Why vegans are holding back veganism

[Roman0vmarisa]

“The underlying idea seems to be that people are more likely to "go vegan" if mock animal products exist, but that is a big assumption. So why should anybody vegan or otherwise be obligated to share your particular assumptions and intuitions about matters?”

How... is this a “big assumption?” Do you have any facts to back this up? You’re throwing around that other people are making assumptions yet you also are making assumptions. 100% of the vegans I know, and non vegans trying to limit dairy, meat or go vegan ALL want substitutes to some extent. I don’t think you can really say that. I guess you only want to argue and you keep narrowing down the subject reply by reply and disregard everything else. If you’d like to actually have a debate where the intent is to not simply try to prove the other person wrong but to actually have a conversation, you should start your own thread. To be very honest, nothing you’re saying really makes sense and it’s evident you just want to argue. There are three of us questioning you, so...

And yes, the lives of the animals do matter more than our feelings, so that if we are able to save more animals a certain way, we should feel obligated to do so.

[carnap]

Could you elaborate on this?

That would open a big can of worms on this forum but my point is that vegan extremists are pretty low on the list of why people don't become vegan or their primary objection.

[carnap]

It's function is to taste like cheese, not to be nutritionally equivalent to cheese. Vegan cheese can be a part of a healthy diet, but it is not to be mistaken as a health food.

Yes, its purpose is try to mimic the taste of cheese but since the primary function of food is to supply nutrients that doesn't say much. To be a functional substitute it would have to satisfy a similar nutritional. Whether its "healthy" or not isn't the key issue here.

If vegans are looking for a cheese substitute that is slightly healthier and less processed I'd suggest something like Treeline Treenut cheese. Take their Scallion French-Style Soft Cheese for example. The ingredients are quite simple; cashew nuts, filtered Water, lemon juice dried scallions etc. A 1 ounce serving contains 90 calories, 4 grams of protein, (some iron) and only 1.5 grams of saturated fat. It doesn't compare to dairy cheese in terms of vitamin A or calcium, but requirements can easily be met through carrots, sweet potatoes, spinach, fortified plant milks, and of course, vitamin supplements.

The "nut cheeses" are often just fine nutritionally because they are more or less just firm nut butters but they also aren't a functional substitute for cheese. The fact that you'd have to get the nutrients from other foods is precisely the issue, that means the product isn't a functional substitute and a switch from real cheese to "vegan cheese" will require a broader change in diet to maintain a balanced diet. A such "vegan cheese" has no real role in people's diet, its a mere fringe product for those that won't a cheese fix but won't or cannot eat cheese.

What vegans want is a vegan alternative product to dairy cheese that doesn't directly increase demand for animal byproducts. This "cheese fix" is cow-free cheese.

Precisely...."what vegans want". Not what the Japanese want, what non-vegans want, etc. Its a niche product for vegans and people with dairy allergies.

If you read the original post thoroughly, you'll see that much of the vegan sentiment against Daiya foods is irrational. This boycott was initiated after the Japanese pharmaceutical company bought out Daiya Foods. Rather than seeing the potential for a vegan product to reach a much broader audience, many scoffed ay the decision, accusing Daiya Foods of "selling out."

The reasons I've seen aren't "irrational", for example, if you're against animal testing there isn't anything obviously "irrational" about boycotting a business that actively tests on animals...especially when the product is just junk food in the first place. Some people also prefer to support smaller businesses and do not like when they "sell out" to larger businesses. Overall the reasons don't appear "irrational" from their perspective, they only conflict with your beliefs.

Disagreement is fine, as long as it doesn't encourage vegans to cause harm to the movement or animals.

And who decides what does and does not "harm the movement'? That is one of the fundamental sources of disagreement!

Deontological vegans may think they're helping animals by boycotting Daiya Foods or asking servers to changer their gloves at restaurants, but they're really just stifling the spread of veganism and alienating non vegans...

And they have similar claims about your position which was my point, the various sects all think the others are wrong on some level and there appears to be very little attempt to get to the bottom of matters.

[carnap]

How... is this a “big assumption?” Do you have any facts to back this up? You’re throwing around that other people are making assumptions yet you also are making assumptions.

Its a big assumption because no evidence is being provided for it yet the argument hinges on it being true. There isn't any good research on whether the use of mock animal products increases long-term success of vegans, such research would have to compare the use of mock animal products with other products that are similarly convenient (otherwise it may just be convenience that is the key issue).

