Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Funny, because my wife's reaction was opposite. She much preferred Yourofsky's passionate (emotionally delivered) presentation over Melanie Joy's. I agree with you. Her style is definitely more appealing to me.

Just goes to show, different methods to appeal to different folks. Seems to be the same for atheism.

I wonder if the same people who need intellectual or emotional arguments need them for both?
Has your wife seen any emotional arguments for atheism?

not that im aware.

miniboes wrote:I couldn't help but seeing her in contrast with Gary Yourofsky. Where Yourofsky presents emotionally and is very radical at times, Melanie Joy presents the arguments in a very calm, rational and non-offensive way, all with a friendly smile. This is the kind of person that I want advocating veganism, not a Yourofsky or Francione.

I saw Melanie Joy's presentation and liked it very much. I can understand why many people might prefer her style.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Funny, because my wife's reaction was opposite. She much preferred Yourofsky's passionate (emotionally delivered) presentation over Melanie Joy's. I agree with you. Her style is definitely more appealing to me.

While I enjoyed Melanie Joy's "Beyond Carnism" presentation, I do actually greatly prefer Gary Yourofsky's style of speaking. His emotional delivery of speeches conveys a sense of urgency. Animal exploitation is a very serious global problem, and people ought to start taking it seriously as soon as possible. I know he risks sounding less rational by speaking in an emotional manner, but just because the delivery of his message is emotional does not make the content irrational in any way. Ultimately, what is being said is of primary importance; how it's being said is secondary.