You could make the same argument about not driving, not flying, not paying taxes, etc. See what I'm saying?
You can make that reductive argument about literally every bit of personal consumption if you wanted to, frankly.
But my original point was to counter the sentiment in the OP. I could just as easily make it about riding a bike and get the same sorts of responses from people about why their situation uniquely excuses them from doing what is morally correct. People will make excuses for anything and veganism isn't unique in that regard.
Not answering the question; sounds like you're cool with factory farming. Argument works just fine for other consumption: you can't be a communist and buy from Amazon and fail to work for worker's liberation. You can't oppose climate change and take lots of flights and fail to organize against climate change. If your beliefs are expressed through literally no actions, they're not real.
If your beliefs are expressed through literally no actions, they're not real.
I don't disagree with you. But it's still the way most people believe most things. It's not a uniquely compelling argument for anything because it's not unique. If we've learned nothing in the last decade, we've learned that "you're a hypocrite" is not a compelling way to get someone to change their behavior. Most people commit thousands of little hypocrisies every day. Our whole modern existence is cognitive dissonance.
I don't mean to call you a hypocrite and expect that to change your mind. All of us live with cognitive dissonance; I adopted a cat before I went vegan, and I still feed him meat. What I want to do is establish that since you have no demonstrated interest in animal liberation (and presumably a vested interest in continuing to eat animals), you can't criticize individual veganism on grounds of effectiveness. It's like liberals saying "protestors should quit blocking bridges because they piss people off". That might be true but their interest is going about their day, not whatever the protestors are protesting for; we can't treat them as honest debaters who just want the best for the movement.
I wasn't criticizing veganism. I was criticizing the rhetorical tactic employed by this meme.
Here's my original comment:
So weird. When I post any other moral demand of individual actions everyone just agrees with it! Veganism is absolutely unique in this respect, yessir!
The "joke" is that veganism is not unique in this respect. People come up with excuses for every individual demand.
I didn't criticize veganism once, you were just spoiling for a fight about it.
Your comment denigrates veganism as an individual action, which communists rightly view as useless. People who are opposed to the goal don't get to criticize tactics; you're a liberal telling protesters not to block bridges.
You could make the same argument about not driving, not flying, not paying taxes, etc. See what I'm saying?
You can make that reductive argument about literally every bit of personal consumption if you wanted to, frankly.
But my original point was to counter the sentiment in the OP. I could just as easily make it about riding a bike and get the same sorts of responses from people about why their situation uniquely excuses them from doing what is morally correct. People will make excuses for anything and veganism isn't unique in that regard.
It's a pointless argument.
Not answering the question; sounds like you're cool with factory farming. Argument works just fine for other consumption: you can't be a communist and buy from Amazon and fail to work for worker's liberation. You can't oppose climate change and take lots of flights and fail to organize against climate change. If your beliefs are expressed through literally no actions, they're not real.
I don't disagree with you. But it's still the way most people believe most things. It's not a uniquely compelling argument for anything because it's not unique. If we've learned nothing in the last decade, we've learned that "you're a hypocrite" is not a compelling way to get someone to change their behavior. Most people commit thousands of little hypocrisies every day. Our whole modern existence is cognitive dissonance.
I don't mean to call you a hypocrite and expect that to change your mind. All of us live with cognitive dissonance; I adopted a cat before I went vegan, and I still feed him meat. What I want to do is establish that since you have no demonstrated interest in animal liberation (and presumably a vested interest in continuing to eat animals), you can't criticize individual veganism on grounds of effectiveness. It's like liberals saying "protestors should quit blocking bridges because they piss people off". That might be true but their interest is going about their day, not whatever the protestors are protesting for; we can't treat them as honest debaters who just want the best for the movement.
I wasn't criticizing veganism. I was criticizing the rhetorical tactic employed by this meme.
Here's my original comment:
The "joke" is that veganism is not unique in this respect. People come up with excuses for every individual demand.
I didn't criticize veganism once, you were just spoiling for a fight about it.
Your comment denigrates veganism as an individual action, which communists rightly view as useless. People who are opposed to the goal don't get to criticize tactics; you're a liberal telling protesters not to block bridges.
Removed by mod
😠