Confessions of an ex-ex-vegan

January 15, 2010

I often speak and write about how advocacy focused on suffering leads

logically to interest in humane meat, dairy, and eggs (most recently

here: http://bit.ly/7ZQJvj ). It's a subtle point and I'm not sure I

convey it well, so I thought you might be interested in reading one

person's story about how she moved from being against the use of

non-human animals, to being against their suffering, and back to being

against their use. From Mary Martin:

------------------------

Confessions of an ex-ex-vegan: http://bit.ly/5Qmvsm

I stopped using animals in the late 1980s. I didn’t think it was right

to eat or wear cows if I wasn’t going to eat or wear my childhood cat,

Brady. Life was filled with cheeseless pizza and bad shoes. But I was

straightedge so it’s not as if being fashionable or even mainstream was

interesting to me. My hair was 1/4 inch long, save for long bangs. I

wore vinyl combat boots and had a black-only wardrobe.

I only wish I had a picture of me back in the day.

When I met other people at college who didn’t use animals, I discovered

that they focused on veal and fur. Their primary interest in their

outreach (which they did constantly) was educating people about the

horrors of certain uses of animals. And though I had no idea it was

happening at the time, I went from being someone who didn’t believe we

had the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering.

Now, I lived in Manhattan, so this nuance didn’t affect my lifestyle in

any way. I was still a vegan.

Ten years later, when I found myself in a very vegan-unfriendly

environment but with access to pricey “grass-fed,” “free-range” cow

products, I convinced myself that it would be okay to eat filet mignon

because of the alleged better treatment of the cows. And because of

their natural diet. And because they had all of those green fields to

roam. And because they wouldn’t be pumped with hormones or steroids or

antibiotics. And because filet mignon wasn’t a processed food.

And because by that time the idea of creating someone just to kill them

for food wasn’t what I was thinking about. I was concentrating on

reducing suffering, and buying the grass-fed cut of cow was, in my mind,

a reduction of suffering over the factory farmed cut. In other words, I

am here to tell you, from personal experience, that when your focus is

suffering instead of use, you can always find a way to use animals. You

can always convince yourself that what you’re

doing/buying/eating/wearing is better than the alternative.

------------------------

Another interesting read is the post that sparked this one, " Stop the

Fight Against Factory Farming, Save the Animal Rights Movement " (

http://bit.ly/7Cz28F ) This post, by the former blogger at

animalrights.change.org, offers more evidence that, far from being an

isolated experience, the switch from vegetarianism to local, humane

animal products is part of a growing trend and how this trend comes out

of a focus on suffering and factory farms instead of on the use of

others without their free consent.

It is an interesting time for veganism.

Victor

--

The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/

Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/

January 15, 2010

"I went from being someone who didn’t believe we had the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering."

It is simple nonesense to me that simply because I focus on reducing the suffering of animals that I would not care about their use in anyway shape or form. The majority of vegans I know involved in advocacy think like this. We focus on suffering. I have been focusing on reducing the suffering of animals through anti-factory farming advocacy for 2 1/2 years now and I am just as staunchly opposed to the use of animals as I was in the beginning. There is no reason the two ideas cannot co-exist; they do not pose any logical inconsistency. It simply sounds like weakness on behalf of the author and they used the concept of reducing suffering to justify their own misgivings. If they wanted to eat animals they would figure out a way how, so they simply decided that they wanted to eat animals. Why would you believe that animals are not OURS and then one day that they are? Because there is no suffering? This is bad logic.

