Learning from former vegetarians

January 16, 2010

Hello Brian,

Yes, of course caring about suffering doesn't preclude caring about use.

The author didn't argue that. Caring about suffering, however, does not

imply caring about use, so if we frame the problem in terms of

suffering, then the people affected by our advocacy may very rightly

switch to humane animal products to reduce the suffering. And in the

case of vegetarians, as in Mary Martin's story, constantly repeating the

suffering mantra may subtly shift our thinking so we find ourselves

endorsing or consuming humanely breeding, raising, and killing non-human

animals.

I don't think dismissing Mary as weak is helpful. She went from

vegetarian to omnivore. That fact alone is enough for me to stop and

think hard about her story. What reasons did she have? Can we learn

something from her story to improve our advocacy?

If you read the articles I cited, you'll find this quote from the New

York Press about how NY's Red Bamboo restaurant is no longer vegetarian:

" People were encouraged to avoid meat with scary PETA videos and horror

stories about factory farming, but these days, newly carnivorous New

Yorkers are able to cushion their consciousnesses with locally grown,

free range and all-around-happy meat. It’s guiltfree grub, and there’s

no shortage of eaters buying into it. "

We can choose to read these and other stories about former vegetarians*

now eating meat, find reasons to ignore them, and continue business as

usual. Or, we can choose to accept that this is actually happening,

notice that these stories all revolve around suffering and cruelty, and

deeply examine our advocacy's role in this phenomenon. Being responsive

to new information is a sign of vibrancy and while facing these

challenges may mean leaving behind the familiar, our advocacy will be

the stronger for it.

Victor

* And, in my case, personal accounts from multiple omnivorous friends

who are consciously choosing humane meat over vegetarianism.

Brian wrote:

" 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. ... 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.

--

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

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

January 16, 2010

What about FORMER in the sense of those vegetarians who died long ago

- as vegetarians.,

Rynn Berry reconstructs what he thinks they may have said, thought,

and done, but if we are to do oral history today to preserve the

advice and memories of those vegetarians who have done much to make

our vegetarian lives what they are today, we will in the future be

able to learn from 'former vegetarians' in the sense of their being

vegetarians (who died as vegetarians) but who formerly lived.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Victor Tsou <victor wrote:

> Hello Brian,

>

> Yes, of course caring about suffering doesn't preclude caring about use.

> The author didn't argue that. Caring about suffering, however, does not

> imply caring about use, so if we frame the problem in terms of

> suffering, then the people affected by our advocacy may very rightly

> switch to humane animal products to reduce the suffering. And in the

> case of vegetarians, as in Mary Martin's story, constantly repeating the

> suffering mantra may subtly shift our thinking so we find ourselves

> endorsing or consuming humanely breeding, raising, and killing non-human

> animals.

>

> I don't think dismissing Mary as weak is helpful. She went from

> vegetarian to omnivore. That fact alone is enough for me to stop and

> think hard about her story. What reasons did she have? Can we learn

> something from her story to improve our advocacy?

>

> If you read the articles I cited, you'll find this quote from the New

> York Press about how NY's Red Bamboo restaurant is no longer vegetarian:

> " People were encouraged to avoid meat with scary PETA videos and horror

> stories about factory farming, but these days, newly carnivorous New

> Yorkers are able to cushion their consciousnesses with locally grown,

> free range and all-around-happy meat. It’s guiltfree grub, and there’s

> no shortage of eaters buying into it. "

>

> We can choose to read these and other stories about former vegetarians*

> now eating meat, find reasons to ignore them, and continue business as

> usual. Or, we can choose to accept that this is actually happening,

> notice that these stories all revolve around suffering and cruelty, and

> deeply examine our advocacy's role in this phenomenon. Being responsive

> to new information is a sign of vibrancy and while facing these

> challenges may mean leaving behind the familiar, our advocacy will be

> the stronger for it.

>

> Victor

>

> * And, in my case, personal accounts from multiple omnivorous friends

> who are consciously choosing humane meat over vegetarianism.

>

> Brian wrote:

>

> " 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. ... 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.

>

> --

> 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 18, 2010

There is still no reason for eating meat. Meat is the world's number one

addiction and people will find any justification for eating it. Furthermore, it

has been proven time and again that humans do not need to eat meat in order to

survive. Those who say that they need to eat meat for medical reasons or feel

weak or undernourished when consuming a vegetarian or vegan diet were probably

making uninformed choices as vegetarians or vegans. Humans are not carnivores,

otherwise we could disable large prey by crushing their throats with our open

mouths. Not possible! Furthermore, free range animal farming is a myth,

concocted by the meat industry that people (including ex-veggie types) choose to

believe in order to quiet their consciences enough to allow the killing to

continue. Click the link below to read the facts about Free Range farming:

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

Animal farming pollutes the environment and consumes huge amounts of water and

farm land to produce a disproportional amount of meat, while the animals spend

their entire lives standing and lying in their own feces in crowded conditions

before being inhumanely slaughtered.

Here are some agricultural facts that ex-veggies should also consider:

http://www.soystache.com/environm.htm

Any way you look at it, killing animals for human consumption is wrong.

