A question for the abolitionists...

For general interest purposes: "meat processors have generated significant profits out of sales of skins and hides and other byproducts such as tallow and offal."- Australian Agribusiness newsletter, 2009.

Really cbf commenting on the rest of this  

No yeah sure it is defeinitely profitable, but it is still a by-product.

Just like gelatine or fish scales or whatever, they are profitable for the industry - if they weren't they wouldnt bother producing them.

This exact scenario happened to me at a friends birthday party. I had ordered a vegan pasta dish and it was brought to me with cheese on the top. I told the waiter that I expected the meal to be free from animal products, as it was what I had ordered, and that I am vegan and am ethical opposed to the consumption of animal derived products. They took it back and made me a fresh vegan meal (without the cheese).
This is completely illogical. You are saying people should consume animal products in order to show how easy it is to not consume animal products. Not being vegan to prove how easy being vegan is hypocritical and defeats the purpose. Consuming the non vegan meal would only reinforce the misconception that it is difficult to be vegan.

Veganism is not about keeping your body “pure”, it's about rejecting the idea that it is morally acceptable to consume the products of the exploitation, suffering and death of sentient beings. By choosing to consume animal derived products you are supporting and approving of the exploitation, harm, and killing of sentient beings. You seem to think that popularizing the idea of veganism is more important than actually being vegan. This popularized idea of course would not be vegan, as you would be telling people that it's ethically okay to consume animal products in order to not seem “extreme” to non vegans. Is it any wonder why veganism is seen as extreme when welfarists portray it this way? I'm sick of flimsy labels like “veg” “veggie” and the mixed messages sent by welfarists. Go veg? Do you mean go vegetarian? Vegetarians continue to consume animal products that involve just as much, if not more, exploitation, suffering and death as meat. I don't see vegetarianism as consistent with animal liberation at all. Abolitionist animal rights and veganism are logically and morally consistent and are the only way to achieve animal liberation.

Veganism is a lived protest against the exploitation and murder of animals. By calling yourself vegan (if you are) you are representing an alternative choice that opposes the idea that non human animals are ours to use and consume as we wish. Identifying as a vegan causes people around you to question actions and norms that they may have never thought about. Saying you're just “on a diet” does nothing.

Peter singer is NOT vegan. He consumes animal products, supports vivisection and doesn't think it's unethical to have sexual contact with non human animals.  I would do my best to avoid depending on hypocrites like him for information on animal rights.

I have always considered food the easiest part of being vegan. To eat food which contains animal derived products seems to me incredibly slack considering there are so many vegan alternatives and options available. However the issue of animal derived products in infrastructure and technology is a grey area.

This all comes down to one thing - and that is that the animals don't need your excuses. They need you to stop your consumption of all possible animal products.

I know it is impossible to be 100% vegan when you consider computers, roads, even tyres,  but there are products you can avoid - in most cases the food that contains these emulsifiers/etc. do have alternative products that are cruelty free. Why not put your hard earned money towards them, and support a company that supports our beliefs, rather than one that is happy to contribute (no matter on what scale) to the cruelty industry? They might even be able to start making more of these products if we support them. I don't always go so far as to avoid products that "may contain traces of ..." but sometimes it is possible to do a little extra research and avoid it. If we stopped buying things with by-products etc., it may be what that company needs to stop using it.

And BTW, give me 10 hardcore vegans over 1000 half 'this-is-too-hard' vegans any day


The risk is that they will take it the next step - "Oh, it's only a SMALL amount of cheese ...". It's also a risk that it is not taken as seriously as it should be (not to say that we should all be gigantic prigs ...). Are these halfway vegans the kind of people we want on our side? I know eventually we want everyone to change. But when you start something like this, and I believe our 'movement' is still in it's infancy, than right now what we need is strength and commitment. And giving into products that have cruelty free alternatives is lazy and unnecessary. ( I understand in some few cases I am wrong here, so don't blast me for that )

It's really simple. The question shouldn't be "How much did this particular product contribute to suffering?" or "How much money did so-and-so make from selling this product?", but "Does it involve animal cruelty?" Yes? Then No!

Well, I've put a lot of thought into this over the years and I totally agree that the 'animals don't need your excuses'. What they need is advocacy. I think the question we need to constantly be asking ourselves (following ALL other questions) should be: "Will this decision HELP animals?"

Cast your self-will issues, laziness and convenience factors aside -- that's beside the point.

