the animal is treated well it will taste better. Poor treatment of livestock equals bad quality meat. As a hunter I no longer factor into such an industry. Yet I'm called a murder and even assaulted on legal hunts due to these vegans opinions. I feel I do more for animals than most vegans. I pay for a tag which in turn ends up helping for animal conservation. I bag an elk or moose I can feed me and my kids for a year I won't have a need to buy meat. And I have avenues to buy beef from free range farms and what not.

So my question is. Do you think vegans are some authority as to which they can draw the line to which animal deaths are or aren't acceptable? And that everyone should be required to follow the same moral standards as you? FYI I will never be vegan I'm just curious of your thought process. But if me not being a possible convert upsets you please hold back urges of hostility

[Jebus]

The ultimate goal is to have a universal mindset that aims to end unnecessary suffering to human and non-human animals and where those who voluntarily incur such suffering will be punished under the law.

As veganism is steadily growing, and one can assume that the growth rate will speed up due to urgent environmental issues, it is only a matter of time before this happens.

[bigbossomni]

yet 84% of all vegans return to eating meat. So vegans have a 16% success rate. Seems you need to bump up that success rate because as of now you people are not capable of any change. And that will take awhile I take it. Do you not like us non vegans?

[bigbossomni]

And so you agree with my first point to you meat eating should be outlawed? How do you purpose such a change? Because I only think it could happen if you people used force and were totalitarian in nature.

[Lay Vegan]

Most folk on youtube demand the absolute outlaw of eating or using animal products..which raises a few issues and is utterly silly and unrealistic.

Agreed (I'm an ethical vegan). Attempting outlaw animal products is not only unreasonable and unproductive, but could even be potentially worse for the animals. Similar to the criminalization of drugs which lead to the intensity of more drugs, the criminalization of the consumption of animal products would force these animals into a black market where cruelty would be even more severe. Here, quality of life would not be maintained by government regulation or reputational market mechanisms.


Read more about this here; https://medium.com/@justingoro/dear-vegans-eating-meat-should-not-be-made-illegal-97dcd4772bbc

Rather than outlawing meat, we should focus on producing "ethically" sourced animal products, like cow milk from nutritional yeast, or lab-grown meat. And of course investing in tastier plant alternatives, like Tyson's Beyond Burger.

The other is to change certain factory farm practices. Having worked in the industry I think some changes can be made but have no issues with how said animals are killed. ( usually bolt to head or stun and bled halahl is something all together) To change how animals are handled in factory farms seems realistic. Battery cages, space issues and whatnot. Because if the animal is treated well it will taste better. Poor treatment of livestock equals bad quality meat.

Many of these practices are not shown to be as effective as people claim. Often, chickens have to be stunned two or three times before being effectively rendered unctuousness. Sometimes they survive throat slitting and are tossed into the boiling vats live. Also, most meat eaters can't taste the difference between poor and high quality meat, considering that companies "pump" salty brines and other additives into meat to make it more flavorful.

Read more here: http://consumersunion.org/2011/10/what-are-they-pumping-into-your-chicken/
Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. Access and Diversity, Crane Library, University of British Columbia, 2013. Pg. 75

Attempting to change company practice might be more reasonable, but who's to say companies would change these practices? Their goal is to produce as many products as fast as possible with as little cost as possible. Treating the baby chicks "humanely" by not clipping their beaks, or by not throwing male live male chicks into grinding machines would cost the industry billions. This would mean creating more space for the chicks to thrive, and spending more money on the transportation of male chicks to other facilities. Again, even if companies were to pledge to change their polices, who's to say they would? We already have a poorly funded system that fails to regulate our current abusive industry standard practices.

As a hunter I no longer factor into such an industry. Yet I'm called a murder and even assaulted on legal hunts due to these vegans opinions. I feel I do more for animals than most vegans. I pay for a tag which in turn ends up helping for animal conservation. I bag an elk or moose I can feed me and my kids for a year I won't have a need to buy meat. And I have avenues to buy beef from free range farms and what not.

