Of course going vegan is the best thing we can do, but some people aren't going to do that no matter what you show or tell them.
Who said anything to the contrary? What you said holds true to both positions: some people will do absolutely nothing when they hear about or see this campaign first hand, yet your position of unyielding support for such 'baby step' campaigns remains steadfast.
Odd, don't you think?
I think AA's approach of one step at a time has so far had great results. Most people seem to take well to the organisation, and they don't get much hate and disrespect from meat eaters like more extreme organisations like PETA often do. PETA'S advertisements are generally more blunt and straight to the point, but they also often attract negative attention.
PETA receive negative attention because their campaigns are sexist and misogynist and designed to achieve maximum exposure. Serious animal rights advocates always dissociate themselves from PETA.
As much as I would love to see a vegan world, I think you have to come back down to reality and realise its not going to happen. The fact is some people just don't care, or are too lazy to do anything about it. It doesn't mean we should stop trying, but it does mean we sometimes have to look for more realistic ways to make a kinder world.
This really comes down to having an poverty of ambition that will ultimately become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If no one thinks that a vegan world isn't possible, then guess what? It will never manifest because how can it?
Advocate what you believe is the solution; not what you think is possible.
After all, you wouldn't advocate humane rape/slavery/murder simply because you think there will never be an end to them, would you?
I didn't question what Animals Australia's motives were at all, I'm just saying that people are stupid for being sad when they see the video, but still thinking it's perfectly okay to oppress, enslave and slit someone's throat, just so that they can sit on their arses and eat the rotting flesh. As long as it's done nicely.
I'm sorry but there's no such thing as ethical meat. Just as there is no such thing as ethical rape, racism, sexism, etc.
I think you might need to re-read what I wrote Maggie.
What I said in essence was those you encountered resistance from and those who bought into the 'humane myth' were in fact things AA were integral in creating due them explicitly endorsing non-factory farmed products, stating there were indeed 'ethical animal products' and completely excluding any mentioning of veganism as the only solution to the problems they brought up.
Your response should really be addressed to AA, not myself.
PS- Read this page in full >
http://makeitpossible.com/take_action/
This is a broad-scale television campaign aimed at all Australians. It's unrealistic to think that a campaign declaring that vegetarianism is the only way will every work on a broad scale.
One of the main reasons it is so difficult is *because* of campaigns such as this. It reinforces the animals-are-property paradigm, it reinforces speciesism. That much is obvious.
What this creates is a public concerned *exclusively* with the treatment of other animals, completely oblivious to the crux of the issue which is *use*. The reason they are oblivious is simply because so few actually discuss and challenge it. I can't tell you the amount of people who wake up in an instant when I discuss the issue of use with them; nearly always their response is verbatim: "I never thought about it in that way before". Generally, this is always after I have to wade through the 'free-range', 'happy' meat, 'humane slaughter' nonsense which are ideas that large animal welfarist campaigns have strongly influenced because that is the only message they disseminate.
Sometimes, going free-range or cutting down your animal-product consumption is the first step towards a meat-free life.
I'm glad you included the word 'sometimes', because there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever from one cutting down animal-product consumption to going meat-free, let alone veganism. None whatsoever.
In fact, the stats for vegetarians turning back to eating meat is quite remarkable: 3 out of 4 will turn back to their former diets in the first year.*
*Based on data gathered from a survey in the US.
Rather than encouraging a TINY number of people make a big change, Make It Possible encourages a wide range of people from all walks of life to make a change- whether that change be big or small.
This is another problem: vegans themselves actually stating that 'veganism is a big change'. Some outright say it is a challenge or daunting. Personally, I can't fathom why they do this.
Veganism, too, isn't the 'last step', it is the first towards viewing other animals as moral persons and respecting their inherent right to life and liberty. It is the very *least* we can do.
By continually asserting that it is the 'final' step or challenge, you make it seem like an insurmountable task that only a few superhumans can ever achieve.
This is a strong and effective campaign. It's relatable and accessible to the average meat-eating Australian and doesn't feel pushy or judgemental. Some people need to take it one step at a time.
I'm not going to re-raise my objections to this campaign and for a good reason: you have not responded to or counted one of them. Your argument is dismissive handwaving at best.
I have already stated that these campaigns target the low hanging fruit of which the vast, vast majority of people would find the targeted-practice abhorrent to begin with.
Please read or re-read my initial post in the other thread.