When you frame your decisions in this light you'll see that things aren't always black-and-white, particularly when advocacy is involved (and you are acting as an ambassadors for animals in the presence of non-vegetarians). Sure, a minute byproduct might have animal origin, but you can bet your life that he or she wasn't raised and killed for it. There are two 'risk' factors to consider in this case:

Risk 1) the risk that your consumption of the minute byproduct in this one instance may lead to your perceived endorsement of animal cruelty by willingly increasing demand of the byproduct to a greater extent than the demand for which the animal was actually killed (which we can assume for the most part was for their meat/skin).

Risk 2) the risk that your present company of non-vegetarians who do not yet understand the value in veganism will be left with the impression that regardless of the ethical reasons for being vegan, attempting to avoid meat, dairy and eggs in their diet is a difficult and complicated thing to do.

IMHO these are the very real risks we are dealing with when we make the decision about how much of a 'fuss' we make about micro-ingredients in front of others. What you do in your own kitchen, or at the supermarket, on the other hand, is a completely personal matter -- you can grow all your own veggies if you want to ensure that no birds, insects or rodents were maimed in the process of farming your food if you like (I try to grow as much of my food as I can incidentally). But to what degree you can be vigilant is really not the question here. It's how to be most effective as an advocate, and how to bring about the greatest amount of positive change toward ending animal cruelty.

To that end, 1000 'not hardcore' vegans will be massively more effective in impacting the bottom line of cruel animal industries by striking hard at the root of the problem and the reason for the existence of these industries: the consumption of meat, dairy and eggs, than will 10 feel-good 'hardcore' vegans. The volume and commercial value of products that the 1000 group can remove from the economic cycle of cruelty will be roughly 100 times greater.

When those 1000 'not hardcore' vegans become 10,000,000 'not hardcore' vegans, the industries that underpin the sale of animal-derived byproducts will be in a state of collapse. They simply won't exist in foods anymore. However, when those 10 'hardcore' vegans become 100,000, the meat industry is still thriving and abstaining from animal products is perceived to be still difficult and complicated and most people are still of the opinion that helping to create change for animals by altering their diet is too difficult a thing to bother to do...

In regard to Matt Ball's veganism is just a tool to reduce suffering... I disagree with the wording, if inot the sentiment.

Veganism isn't just a tool - it is the end we are all aiming for. We are aiming for a vegan world. So veganism is not really just a method or a tool - it is the end goal of all our activism.

I wouldn''t think of people who weren't being racist as ""using a tool" to create less suffering.

At the end of the day it's quite simple - if you're consuming animall products you are actively participating in their exploitation and abuse, you're money is a tool being used to inflict pain and death on animals. When you don't it's just that you aren't activeley participating./

I really love this debate. It gets things interesting.

People have so many good points to bring up too. Thank you.

While I think that changing people's perspective of animals from an object that we can do what we like with, to a food object that needs to be prepared correctly, to a food animal that should be treated humanely while its alive, is an important transition, I am not going to self-censor my ultimate wish for animals to be seen as their own  beings in their own right, that should be able to live without us thinking of them as our property.

it's true that any steps people take to become more animal friendly are great steps.
But at the same time, I think of how other rights movements have  gone, and how they were able to change things by not taking baby steps but by sticking to their ultimate goal.
If we see animals as slaves in our world, I don't think it's ok to say, we support treating slaves a little nicer before we kill them.

Recently I've been reading about the women's rights movement, which at times seems out of date/already won, etc etc, in our pretty good country. BUT it isnt over. Somehow the government managed to make it ok for women to be protitutes in certain areas, and thus we have the commodification of women, and in some places, children. So women and children are viewed by many as objects to be stolen, sold and used, which really makes womens rights a flunk.
This supports the idea that by washing out an ideal, the movement is slowed down and sometimes halted.
If we agree that the animal rights movement is somehow different because the central beings are animals, we become animal welfarists and feel animals are ours to decide what to do with.

Of course theres flaws abound in all these arguements depending on what perspective you view it from.

If animals had their own voices, this ordeal would be so much easier. if only it was like that family guy episode where peter rescues the cow from the burger place and the cow speaks out...

Those are some great points, its definitely a tough one ... but I think we have to agree to disagree

Absolutely not true. If the animals weren't killed for meat the demand for leather would still keep slaughterhouses open. Probably the same for offal. Some people definately do do want intestines, etc - ask a Scotsman!

However, no fish are killed for their scales, and whilst I drink Little Creatures or Coopers if I see it, I quite happy to drink alcohol fined with fish scales. I see no point in getting all puritanical about my veganism.

How do you feel about honey? I don't eat it, however I realise that honey bees are used to pollinate horticultural crops. So strictly some plant foods aren't vegan.
Should we start drawing up lists of non-vegan plant foods?