Also what this fails to mention is the suffering/cruelty involved in death without consent. One focused on suffering/cruelty would realize that killing an animal before nature intends is cruel, no matter how sweetly you do it. (I am using the words suffering/cruelty together for a reason, because most "suffering" based advocacy also focuses on "cruelty", and I think that they are intertwined) Brian GrupeNorthern California Outreach CoordinatorVegan OutreachPlease visit: www.adoptacollege.org > > victor Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:34:42 -0800> Confessions of an ex-ex-vegan> > I often speak and write about how advocacy focused on suffering leads > logically to interest in humane meat, dairy, and eggs (most recently > here: http://bit.ly/7ZQJvj ). It's a subtle point and I'm not sure I > convey it well, so I thought you might be interested in reading one > person's story about how she moved from being against the use of > non-human animals, to being against their suffering, and back to being > against their use. From Mary Martin:> ------------------------> Confessions of an ex-ex-vegan: http://bit.ly/5Qmvsm> > I stopped using animals in the late 1980s. I didn’t think it was right > to eat or wear cows if I wasn’t going to eat or wear my childhood cat, > Brady. Life was filled with cheeseless pizza and bad shoes. But I was > straightedge so it’s not as if being fashionable or even mainstream was > interesting to me. My hair was 1/4 inch long, save for long bangs. I > wore vinyl combat boots and had a black-only wardrobe.> > I only wish I had a picture of me back in the day.> > When I met other people at college who didn’t use animals, I discovered > that they focused on veal and fur. Their primary interest in their > outreach (which they did constantly) was educating people about the > horrors of certain uses of animals. And though I had no idea it was > happening at the time, I went from being someone who didn’t believe we > had the right to use animals, to someone more concerned with suffering. > Now, I lived in Manhattan, so this nuance didn’t affect my lifestyle in > any way. I was still a vegan.> > Ten years later, when I found myself in a very vegan-unfriendly > environment but with access to pricey “grass-fed,” “free-range” cow > products, I convinced myself that it would be okay to eat filet mignon > because of the alleged better treatment of the cows. And because of > their natural diet. And because they had all of those green fields to > roam. And because they wouldn’t be pumped with hormones or steroids or > antibiotics. And because filet mignon wasn’t a processed food.> > And because by that time the idea of creating someone just to kill them > for food wasn’t what I was thinking about. I was concentrating on > reducing suffering, and buying the grass-fed cut of cow was, in my mind, > a reduction of suffering over the factory farmed cut. In other words, I > am here to tell you, from personal experience, that when your focus is > suffering instead of use, you can always find a way to use animals. You > can always convince yourself that what you’re > doing/buying/eating/wearing is better than the alternative.> ------------------------> > Another interesting read is the post that sparked this one, "Stop the > Fight Against Factory Farming, Save the Animal Rights Movement" ( > http://bit.ly/7Cz28F ) This post, by the former blogger at > animalrights.change.org, offers more evidence that, far from being an > isolated experience, the switch from vegetarianism to local, humane > animal products is part of a growing trend and how this trend comes out > of a focus on suffering and factory farms instead of on the use of > others without their free consent.> > It is an interesting time for veganism.> > Victor> > -- > The Vegan Ideal: http://veganideal.org/> Veganism as Anti-Oppression: http://loveallbeings.org/> > > > ---> > .........................................................> .........................................................> : BAY AREA VEGETARIANS BayAreaVeg.org : > : Charter/Post Guidelines http://bayareaveg.org/charter :> : Events Calendar - http://bayareaveg.org/events :> : Newsletter - http://bayareaveg.org/news :> : Ultimate Guide - http://bayareaveg.org/ug :> : Veg Food Finder - http://bayareaveg.org/finder :> : Volunteer - http://bayareaveg.org/volunteer.htm :> .........................................................> .........................................................

January 17, 2010

Mary Martin's story about how she moved from being against the use of

non-human animals, to being against their suffering, and back to being

against their use, sounds rather odd to me. For me being opposed to the use of animals and being opposed to causing them suffering go hand-in-hand. I became a vegan because I was opposed to causing suffering to other animals. Based of my opposition to causing them suffering I

naturally became opposed to their use, as I realized that use is abuse. Sounds like when Mary Martin decided to eat filet mignon she didn't have a clear understanding of what causes animals suffering.Pat Cuviello

January 18, 2010

Great responses from Victor and others.

Pat said something interesting:

"For me being opposed to the use of animals and being opposed to causing them suffering go hand-in-hand. I became a vegan because I was opposed to causing suffering to other animals. Based of my opposition to causing them suffering I naturally became opposed to their use, as I realized that use is abuse"

This is almost EVERY single conversion story out there of the vegans/activists that I know.

I absolutely wouldn't be opposed to a huge campaign that advocated an anti-use stance, but I'm also not opposed to huge campaigns that advocate anti-suffering because like Pat, I think there is much to be said about how hand in hand they go, and how the public view the two stances. Despite the cognitive dissonance it creates within us, the activists, of trying to reconcile these two perspectives, it is important to not ignore what has worked in changing so many. I'm excited to see what could be done in the future for animals with a reasonable anti-use based campaign alongside anti-suffering campaigns already in place.

Brian GrupeNorthern California Outreach CoordinatorVegan OutreachPlease visit: www.adoptacollege.org

From: pcuvieDate: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:29:49 -0800 RE: Confessions of an ex-ex-vegan

Mary Martin's story about how she moved from being against the use of non-human animals, to being against their suffering, and back to being against their use, sounds rather odd to me. For me being opposed to the use of animals and being opposed to causing them suffering go hand-in-hand. I became a vegan because I was opposed to causing suffering to other animals. Based of my opposition to causing them suffering I naturally became opposed to their use, as I realized that use is abuse. Sounds like when Mary Martin decided to eat filet mignon she didn't have a clear understanding of what causes animals suffering.Pat Cuviello

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.