Go Vegan!

Ash

January 19, 2010

Hi Ash,

I don't agree that there's never any reason for humans to consume the flesh of

animals. I think we can all agree that it's wrong to kill an animal for food

when you have abundant plants that will provide us with better nutrition anyway.

However, if you're living in an undeveloped part of the world, OR in a time

period when there were no other options, then I think you may need to kill

animals to survive and thrive, because there may not be enough variety of other

digestible food for you (the human) to eat. Think of the book " Island of the

Blue Dolphins. " As a woman, this girl was prohibited by her culture from

hunting, but she was literally stranded on an island and starving, so eventually

she got over the cultural taboos and taught herself how to fish, and survived

for 18 years, all alone on that island. It's based on a true story

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_the_Blue_Dolphins).

Or, of course, Donner Party ... hello! I, for one, wouldn't mind being eaten by

my companions, especially if I felt like I wasn't going to make it anyway, and

my flesh would help them survive through the winter. It would be stupid for

them to let my body just freeze out in the snow, when they could have had

something to eat and possibly live until spring when they could get the H out of

there.

OK, so yeah, I know, this is the stupid " What if you were stranded on a desert

island? " question that all vegetarians hate. I know, it's a stupid question

coming from a meat eater, because WE'RE NOT stranded on a desert island, and

WE'RE NOT snowed in with covered wagons at Donner Pass, we're here in America,

in the 21st century, where we can can walk into a corner store or supermarket

any day and find an abundance of fresh produce and wonderful nutritious plant

foods to eat. Yes, I know.

BUT, I also don't like seeing a vegan making an absolute statement such as: " Any

way you look at it, killing animals for human consumption is wrong. " That's

just inviting the stupid questions from the meat eaters.

I think we we can all agree that in situations different from the one we are in

(other time periods, other geographic locations), meat eating may have been the

people's only means of survival. I know that my ancestors survived on a mostly

meat diet. I'm sure we'd have a lot smaller population (which would be a good

thing, actually), if human beings had stayed vegetarian and not expanded into

less hospitable regions (lacking in abundant plants). (This is just a theory of

mine, what do you think???)

In all honesty, if my theory is true (that we'd have a much smaller population

if human beings had stayed vegetarian in our evolution from whatever we were

before), I wish my ancestors HAD NOT learned to survive and thrive on meat. I

know, that means, they wouldn't have existed, and I wouldn't either. BUT: It

would be good, because then a few billion other human beings would not exist

either (because they are also descendants of humans who survived by eating

meat), and many 1000s of now-extinct species of plants and animals WOULD still

exist. I would LOVE for the planet to be in much better shape, not denuded and

defaced by so many quarries, landfills, dams, road construction projects,

parking lots, monoculture farms, warehouses, sprawling development, etc, as we

have today. I think Planet Earth would be a much better place. BUT ... most

people don't think like that. They think it's more important to survive. They

wouldn't wish their ancestors and (by extension) themselves out of existence.

That's why, Ash, I think it would be helpful (for vegan outreach) if you phrase

your statement in a less absolute way.

My 2 cents.

-Rachel Donovan

San Francisco, CA

, " derregenmeister " <derregenmeister

wrote:

>

> Any way you look at it, killing animals for human consumption is wrong.

>

> Go Vegan!

>

> Ash

>

January 19, 2010

It is wrong to make such vast generalizations. There are a lot

of environments where humans have no recourse but to eat meat.

The natives of Alaska and Northern Canada; the people in Mongolia,

where basically no vegetation grows; etc. are just but a few examples.

Personally, I would be perfectly OK with eating an animal that I killed myself,

if I had to in order to survive. But I'm OK being a vegetarian too.

Ajay

On 01/18/2010 01:19 PM, derregenmeister wrote:

>

> There is still no reason for eating meat. Meat is the world's number one

> addiction and people will find any justification for eating it.

> Furthermore, it has been proven time and again that humans do not need

> to eat meat in order to survive.

> . . . . .

January 20, 2010

Well, a lot has been said. I went from feeling inspired by the words

of both Victor and Donna, to feeling a little saddened by Ashes

comments. I agree with both, and of course, everybody is allowed and

encouraged to express their opinions here. That's what I love about

this site.

I feel like I've been where Ash and others like her stand, and quite

frankly, it was a very challenging and depressing, but often a very

effective position to take. I went home crying, discouraged, alienated

and exhausted all too often. On the flip side, it was my path and it

felt great to be on it, helping to end cruelty to animals. 20 years

later, in my heart-of-hearts, I'm still there, I have just found a

more comfortable, but perhaps, in some cases, less effective, position

to take. Eating mostly vegan (sorry) and sharing the path with others

through nutrition counseling so they too can be healthy and set a good

example for others.

I've had my concerns about " cruelty-free " meat, however. Clearly, it

has it's pros and cons. Some people, that's the only way that they are

going to embrace a more compassionate approach to dining. We've all

met these types, but at least they are trying and they could convert

to a more committed approach once they open their minds and hearts to

the concept. It's like a gateway drug, once you're hooked, you're in

for the long haul.