If you think my reasoning is based on some assumption by all means point out the specific assumption.

100% of the vegans I know, and non vegans trying to limit dairy, meat or go vegan ALL want substitutes to some extent. I don’t think you can really say that. I guess you only want to argue and you keep narrowing down the subject reply by reply and disregard everything else.

That's an anecdote, why do they want them? How much does marketing play a role? How does it correlate with their long-term success? And so on...there are many questions here and very little good data.

And I think "narrowing" is often important, it allows you to see the various assumptions that go into a specific case.

If you’d like to actually have a debate where the intent is to not simply try to prove the other person wrong but to actually have a conversation, you should start your own thread. To be very honest, nothing you’re saying really makes sense and it’s evident you just want to argue. There are three of us questioning you, so...

"So....."...what exactly? Are you suggesting that because 3 people may be "questioning" me that means I'm wrong? But the purpose of debate isn't to prove "a person wrong" but instead to argue for or against some specific position and that is what I've done here. But I'll take this comment as a hint and won't engage you further.

[PsYcHo]

Could you elaborate on this?

That would open a big can of worms on this forum but my point is that vegan extremists are pretty low on the list of why people don't become vegan or their primary objection.

I would have to disagree. If this forum had been full of extremists when I first came here (to see what crazy things the Vegans were saying), I likely would have had a steak or pork chops for dinner tonight, instead of seasoned rice and black-eyed peas. I only started really listening to Vegans here because they weren't aggressive about it, and actually quite welcoming.

[carnap]

I would have to disagree. If this forum had been full of extremists when I first came here (to see what crazy things the Vegans were saying), I likely would have had a steak or pork chops for dinner tonight, instead of seasoned rice and black-eyed peas. I only started really listening to Vegans here because they weren't aggressive about it, and actually quite welcoming.

In what sense does your anecdote refuted what I said? I didn't suggest its never a factor, just that its unlikely one of the top factors. I've seen no research that suggests that "aggressive vegans" is one the primary issues people are having with veganism, its all more significant issues like social factors, difficulty with the diet, disagreement with veganism itself and so on.

[Lay Vegan]

Yes, its purpose is try to mimic the taste of cheese but since the primary function of food is to supply nutrients that doesn't say much.

Why do you think junk food exists? It doesn't adequately provide nutrients but it is palatable, which is why people continue to eat it. The same can be said for most vegan substitutes, like faux meats and faux cheeses. Although most vegan substitutes (like plant milks) can be fortified with nutrients, most the nutrition comes from other sources. You should concede that and stop trying to beat a dead horse for the sake of argument.

Whether its "healthy" or not isn't the key issue here.

No it is not the key issue. You keep making this issue so that you have any argument to counter me with. The key issue is to provide a cheese substitute that tastes enough like dairy cheese to stop dairy consumers from purchasing the product. Calcium and vitamin A, which cheese substitutes have lower amount of, can be obtained through other foods in the diet.

The "nut cheeses" are often just fine nutritionally

You comment would've been great if you ended it there.

because they are more or less just firm nut butters but they also aren't a functional substitute for cheese. The fact that you'd have to get the nutrients from other foods is precisely the issue,

Assuming that people primarily consume cheese for its calcium rather than its taste, it may be temporarily inconvenient. But it isn't an issue, provided that vegan sources of calcium, A, and D are also readily available.

that means the product isn't a functional substitute and a switch from real cheese to "vegan cheese" will require a broader change in diet to maintain a balanced diet.

Any amount of calcium or vitamin A "lost" by not eating cheese an be easily obtained by fortified soy products or a supplement.

I'm dumbfounded. What you're describing is dieting in general. Dairy cheese doesn't provide all of the nutrients one needs, so omnivores must too go to other sources to get their nutrients. How is this any different from vegans? Vegans often seek out cheese substitutes because they enhance the flavor of our food, yet must go to other sources, like leafy greens, fortified foods, or a supplement to meet their nutrient requirements.

A such "vegan cheese" has no real role in people's diet, its a mere fringe product for those that won't a cheese fix but won't or cannot eat cheese.

Correct If enough vegans complain however, companies will likely begin fortifying their cheese.

Precisely...."what vegans want". Not what the Japanese want, what non-vegans want, etc. Its a niche product for vegans and people with dairy allergies.