Free range is a marketing gimmick and is as equally cruel as farms which claim not to be free-range. There is also no nutritional difference.

Read more here: Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. Access and Diversity, Crane Library, University of British Columbia, 2013
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-25/egg-producer-snowdale-holdings-fined-over-free-range-claims/8741706

Vegans are angry because we do not see animals as food to be eaten. We do not consider hunting to be a moral decision. Animals are sentient beings with specific interests, and are capable of experiencing suffering and harm. They are ends in themselves, not means to an end. Vegans recognize and acknowledge this by choosing to avoid eating and wearing them.

So my question is. Do you think vegans are some authority as to which they can draw the line to which animal deaths are or aren't acceptable?

Moral authority? Idk, but we certainly have the right to point out when we see animals being needlessly and brutally slaughtered for animal products. We have the right to point out that taste pleasure and convenience are not valid justifications to continue taking animals' lives. All the while giving money to an industry that uses and abuses animals, pollutes the environment, and by extension harms other humans. Being a vegan means boycotting this industry and abstaining from wearing or eating animals. We're not attempting to maximize animal harm reduction, otherwise we'd become freegan or commit suicide. We just choose not to partake willingly in the subjugation of animals. Of course, we recognize that our mere existence is displacing the existence of others. Every time I walk down the street, I step on hundreds of ants. When we harvest crops, we inedvertantly kill, squirrels, foxes, and rodents in the process. Any reasonable person would accept this.

And that everyone should be required to follow the same moral standards as you?

I sure hope so. I'm black, I'd hope that my white neighbors have the same moral standards that I do and do not come and murder me because blacks are not within their scope of moral concern. Likewise, I'd hope all humans have similar moral standards in regard to animals.

[Jebus]

yet 84% of all vegans return to eating meat. So vegans have a 16% success rate. Seems you need to bump up that success rate because as of now you people are not capable of any change. And that will take awhile I take it.

I don't believe in those numbers. They probably count those who have completed the 21 day challenge as vegans. Either way, that number should continue to drop. The more vegans, the more easily it will be to stay vegans. The problem now, for many vegans, is the lack of support.

Do you not like us non vegans?

Strange question. Why would I like non vegans?

Except for a few people who I know very well, I can only answer to whether or not I like characteristics of that person.

I like Bill Cosby as a comedian but I don't like that he rapes women.

I like Peter Gabriel as a singer but I don't like that he purchases dairy products.

I like Lewis Hamilton as an advocate for veganism but I don't like that he travels by private jet.

[Jebus]

And so you agree with my first point to you meat eating should be outlawed? How do you purpose such a change? Because I only think it could happen if you people used force and were totalitarian in nature.

Such a law could never happen until vegans are in significant majority, and by then meat consumption will have already dropped to very low numbers.

[Jebus]

Most folk on youtube demand the absolute outlaw of eating or using animal products..which raises a few issues and is utterly silly and unrealistic.

Agreed (I'm an ethical vegan). Attempting outlaw animal products is not only unreasonable and unproductive, but could even be potentially worse for the animals. Similar to the criminalization of drugs which lead to the intensity of more drugs, the criminalization of the consumption of animal products would force these animals into a black market where cruelty would be even more severe. Here, quality of life would not be maintained by government regulation or reputational market mechanisms.

A complete ban on animal products today is simply not realistic. It could never happen. As fewer people eat meat, production will slowly reduce. Once the numbers get really low (and vegans are in a strong majority position) discussion about legislation is likely to begin. The first legislative step (which I hope to see soon) is to remove government subsidization of animal products.

[Lightningman_42]

I generally hear 2 things. Most folk on youtube demand the absolute outlaw of eating or using animal products, which raises a few issues and is utterly silly and unrealistic.

