Need career advice (related to veganism)

[TofuRobot]

At least according to this journal:

A plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products.

But I do find it bothersome that there is a plethora of varying definitions floating around. I sued to think it meant a "mostly" plant diet, not an "all" plant diet. Personally, it means an all plant diet to me now, but I only came to that place after being "schooled" by a few people online at some point.

 

[Forest Nymph]

It sounds like we mean different things by "plant based diet". To me it means a mostly vegan diet with small amounts of animal products: dairy, eggs, or meat. To you, plant based diet means what, vegan and vegetarian? If so, what if a reducitarian has one meatball per month but eats only vegan food otherwise while a vegetarian eats cheese every day? In that case, the reducitarian has the more environmentally friendly diet.

How do the studies define "plant based diet"?

Both studies I posted clearly said vegan, if you bothered to look, or are you too busy trolling?

 

[Forest Nymph]

At least according to this journal:

A plant-based diet consists of all minimally processed fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, herbs, and spices and excludes all animal products, including red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy products.

But I do find it bothersome that there is a plethora of varying definitions floating around. I sued to think it meant a "mostly" plant diet, not an "all" plant diet. Personally, it means an all plant diet to me now, but I only came to that place after being "schooled" by a few people online at some point.

The studies I posted both say vegan and scientific research has to clarify if something is 100% plant based or less than that. Words like reducetarian and flexitarian are meaningless because to some people that's once a day, once a week or once a month.

Frankly if someone ate "one meatball" a month I'd call them a liar not a vegan or a flexitarian. But I can't control what anyone else does sparingly in private. No one can. The Catholic church has tried it to no avail.

What I can do is educate people about the dangers of animal agriculture to the environment and show them how easy plant based can be. It's not hard to clarify "meat free" to an environmental organization, or that I mean optimally veganism and minimally vegetarianism. In the event that I worked with marginalized groups instead I would be more focused on accessibility in their communities to plant based foods which is a factor of environmental justice and would be easiest to facilitate in LA. If I stayed here my objective would be to purge hypocrisy from environmental organizations.

 

[nobody]

What I can do is educate people about the dangers of animal agriculture to the environment and show them how easy plant based can be.

You can do this more effectively if you don't use language like "plant based diets for environmental reasons".

What you're doing is like what some American slavery abolitionists did, which is argue for the emanicapation of the slaves for economic and strategic rather than moral reasons. I don't think it is a truthful tactic. For example, the American slaves should have been freed because slavery is wrong, not because doing so put the north at an advantage over the south or anything like that.

The impending doom of a global warming tipping point does not change the fact that animal exploitation should end because it is wrong morally. All you have to do to make this work is not say that the environment is the reason people should change their diet. Educate them about the dangers of animal agriculture and show them how easy a vegan diet can be, and after all that, tell them to not change their diet for the reasons you just described in great detail. Tell them to do it because it is the right thing to do anyway. It can be the payoff to your whole presentation.

 

[TofuRobot]

@nobody - IMO, we reach different people different ways. That's just a fact. I personally don't care what rationale one uses, as long as they use it. Why? Because either of the other 2 rationales almost always leads to the ethics/morality of it. I became pescatarian for health reasons. 25 yrs later, health was probably the initial reason for giving up fish, eggs, and dairy, but the instant I made that decision, it was logical to be vegan. I could no longer participate in the violence because I finally saw it as completely unnecessary. Like many others, I continued to eat fish and eggs because I believed there were health benefits of doing so. I at backyard eggs only, toward the end, and tried to buy all the "sustainable" fish options. I knew fish were animals and was quick to correct someone calling me vegan (it happened a lot), but the belief that it was a necessary part of our diet won for a long time. In short - I thought I was doing the right thing. Of course I know now that I wasn't, but vegan for moral reasons at the expense of my health wasn't enough to push me towards veganism. I'm just being honest. ...I understand the desire to try to reach people based on morality or ethics alone, but it's a lofty goal because the fact is I don't think most people are going to get there based on that alone, not from where I sit. It's difficult just to get people to care about their health enough to change what they eat. SO, if appealing to concern for the environment is the way to do that for a large chunk of people, I'm all for it.

 

[Forest Nymph]

You can do this more effectively if you don't use language like "plant based diets for environmental reasons".

What you're doing is like what some American slavery abolitionists did, which is argue for the emanicapation of the slaves for economic and strategic rather than moral reasons. I don't think it is a truthful tactic. For example, the American slaves should have been freed because slavery is wrong, not because doing so put the north at an advantage over the south or anything like that.