Evidence?

The reasons I've seen aren't "irrational", for example, if you're against animal testing there isn't anything obviously "irrational" about boycotting a business that actively tests on animals...especially when the product is just junk food in the first place. Some people also prefer to support smaller businesses and do not like when they "sell out" to larger businesses. Overall the reasons don't appear "irrational" from their perspective, they only conflict with your beliefs.

Funny, you were just speaking poorly of boycotts, and saying that they're ineffective in changing company practices. But now you're defending them so you have a counterargument. While you make up your mind, I want you to know that boycotting Daiya cheese is irrational, and will not discourage Otsuka from testing pharmaceuticals on animals. Worst case scenario, they simply drop the Daiya cheese brand due to poor sales, and go on testing their medicine on animals. The only result; less vegan products to sway consumers away from dairy products. And less possibility to reduce animal suffering while normalizing veganism.

And they have similar claims about your position which was my point, the various sects all think the others are wrong on some level and there appears to be very little attempt to get to the bottom of matters.

Do you think all claims are equal? Do you have any ability to reason at all? If I walk into a restaurant, demand that a server change his gloves before serving me, walk back into kitchen and question whether or not my veggie burger was cooked on the same grill as a hamburger, does this normalize veganism? Does this make the restaurant owner think of vegans as ordinary, agreeable people? Will this make him want to serve vegans in the future? It's by analyzing the results of our actions that we are able to decide what is effective and what isn't.

[Lay Vegan]

In what sense does your anecdote refuted what I said? I didn't suggest its never a factor, just that its unlikely one of the top factors. I've seen no research that suggests that "aggressive vegans" is one the primary issues people are having with veganism, its all more significant issues like social factors, difficulty with the diet, disagreement with veganism itself and so on.

All of these are issues "extreme" exacerbate by alienating themselves from everyone and discouraging producers/business owners from providing services to them.

If you'd like to maybe start a separate thread on the other factors (besides dogmatic vegans), I'd love to continue debate there.

[brimstoneSalad]

I was pointed to this convo being quite far off topic from the Original Poster.
It seems to have drifted off into argument over nutrition and junk food too, but I'm not sure where they could be split... it's nice to have threads separate so nobody misses them and it's easy to find the discussions.

Carnap, since you haven't replied yet: When you reply to those off-topic points, if it's not too much trouble, can you please quote Lay Vegan and start a new thread on the issue (linking to the new thread)?
Then just reply here to the topical points to continue this thread.

This is an interesting discussion.

[carnap]

Why do you think junk food exists? It doesn't adequately provide nutrients but it is palatable....

As requested, continued the diet/nutrition related discussion here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3876

Funny, you were just speaking poorly of boycotts, and saying that they're ineffective in changing company practices. But now you're defending them so you have a counterargument. While you make up your mind, I want you to know that boycotting Daiya cheese is irrational, and will not discourage Otsuka from testing pharmaceuticals on animals.

In what sense have I defended boycotts in this thread? All I've said is that I don't think the people are being "irrational", their position typically makes sense given their perspective. You can disagree with some claim or practice without deeming it "irrational".

That is, if one is going to boycott companies because of animal testing then the same sorts of arguments can be giving for boycotting Daiya.

Do you think all claims are equal? Do you have any ability to reason at all? If I walk into a restaurant, demand that a server change his gloves before serving me, walk back into kitchen and question whether or not my veggie burger was cooked on the same grill as a hamburger, does this normalize veganism? Does this make the restaurant owner think of vegans as ordinary, agreeable people? Will this make him want to serve vegans in the future?

Well without evidence in an epistemological sense "all claims are equal"....which is my point here. Everyone has their opinion and intuition but few people are actually trying to demonstrate their views empirically and the end result is endless disagreement from various sects of veganism.

Does it "normalize" veganism when you have to quiz the waiter about whether the bread is vegan and so on? Veganism, as typically practiced, is going to appear nitpicky to people....not just your extreme situation that probably hardly ever happens.

In any case, my general point here is that each sect thinks its the other vegans that are making veganism look bad or harming veganism. I'm not really sure what people on the outside think of all the arguing, would be interesting to get an idea. But you can address specific ideas people support without trying to demonize the people, I reckon the vegans on the "other side" would be offended by the idea that they are "hurting veganism" or animals.