I'm not in favor of outlawing the consumption of animal-derived foods, and I hope that most vegans are not. How confident are you that this is actually the norm among vegans? I'm not aware of any statistics showing how many vegans (from a large sample population) are in favor of outlawing meat consumption. If you know of any such statistics, then I'd be curious to see them.

Hypothetically, legislation aimed at ending meat consumption could take one of two approaches (or both, I suppose):
-Legislation banning meat consumption. I think that this would be foolish for anyone (vegan or not) to support. I agree that it would be silly and unrealistic to ban the consumption of products which the large majority of people are creating a large demand for. If such legislation could be passed (I don't see how that would be possible), then I imagine that legal meat industries would be replaced by black markets (like early 1900s alcohol prohibition).
-Legislation banning meat production. Once again, I have no idea how this would be possible. Most people with access to meat want to purchase it, and actively do so. With such a large demand from so many people, and no desire from most of them to see an end to this, I don't see how such a legislative ban could be enforced if it were passed, or even get passed in the first place.

As far as I can tell, efforts to outlaw the consumption of animal-derived foods would be counterproductive and impossible to achieve. Probably makes vegans who actively support it look crazy too. I haven't had the impression so far that most vegans support anything like this, but I'd need to see statistical evidence to know.

Before I respond to the rest of your comments, I think it would be useful for you if I clarify what it means to be a vegan, as I understand it:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose." (UK Vegan Society's definition of veganism)

A vegan is a person who practices this moral philosophy, and in order to do so, usually avoids consumption of animal-derived foods and use of animal-derived clothing. There are, however, a few ways to obtain animal-derived food and clothing in ways that don't result in harm towards animals, and thus are consistent with the philosophy itself. Won't go into great depth on that in this discussion though (unless you're curious).

If supporting legislative bans on animal-product consumption and/or production, is an effective way to reduce the total amount of harm, which people are inflicting upon animals, then vegans ought to support it. Personally I don't think it is. I think that that would be counterproductive, and detrimental to public perception of vegans.
Vegans ought to inform others about the harm towards animals that animal-agriculture causes, as well as the environmental and health benefits of eating vegan. I would hope that enough knowledge of all three benefits would inspire more people to go vegan, or at least greatly reduce their consumption of animals (which is already a great step in the right direction).
For some veg-curious people, it is not so much a matter of "why", but "how", that vegans must address. I think that vegans should do what they can to help people actually make changes in diet, and provide ideas on tasty & healthy new foods to try out.

I'd say that informing others is the way to go. Not supporting legislative bans.

Because animals will always die during the growing, harvesting, and transport of said crops.

A lot of insects, and some rodents probably, are killed during the production and transport of crops. This is one of the many forms of harm that people inflict upon animals, and I'm interested in finding ways to reduce it. A vegan diet already mitigates this to a certain extent. Farm animals require great quantities of feed, and it's more efficient for people to eat legumes and grains directly, than to feed much larger quantities of them to animals, which are then killed and fed to people. If there are other ways to further reduce harm towards animals from crop production, then I'd like to learn about them.

Plus it's a totalitarian view which history has shown to never have been majorly successful.

What exactly is a a totalitarian view? The view that all consumption and production, of animal-derived food and clothes, should be outlawed? I already agree with you on that, for the reasons I described earlier.
If however, you are referring to the philosophy of veganism itself as totalitarian, then I don't see why that would be the case. It's really just a form of moral-consequentialism applied to animals.

The other is to change certain factory farm practices.

Animal-welfare reform is one of many things to promote, to reduce the suffering of animals. I'd guess that many vegans are in favor of this. Unfortunately there are some delusional nutcases out there, like Gary Francione, who are against it.

Having worked in the industry I think some changes can be made but have no issues with how said animals are killed. (usually bolt to head or stun and bled halahl is something all together)

Killing animals in a less painful manner is relatively better than killing them in a more painful manner. However, slightly less painful methods of killing are still morally problematic. For one thing, such animals do still experience some amount of pain, and likely also panic and distress before their slaughter. More importantly, animals value their own lives and continued existence. If animals have interests in their own lives, then it's morally necessary to take those interests into consideration, as well as their interests not to suffer.