The impending doom of a global warming tipping point does not change the fact that animal exploitation should end because it is wrong morally. All you have to do to make this work is not say that the environment is the reason people should change their diet. Educate them about the dangers of animal agriculture and show them how easy a vegan diet can be, and after all that, tell them to not change their diet for the reasons you just described in great detail. Tell them to do it because it is the right thing to do anyway. It can be the payoff to your whole presentation.

Lol. I have gone to animal rights protests. I wear PETA tees or hoodie once a week or more. I tell everyone I'm vegan. I have a huge quarter wall Animal Liberation Front poster hanging in my room. When I lived on campus I hung it on my door for maximum views despite it curling the very edges. I used to belong to a non vegan forum where I kept a small blog on helpful information for going vegan. When I worked on a campground I made sure that the first thing my boss saw if she came through my cabin door was Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. I gave one of my final presentations on animal agriculture and climate change. I told coworkers two days ago the humane way to kill a chicken was to not kill it.

Who do you think you are? What's your job, your goals, are you an activist? Because if you're not you really have got to be trolling.

There are lots of people saying animals are the only reason to go vegan. And despite animal agriculture being a huge polluter and cause of climate change, lots of environmentalists thinking they can still go to In n Out on weekends or eat more poultry because vegans are weird extremists.

I actually want to solve problems and I am being truthful. It's ALL WRONG. Climate change hurts animals too. My precise reason for doing this is to steer people away from delusional flexitarianism. The fact that you think that's what I'm talking about is annoying after I've made multiple posts and you blatantly did not read the studies I provided.

 

[nobody]

My precise reason for doing this is to steer people away from delusional flexitarianism. The fact that you think that's what I'm talking about is annoying after I've made multiple posts and you blatantly did not read the studies I provided.

I didn't read them because you only posted them as evidence against something I wasn't saying anyway. You say you want to promote "veganism" but if you use the environment as the reason people should change, you are inherently promoting something you did not intend to promote, an environmentally conscious diet, which may or may not be vegan, so it completely weakens your message. People can use their imaginations to dream up ways to exploit animals in ways that will not harm the environment. You should look at what the Nowegians are working on with regards to those fish farm buildings. The ones they're coming out with in the near future are going to be very sustainable. You want to educate the public about factory farming and commercial fishing. Those two things cause global warming but hunting and sports fishing don't. And hunting causes the deer populations to rise due to unnatural selection of males, which is an ecological problem, but hunting doesn't cause global warming at least so your message promotes hunting even though that is on the other side of the universe from what you actually intended. Even though you're saying "go vegan", since it is because of the environment, it leaves hunting and fishing on the table. Hunting is very popular where I live and some people do not buy any meat at all in the stores, all their meat comes from hunting. But they do buy dairy and eggs.

So let's say you were talking to a group of meat eating environmentalists. You tell them about the effects of animal agriculture and how easy a vegan diet is. You don't have to connect the dots and explicitly say the environment is the reason to change, and that is all I've been saying. It's a subtle difference. Not saying the environment is the reason to change makes the whole thing airtight, but if you say it's the reason you open the floodgates to whatever ways of exploitng animals without harming the environment people dream up.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I didn't read them because you only posted them as evidence against something I wasn't saying anyway. You say you want to promote "veganism" but if you use the environment as the reason people should change, you are inherently promoting something you did not intend to promote, an environmentally conscious diet, which may or may not be vegan, so it completely weakens your message. People can use their imaginations to dream up ways to exploit animals in ways that will not harm the environment. You should look at what the Nowegians are working on with regards to those fish farm buildings. The ones they're coming out with in the near future are going to be very sustainable. You want to educate the public about factory farming and commercial fishing. Those two things cause global warming but hunting and sports fishing don't. And hunting causes the deer populations to rise due to unnatural selection of males, which is an ecological problem, but hunting doesn't cause global warming at least so your message promotes hunting even though that is on the other side of the universe from what you actually intended. Even though you're saying "go vegan", since it is because of the environment, it leaves hunting and fishing on the table. Hunting is very popular where I live and some people do not buy any meat at all in the stores, all their meat comes from hunting. But they do buy dairy and eggs.

So let's say you were talking to a group of meat eating environmentalists. You tell them about the effects of animal agriculture and how easy a vegan diet is. You don't have to connect the dots and explicitly say the environment is the reason to change, and that is all I've been saying. It's a subtle difference. Not saying the environment is the reason to change makes the whole thing airtight, but if you say it's the reason you open the floodgates to whatever ways of exploitng animals without harming the environment people dream up.

No you didn't read them because you're disrespectful and determined to scream in an echo chamber. I don't live in Norway, but even if I did, their promises to make fish farming eco friendly are as of yet farts in the wind. I'm frankly tired of this idiotic display of mansplaining when this is my actual area of academic study.

