View source for Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism

==1. Logically invalid arguments==
Logically invalid arguments run from simple fallacies like appeals to nature (what is natural is not necessarily good), or appeals to disgust (what is subjectively gross isn't necessarily wrong), to more complicated attempts at formal arguments that are logically invalid such as [[NameTheTrait]].<br>
Anybody with capacity for rational thought can understand that invalid logic is a problem in argumentation, at least with an intelligent opponent.
What makes it so harmful is that many people will reject a conclusion because the logic was invalid, and even assume the opposite (Look at how many people are atheists simply because Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy, or some other theistic argument is bad). It's a risk with little benefit, particularly since the internet is where bad arguments come to die. Even less intelligent people who are initially fooled by the argument can easily come across a debunk (hopefully from a vegan who points them to better arguments, not a carnist who tells them to eat meat and that all vegans are lying to them).

==2. Obvious pro-vegan Pseudoscience==
Claims that humans can not digest meat, or that veganism is a cure-all are extreme examples. More commonly the examples are only obvious to people with some basic knowledge in the field like What The Health's bad claims that have been broadly debunked by vegans and non-vegans alike.

<blockquote>the fact is that it’s not possible to defend this film [What The Health] against the thoughtful and informed criticisms. Not from a scientific point of view anyway. And there is little to be gained by making weak, exposed efforts to defend bad science when we are being called out on it.
Instead, I think it is crucial to let the world know that this kind of junk science does not represent the vegan movement and should not be associated with animal rights. To that end, we need to hear critical perspectives about this film from vegans, not just from anti-vegans. -Ginny Messina [http://www.theveganrd.com/2017/07/a-science-based-and-vegan-perspective-on-the-new-what-the-health-documentary/]</blockquote>

==3. Misrepresenting non-vegans.==
When speaking to them it shows bad faith, and within the vegan sphere it just makes us less effective (We need to "know our enemy", that is the beliefs, and not create myths about the real motivations).<br>
We need more nuance and sympathy in understanding the psychology of carnism, and we need to stop seeing these people as monsters just because a vocal minority say reactionary things on the internet (which are usually more trolling than sincerity).
Talk to people who say vegans are the worst ever, and you'll find people who don't consider animals valueless and have interest in moral theory, but have some legitimate criticism of bad vegan claims.<br>
We also have to understand that when people try to explain their obstacles to going vegan, they aren't always just lying or making excuses to avoid the responsibility of going vegan: sometimes they have legitimate challenges, and ignoring their circumstances isn't useful (see [[Native Peoples]] for an example).

==4. Bad moral theory.==
Not explicitly invalid arguments, but those based on dubious and impractical moral theory, particularly with absolutist implications.
<br>
A good example is The second half of #[[NameTheTrait]], which if you correct the logical mistakes by adding in missing premises is deontological and a problem in itself.
<br>
This isn't exclusive to veganism, but exists in feminism (#NotAllFeminists) and social justice causes too. Mostly referring to deontology and its derivatives like the Subject/Object dichotomy[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/].
There are also a lot of very bad intuitionistic arguments out there; so many in fact that people confuse them for being the only argument for veganism. These are a particularly big problem when they are meant to be rationally compelling, because these moral theories only follow from intuition you can not per se reason another person into them unless you get lucky and they happen to share your intuitions.<br>
As an example of the common reaction against such intuitionistic arguments:
<blockquote>The vegetarian motivated by ethics, then, is the very rare person who has come to see all animals in the manner that we see some animals – pets – and in which we see all people. The ways in which this can happen are, as already mentioned, haphazard and many, but one way in which Diamond has shown us it does not happen, is by virtue of the ethical vegetarian having noticed that the animal in question has certain morally relevant characteristics and having concluded from that fact, that it must be inviolable. And having come into being in this sort of way, it also is hardly something that can be prescribed to others, which is why, among all the things that Diamond dislikes about the ethical vegetarian movement, its often “nagging, moralistic tone” is one of the things she dislikes about it the most, a feeling that I certainly share.<br>-Daniel Kaufman[https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3665&p=35497#p35497]</blockquote>
Intuitionistic and similar moral theories are thus not linked as functions to normative conclusions: it makes them as useless to rational activism as emotionally charged assertions. Some might agree with them by chance, but they aren't compelling arguments, and IF you use them and people reject them the very last thing you must be is insistent or offended.<br>
Thus our focus on naturalistic realism: something that does provide functions for discussing and arriving and normative beliefs without the bias of variable intuition.
<br><br>
If you're not very well versed in philosophy, and particularly if you don't understand the difference between moral theory that yields conclusions from deduction and one that can not, it's best to stick with empirical arguments (Like just talking about the facts of animal agriculture, or climate change, which are all strong on their own without any philosophical claims).

==5. Claiming vegan as THE moral baseline==
(this usually follows from or is substantiated by bad moral theory, but sometimes it's just a double standard rather than being based on any specific philosophical malpractice).<br>
That is, saying people *have to* go vegan, but not accepting personal responsibility to go *beyond* vegan and do even less harm or more good for the world. Either way, this ends up looking hypocritical, and is very difficult to substantiate with sound moral theory. To do right it would need empirical argument, which we rarely make, or we have to interpret the definition of veganism quite liberally which can make it less useful as a simple heuristic.<br>
It also creates unnecessary ideological conflict and insult of vegetarians and reducetarians who are working to do better; the holier than thou approach isn't very attractive, and it gives vegans a bad name. Vegan is a good heuristic, but we have to be measured when we declare that and recognize its limitations.

==6. Loudly advocating unrelated fringe claims==
From Flat-Earth[https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1829] & Moon-Landing-Hoax theories[https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=3534] to "murder should be legal" style anarchism[https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=3242&start=10#p31823] to alt-med claims (anti-vax, anti "big pharma", enemas to cure cancer, etc.) or even Nazism (see [[Racism in Veganism]]).<br>
Vegans tend to think outside the box, for some that's how they became vegan, but this same readiness to buck convention can lead them into some other crazy beliefs very easily which make veganism look bad when they're vocally advocated along side veganism.
It may be impossible to fix these people, but it may be possible to convince them to keep these alternative beliefs on the back burner since they're just "too far ahead of their time, and people just aren't ready for it yet" and avoid associating them with veganism.

If you hold beliefs that you know are fringe beliefs, it doesn't matter how right you think they are, associating them with veganism can be harmful and it's important to keep that in mind.

==7. Being overly emotional.==
It's important to care, it provides motivation, but getting too caught up in empathy for animals can cause us to become bitter or impatient.<br>
ANIMALS ARE DYING! Yes, and it's terrible, but in order to serve them best we need to stay cool so we can be effective activists, so we can empathize with non-vegans and not get insulted by their troubles which pale in comparison to the suffering of animals. It's why it's probably a bad idea for vegan activists to spend too much time working with animals or watching footage of animal suffering (even if it's very important for non-vegans to see, since it can shock some of them into changing) -- and it could even desensitize us so it won't work anymore once we need it for motivation, like if we're having trouble or relapsing.<br>
We need to have a better grasp on our own psychologies, and how that affects our behavior and capacity to be good activists.
Sometimes it may be useful to be a little provocative to get attention, but make sure that's an informed choice and not driven by emotional bias, and make sure you can consciously dial it back once you engage with somebody. Don't channel rage for outreach, channel strategy.