PETA--accuracy vs. truth

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Linda Evans, for picking up on my error -- I just now

double checked my copy of his book (which I guess I should have

done to begin with) and, yes, it's _Diet for a New America_.

 

As for the rest of your e-mail, let me clarify (since it seems

I failed to do this adequately the first time through): I am

NOT questioning the RIGHT that PETA, John Robbins, etc. have

to choose the strategies they use or say what they want to say.

I am only questioning the EFFECTIVENESS of their tactics as a

long-term strategy for persuading more people to become vegan.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that we need more harmony in the vegetarian/AR

community. However, I think it's a mistake to conflate " harmony "

with " never offering constructive criticism of the tactics others

choose in advancing the movement. " I think it's valid and necessary

to discuss and analyze the effectiveness of various tactics. All the

organizations you mention have things they can learn from each other.

This learning process can only occur with open, honest discussion

in which people show each other respect. In other words, something

in between the heated contentionism that frequently take over other

vegetarian lists I've seen and complete silence.

 

Also, this discussion began in the first place because I had recommended

caution in choosing what sources to consult for nutrional sources.

An individual or organization can be tremendously effective and

positive for the veg/AR movement and still not be an accurate source

of nutritional information. PETA has some great resources up on their

web site (I just took a look). That doesn't make them the best resource to

consult when making nutritional decisions that will affect my long-term health.

Robbins is a very inspirational writer, which is probably why he has converted

so many vegetarians. That doesn't make him the best nutritional

advisor either. I also would never use his arguments related to

the environment when speaking with any expert knowledgeable enough

to see all the inaccuracies in his data. I made that mistake once

in my early veg days (with my father) and the discussion was a miserable

flop. I suspect it also made my parents more resistent to hearing

any further environment-related arguments. Yes, Robbins has the right

to write what he wants. And, yes, with many people he HAS been spectacularly

effective. However, I'm saying that with SOME people, particularly those

who know enough to see how weak his information is, he has been

COUNTERproductive.

 

Andrea

red_trek