 

[nobody]

SO, if appealing to concern for the environment is the way to do that for a large chunk of people, I'm all for it.

I am all for it too. But I think if you use certain words when talking about it, it kind of sells animal rights out and weakens the argument, like if you say the environment is the primary reason that people should take action today and make a change, for example, when the real reason is animal rights. So I think it's better to omit phrases like that.

 

[Forest Nymph]

I am all for it too. But I think if you use certain words when talking about it, it kind of sells animal rights out and weakens the argument, like if you say the environment is the primary reason that people should take action today and make a change, for example, when the real reason is animal rights. So I think it's better to omit phrases like that.

You still haven't answered what you do, if anything, to help anyone.

Should Dr. Alex Hershaft, founder of Farm Animal Rights Movement rethink his career as an activist since someone might fish instead?

Should Mr. and Mrs. James Cameron shut down their all vegan environmentally focused schools since the neighbors MIGHT hunt?


You don't even know what you're talking about. That's what is so utterly obnoxious. If you read the studies and asked for or sought more instead of merely Googling fish farms, maybe you'd comprehend my position.

How has explaining animal rights to your hunting neighbors worked out for ya? No love? That's why other approaches have to be taken until they get it. IF they ever get it.

 

[nobody]

I actually want to solve problems and I am being truthful. It's ALL WRONG. Climate change hurts animals too.

Imagine there is a guy who owns a jet that uses tons of fuel on each trip and he goes up there with unsuspecting women so he can rape them. The global warming induced by the emissions from this aircraft will harm the women in the future, so the man is harming the women in this indirect way, but also directly by raping them, which is much worse and more wrong because it is direct violence against a sentient being, and so is animal exploitation. So it is not all wrong equally.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Imagine there is a guy who owns a jet that uses tons of fuel on each trip and he goes up there with unsuspecting women so he can rape them. The global warming induced by the emissions from this aircraft will harm the women in the future, so the man is harming the women in this indirect way, but also directly by raping them, which is much worse and more wrong because it is direct violence against a sentient being, and so is animal exploitation. So it is not all wrong equally.

Yes it's all wrong equally. How can you possibly not understand that. Factory farms and cattle ranches eradicate wildlife habitat and directly kill and starve out various species. A person who doesn't eat farmed animals helps lessen the number of animals slaughtered no matter their reasons. People and animals are literally dying right now from environmental harm already, including extreme weather events as a result of climate change.

I'm guessing you're not a big picture thinker. That's fine you'd be very useful in animal rights activism so you should go do that. Meanwhile your most intelligent course of action would probably be to shut up.

 

[nobody]

Yes it's all wrong equally. How can you possibly not understand that. Factory farms and cattle ranches eradicate wildlife habitat and directly kill and starve out various species. A person who doesn't eat farmed animals helps lessen the number of animals slaughtered no matter their reasons. People and animals are literally dying right now from environmental harm already, including extreme weather events as a result of climate change.

On second thought, I think you're probably wrong that it is equally bad and I was also wrong for saying that the direct violence in the slaughterhouses and fishing vessels is worse morally than the environmental degradation caused. What makes something bad morally is if it causes suffering and the effects of climate change will be playing out over at least a thousand years causing suffering the whole time. So if we're being brutally honest, it can be worse morally to destroy the environment than to physically harm an individual or group directly.

However, when there is a victim being directly assaulted, you don't say that the reason for change is the environment or anything else because it's disrespectful to the direct victims. For example, the guy raping women on his jet is likely causing more suffering by flying the plane than by raping the women. I mean go back to the raw materials needed to build the jet. How many miners died in accidents to procure those raw materials and how many animals were killed or displaced because of those mining operations? And there are all the emission resulting from the manufacture of the jet. And then you have to build a runway and cull Canada geese around it so they don't go into the engines during landing or take off and crash the plane. And the emissions from the aircraft will help to push us into a global warming tipping point which will lead to the suffering of billions for thousands of years.

But when women are being raped on an airplane you don't say the flights should stop for the environmental reasons. You don't say it, even if it is true that flying the plane will cause more suffering overall, and even if all kinds of educated people are saying it.

During the holocaust, the Nazis created a lot of emissions and displaced a lot of animals building the concentration camps and railroads leading to them, etc. It's quite possible that the cumulative effect of all the coal burning etc. the Nazis did will or has lead to more suffering than that experienced by the direct victims of the genocide. But obviously, the environmental pollution committed by the Nazis is completely inappropriate to talk about as a reason why the Nazis needed to be stopped. And that is how I feel about it when it comes to using the environment as a reason to end animal exploitation. Just my little lay opinion - I'm not an expert but that is my 2 cents.