Think of it this way: you value your own life (I assume). You would not like someone to kill you, no matter how painlessly it's done. Even if it's absolutely painless and you don't see it coming, your killer would still be doing wrong by you because you have an interest in continuing to live. It would be an arbitrary choice on your killer's part, to only respect your interest to avoid suffering, but not your interest to live.
As far as I can tell, there is no morally-relevant difference between us humans, and farm animals, which justifies disregarding their interest in life while being considerate to ours.

To change how animals are handled in factory farms seems realistic. Battery cages, space issues and whatnot. Because if the animal is treated well it will taste better. Poor treatment of livestock equals bad quality meat.

I'm in favor of animal-welfare reform, as I mentioned before.
I don't know if it's true that well-treated animals taste better. You might be right. It's not relevant though, to the reasons behind veganism. How good animals taste to us has no bearing on how moral our treatment of them is, nor how moral it is to kill them at a small fraction of their maximal lifespans. I doubt it has any significant effect on how healthy (or environmentally-friendly) it is to eat them. Meat is not healthy for us, compared to vegan alternatives, and is not necessary for adequate nutrition.

As a hunter I no longer factor into such an industry.

That's good to hear. Hunting is a far lesser evil than animal agriculture.

Yet I'm called a murderer...

Whoever is calling you a murderer is using the word incorrectly. Murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." The word "murder" has a strict legal meaning which does not apply to any legal forms of killing, nor does it even apply to all forms of killing of humans. Manslaughter, for example, is unlawful killing of one human being by another which does not involve any forethought.

...and even assaulted on legal hunts due to these vegans' opinions.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Are you actually physically attacked by vegans, or anti-hunting activists (not all of whom are even vegans)? Do you know for sure if they're vegans? Is it possible that they're hypocritical anti-hunting activists who themselves purchase meat, dairy, and eggs? Either way, I hope you stay safe.

I feel I do more for animals than most vegans.

Maybe you do. I don't know how effective an advocate the average vegan is. How do you know what "most vegans" do though? I can't imagine you've met them all.

I pay for a tag which in turn ends up helping for animal conservation.

How does hunting help animal conservation? Could you perhaps elaborate some more on this?

I bag an elk or moose I can feed me and my kids for a year I won't have a need to buy meat. And I have avenues to buy beef from free range farms and what not.

Would you say that relying on hunted animals, as your primary meat-source, allows your diet to be less costly than a vegan diet would be?

So my question is: Do you think vegans are some authority as to which they can draw the line to which animal deaths are or aren't acceptable?

No. The word "authority" suggests that vegans can arbitrarily dictate what killing of animals is moral, and which isn't. We can, however, make our best judgments about the morality of various forms of killing, dependent on context, with the information available to us. We need to consider how much harm our actions have upon animals, and also consider what nonselfish reasons we have for killing them (if any).

And that everyone should be required to follow the same moral standards as you?

I don't know what you mean by "required". You mean through force of law? I don't think that's possible. Do you mean: should everyone willingly choose to follow the same moral standards as vegans? Well that would depend on what the standards actually are, and how well they can be justified. There's a lot of ideological variety among vegans.

FYI I will never be vegan.

How do you know? It's worth considering, even if only to be open-minded, and better understand others' perspectives.

I'm just curious of your thought process. But if me not being a possible convert upsets you please hold back urges of hostility.

Well let's just say I haven't given up on you. I'm curious to see how much you care for animals, and whether or not some reduction of consumption would be possible to inspire in you. I'm not a hostile person. You can feel free to ask questions and share your insights.

[bigbossomni]

Thanks for all the responses. Most of you were well mannered. Few points

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.

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.

So the goal is to not outlaw meat consumption? Still seems that way with how people protest blockading slaughterhouses and whatnot. Your goal is to just make meat consumption less than what it is?