And let's face it, some people will NEVER go veg, so wouldn't you rather see them eating less meat, and meat from animals who suffered less?
Yes, some people will never stop murdering or raping either, but does that mean I should campaign for humane murder and rape?
Is less suffering better than more suffering? Yes, of course it is, *but it misses the point entirely*. You are not challenging the paradigm; all you are doing is reinforcing it.
If you lived when slavery across the world was ubiquitous and widely accepted by the general public, would you campaign for better treatment of the slaves, or would you campaign to abolish the immoral institution forever? To be consistent with what you do now, you would have to say the former.
Here is a famous quote from William Lloyd Garrison, a man who copped all sorts of abuse and ridicule from others because he was unrelenting in his position to abolish slavery:
"What an idiotic absurdity it is to say that earnest, persistent, uncompromising moral opposition to a system of boundless immorality is the way to strengthen it; and that the way to abolish such a system is to say nothing about it."
Without context, one could easily say he is talking about the struggle of animal rights and the speciesist single issue campaigns that abound in the movement(s). The correlation between the struggle for animal rights abolitionists and the former struggle of slave abolitionists is actually quite astounding once you do the research.
Don't get me wrong, I find the use of animals for food, entertainment, clothing or experimentation to be absolutely abhorrent and I completely fail to comprehend why someone would not choose to go vegan, but I know that this view, no matter how much it baffles me, is the "norm" here in Australia. In this culture where meat eating is an integral part of social acceptance and validating your patriotism/masculinity, you can hardly expect a campaign targeted at inspiring a change to veganism to be met with anything other than disregard, anger and ignorance. I think AA did the right thing in making the campaign into something that any Australian can relate to, and that could inspire some change in any meat-eating person.
I've addressed everything you said here above, but I will say that advocating veganism is the only morally consistent position there is for animal rights. I never present veganism as the final step, I present it as the first.
I might speak to a person about veganism and present the moral and rational arguments to them, yet they might just blankly state they will just consume free range eggs and happy meat. If that is the case, I never endorse or advocate such things over 'factory farmed' products because they already have the clear message that veganism is the moral baseline. The bottom line is the decision is ultimately theirs but always be consistent in your message.
What I find a struggle to comprehend is that people really do respond very well you when you chat to them about veganism, yet vegans seem to think that they just outright reject everything you have to say. As long as you listen to what they say and they feel they are heard and answered honestly, you can literally see them opening up to the idea on the spot. Sure, some people don't want to listen, but that's easy: don't waste time on them. Focus on those you can reach and they are everywhere.
At this point, it would perhaps be pertinent to ask: Have you actually done any vegan advocacy yourself to actually have the experience to comment on its (in)effectiveness? If not, your post really confuses me as you seem to come from a point of authority on the matter.
Did I not word it right?
Perhaps you didn't know I did a 6 month research project investigation on the farming practises of pigs and poultry. That was some of the evidence I found proving how misleading the term free range can be. I interviewed pig farmers and the principal advisor of animal welfare on tha matter, because I wanted to know just how "free range" free range is, and I wanted credible evidence to back up my discussions with others on why I'm vegetarian and going vegan.
my point was to mention to any omnivore buddies you have, if they plan to cut out factory farmed products, rather than say pledge to go vege, you should mention what I wrote above, as that is evidence on how misleading products are, and how it isn't exactly simple cutting out factory farmed products unless your vegetarian or vegan
which in case you didn't know, I am.
Those standards are the standards that almost all pig farmers abide by.
The only "free range" pig product in coles is otway pork, which is "bred free range".
and, rewording what I said above, legally that means up until weaning piglets are brought up in free range conditions, but then sent to factory farms. Which most people don't know.
I also research this kind of stuff in my free time, because there are so many companies out there deliberately using false advertising and deceiving customers. Unless you don't do research like this, it's a lot harder to know about this kind of thing.
Having re-read your post, I can see where you are coming from so I apologize for the confusion, but I still disagree.
I myself didn't need to do much research to find that any legislation pertaining to 'animal welfare' is not worth the paper it is written on; this is largely due to the fact that the animal agriculture industry is self-regulatory and a law unto themselves in many cases.
Just to reiterate, I would never spend a second of my time squabbling with someone over what constitutes 'free-range' or what products are or are not factory farmed.
If that is something you do, do you think it is a productive way to spend your time?
Otherwise I can always source somehwere that sells vegan friendly ink etc, and ask a non-vegan tattoo artist to do it with those materials. 