 

[Forest Nymph]

On second thought, I think you're probably wrong that it is equally bad and I was also wrong for saying that the direct violence in the slaughterhouses and fishing vessels is worse morally than the environmental degradation caused. What makes something bad morally is if it causes suffering and the effects of climate change will be playing out over at least a thousand years causing suffering the whole time. So if we're being brutally honest, it can be worse morally to destroy the environment than to physically harm an individual or group directly.

However, when there is a victim being directly assaulted, you don't say that the reason for change is the environment or anything else because it's disrespectful to the direct victims. For example, the guy raping women on his jet is likely causing more suffering by flying the plane than by raping the women. I mean go back to the raw materials needed to build the jet. How many miners died in accidents to procure those raw materials and how many animals were killed or displaced because of those mining operations? And there are all the emission resulting from the manufacture of the jet. And then you have to build a runway and cull Canada geese around it so they don't go into the engines during landing or take off and crash the plane. And the emissions from the aircraft will help to push us into a global warming tipping point which will lead to the suffering of billions for thousands of years.

But when women are being raped on an airplane you don't say the flights should stop for the environmental reasons. You don't say it, even if it is true that flying the plane will cause more suffering overall, and even if all kinds of educated people are saying it.

During the holocaust, the Nazis created a lot of emissions and displaced a lot of animals building the concentration camps and railroads leading to them, etc. It's quite possible that the cumulative effect of all the coal burning etc. the Nazis did will or has lead to more suffering than that experienced by the direct victims of the genocide. But obviously, the environmental pollution committed by the Nazis is completely inappropriate to talk about as a reason why the Nazis needed to be stopped. And that is how I feel about it when it comes to using the environment as a reason to end animal exploitation. Just my little lay opinion - I'm not an expert but that is my 2 cents.

At this point I don't care how you feel about it. You are a 47 year old man rambling on like a drunk 22 year-old mansplaining to me either things I already know or about things you blatantly misunderstand because you're not paying attention.

The fact that you think you have to explain animal rights to me is bizarre. It's not seeming to get through your thick head that I am trying to reach other people not myself.

I've already explained and posted studies and etc.

Frankly I think you need to go become a serious activist yourself before you scrutinize what I'm doing. Your metaphors don't even make sense at this point.

 

[veganDreama]

They're in my closet with two leather jackets which I haven't put on since going vegan and would never. I'm not sure what to do wth them.

You could donate them to a charity shop. At least in the UK they have plenty of charity shops. Just don't choose one like cancer research with funds animal testing.

 

[veganDreama]

FN: I wish you luck trying to get people to stop eating meat for environmental reasons. I'm vegan for ethnical reasons. If the cruelty in factory farming doesn't move people, will the destruction of the environment move people more?

 

[Veganite]

*Sighs*

You all know who you are and where this is going. Please just calm down and keep your discussion civil and intelligent. I take no pleasure in closing threads, but once they go off the rails, you clearly leave me no other choice. So you decide if you want to discuss or argue. That's all I'm going to say.


*

 

[Forest Nymph]

FN: I wish you luck trying to get people to stop eating meat for environmental reasons. I'm vegan for ethnical reasons. If the cruelty in factory farming doesn't move people, will the destruction of the environment move people more?

I think so because a lot of humanists are speciesist, so even if they won't do it for animals they'll do it for children or themselves. I think there are the health people and the "people people" and a chunk of environmentalists are into social justice and they literally use "traditional cultures" or marginalized groups as an excuse to not be vegan or even vegetarian. Telling those same people they're harming poor children or even adults in developing countries will get through to them more.

It's manipulative yes but so is Ingrid Newkirk. A lot of what PETA does is psychological strategy. But at the same time eating animals does destroy the earth, I'm not being dishonest in any way, and I do see it as all connected. The underlying wrong is wrong. It's all speciesist. Wildlife and endangered species are animals too.

 

[Emma JC]

A 'whole food plant based' lifestyle is a vegan diet and most WFPBed vegans limit their intake of SOS added salts oils and sugars. Plant based means a diet that is based on plants. Not plants and some animal products. All diets could then be considered plant based, under your definition, as very few people eat only animals and animal products.

Emma JC

 

[Forest Nymph]

A 'whole food plant based' lifestyle is a vegan diet and most WFPBed vegans limit their intake of SOS added salts oils and sugars. Plant based means a diet that is based on plants. Not plants and some animal products. All diets could then be considered plant based, under your definition, as very few people eat only animals and animal products.

Emma JC

No they couldn't. Where are you getting this from, I'm not doing this again, please read the studies. Thanks.