The other problem is that if " big business " sees there is profit to be

made with marketing " cruelty-free " meat, they will just sell it that

way, but not necessarily raise it that way. And will the average

consumer, try to get to the truth, or will they be content enough just

" saying " that they eat " cruetly-free " meat. You know how trendy people

can be. And of course, just how " cruelty-free " can the raising animals

for meat be. It's still killing.

And of course, there is the environmental issue that is definitely not

being addressed and improved upon by eating " cruetly-free " meat. This

is clearly an argument that can't be ignored when encouraging a plant-

based diet.

The bottom line, we all do the very best we can do and hopefully

following your path fills your heart with compassion and joy and

others will have no choice but to follow in your loving, and hopefully

vibrant, foot steps.

Stay healthy and Happy, (sorry for the novel)

Syndee Collison, CPT, CNC

1on1 Personal Health Solutions

www.syndee1on1.com

January 20, 2010

Hi everyone,

Syndee's observation that she used to go home crying, and feeling discouraged, and alienated all too often struck a chord with me. I used to have this experience too. However, now I have learned how to engage in conversations that turn out much better than they used to. And I feel that I am more effective in helping animals now.

Rather than walking away from a tense conversation that did little if anything to help the animals because the person(s) I was talking to became defensive and uncomfortable, now I usually feel that the conversations go well.

The difference is that now I employ the techniques described in the Animal Activists Handbook, a book that I think all vegans should read. I was figuring this stuff out on my own before reading the book, but the book put it all together so well. Had this book been around years ago it would have helped me alot and saved me from learning things the hard way.

I am a passionate vegan. I am ethically opposed to using animals for the reason that using animals inevitably results in suffering. I don't really see much of a distinction there. Using animals always leads to suffering in so many ways: the buying and selling of lives, separation of families, physical torture, stress, manipulation of genetics for human ends, insanity, deprivation, denial of needs, mutilation, terror, and ultimately being killed.

However, the reality is that people are different. Some people go vegan easily, some do so in steps over time, and some people are resistant. I try to talk to people where they are at and get them to take steps in the right direction. I find common ground, encourage people and let them know how they can help animals and reduce suffering. In the past, I got good results only with those people who were fairly open to the message. Now, I also have good conversations ( by good I mean effective in getting peple to consider the animals and make changes) with those people who would have shut down to me before.

I don't think that encouraging others to strive to reduce suffering is problematic. However, it is too long a topic and I'm not going to try to address it. I just wanted to comment on the common experience that many of us have had with interactions with others that didn't go so well and let you know what has been helpful to me.

Nettie

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Syndee Collison <syndee1on1 wrote:

Well, a lot has been said. I went from feeling inspired by the words of both Victor and Donna, to feeling a little saddened by Ashes comments. I agree with both, and of course, everybody is allowed and encouraged to express their opinions here. That's what I love about

this site.I feel like I've been where Ash and others like her stand, and quite frankly, it was a very challenging and depressing, but often a very effective position to take. I went home crying, discouraged, alienated

and exhausted all too often. On the flip side, it was my path and it felt great to be on it, helping to end cruelty to animals. 20 years later, in my heart-of-hearts, I'm still there, I have just found a more comfortable, but perhaps, in some cases, less effective, position

to take. Eating mostly vegan (sorry) and sharing the path with others through nutrition counseling so they too can be healthy and set a good example for others.I've had my concerns about " cruelty-free " meat, however. Clearly, it

has it's pros and cons. Some people, that's the only way that they are going to embrace a more compassionate approach to dining. We've all met these types, but at least they are trying and they could convert

to a more committed approach once they open their minds and hearts to the concept. It's like a gateway drug, once you're hooked, you're in for the long haul.The other problem is that if " big business " sees there is profit to be

made with marketing " cruelty-free " meat, they will just sell it that way, but not necessarily raise it that way. And will the average consumer, try to get to the truth, or will they be content enough just

" saying " that they eat " cruetly-free " meat. You know how trendy people can be. And of course, just how " cruelty-free " can the raising animals for meat be. It's still killing.

And of course, there is the environmental issue that is definitely not being addressed and improved upon by eating " cruetly-free " meat. This is clearly an argument that can't be ignored when encouraging a plant-

based diet.The bottom line, we all do the very best we can do and hopefully following your path fills your heart with compassion and joy and others will have no choice but to follow in your loving, and hopefully

vibrant, foot steps.Stay healthy and Happy, (sorry for the novel)Syndee Collison, CPT, CNC1on1 Personal Health Solutionswww.syndee1on1.com

-- " The thinking (person) must oppose all cruel customs, no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another. "

Albert Schweitzer Check out the website: chooseveg.com

January 20, 2010

Hi again everyone,

I forgot to make a point:

Those people who easily and readily become vegan are a minority. Social conditoning, conformity and cravings are daunting things to oversome. So the task is to figure out how to reach out to the majority of people in ways that they will be able to hear and respond to. This is the challenge. And it is important to reflect on our experinces and learn from them.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Nettie Schwager <nettierose wrote: