Intro post

[jeanh]

I have been an abolitionist vegan for six years. I have participated in online philosophical reading groups on the topic of animal rights and vegan advocacy, and benefited greatly from them (in terms of being a more philosophically grounded and informed advocate for nonhuman animals). I would like to be more continuously connected with like-minded people. I'm also a parent, I have a PhD in Communication, and I am a College instructor.

[Red]

Hey jean! What prompted you to go vegan? Why do you consider yourself to be an abolitionist?

[jeanh]

Thanks for asking! I went vegetarian as a teenager for ethical reasons, but didn't face up to vegetarianism's moral incoherence until I was about 40 and started reading animal rights theory. Connecting with animal activists and vegans online (lurking in their conversations, seeing thoughtful, empathetic perspectives expressed that resonated with me) was possibly the main motivator to look into animal rights theory (and then go vegan). I consider myself abolitionist because I agree with the Francione camp that welfarist reforms have generally worked against the goal of veganism as I see it: a rationally-derived, and rights-centered societal recognition of nonhuman animals as sentient, deserving of moral consideration, and deserving to be treated as we (most of us, anyway) see them: as self-aware subjects and not objects/things/property.

[jeanh]

Perhaps I have stepped into the wrong environment, however. I have, since registering, read a few threads that indicate an anti-deontological tendency on this board, and this is at times worded in very immature, disrespectful ways. I think I have little choice but to seek like minded, consistent vegans elsewhere, where we are, at minimum, not referred to as "morons". Sorry for naively stepping into your space.

[sykkelmannen]

Perhaps I have stepped into the wrong environment, however. I have, since registering, read a few threads that indicate an anti-deontological tendency on this board, and this is at times worded in very immature, disrespectful ways. I think I have little choice but to seek like minded, consistent vegans elsewhere, where we are, at minimum, not referred to as "morons". Sorry for naively stepping into your space.

Nice of you to leave this note. Most self-deport (for similar reasons, I suspect) without a word.

[Jebus]

Wow! Nominee for weirdo of the year?

[brimstoneSalad]

Perhaps I have stepped into the wrong environment, however. [...] I think I have little choice but to seek like minded, consistent vegans elsewhere

Instead of seeking out an echo chamber, why not participate in discussion and argue your case? If you have a good argument you could change our minds.
Or are you worried that you have no argument and your mind will be changed if you try to make one?

You are welcome here, and if you're respectful you'll likely get the same back. In our experience most deontologists (such as Francione) are the furthest thing from respectful, so a civil exchange would be a breath of fresh air.

You may even find that you were wrong in your deontological beliefs, and update your views and means of activism: the end result would be to save more animals and promote a more consistent view of vegan ethics. You might have noticed that your perspective is dying out... there's a good reason for that. From its lack of efficacy to the philosophical contradictions, deontology is not appealing, and any deontologists who question it honestly realize that and jump ship (like a hard core literalist Christian who reads the bible with an open mind and ends up an atheist).

Fun fact: this forum was originally founded by a deontologist who, through discussion and learning about the real implications of deontology, switched sides and became a more pragmatic consequentialist.

You can change your mind and leave any time you like.

[jeanh]

Thank you for replying with civility. You're mistaken that I had been seeking an "echo chamber". Not sure why that presumption would arise. I have no interest in hanging around where I'm being presumed to be closed minded or moronic from the outset, and further reading on some topics on this board (as well as at least one flippant reply to my "hello" post) confirms the validity of this assessment. It's too bad, because much of what I've read here regarding advocacy is genuinely helpful, clear, demystifying, and instructive (many of your posts and replies, in particular, Brimstone), and I agree with your assessment of many in the Francione camp, having had a highly negative experience interacting with them on one occasion. Perhaps you need a better mod policy - insults and personal attacks turn well-intentioned people like me away. It's ok, though, I'm perfectly capable of finding like minded vegans (including consequentialists/utilitarians, game theorists, whatever) elsewhere. Again, sorry for bothering you, and good day!

[brimstoneSalad]

and I agree with your assessment of many in the Francione camp, having had a highly negative experience interacting with them on one occasion.

I can say the vast majority of our experience with deontologists is from that camp, so it influences our expectations.
It's as if every Christian you've met told you you were going to hell, you would be a little cautious with a new one. It's inductive, but also human.

If you're not in the Francione camp, maybe you can change our minds as a different kind of deontologist?
There's no reason you can't be accepted and respected here.

Perhaps you need a better mod policy - insults and personal attacks turn well-intentioned people like me away.

In my experience, there is no such thing as a hard and objective line between an explicit insult, an implicit one, and a misinterpretation.
Is a vegan who says "meat is murder" insulting a meat eater by calling him or her a murderer? Because it can be taken that way.

Rules against insults introduce a dangerous level of subjectivity into moderation, and as a consequence those who are advocating unpopular opinions will suffer. In the grey area an unpopular member's comments will be seen as insults resulting in moderator punishments while similar comments from popular members will be overlooked or interpreted more charitably.

Simply allowing something that we have no means of objectively ruling on is the only way to ensure a level playing field. It means that carnists don't need to fear coming here to discuss because they won't be banned for being interpreted as insulting... and the same goes for deontologists, who hold the minority opinion here.

If you have an objective test or what qualifies an insult, I'd be interested in hearing it and maybe we can put it into practice, but we have to limit subjective moderation rules for the sake of discourse. We'd rather be a small forum where good (though sometimes heated) discussions can occur than a larger one where more people are attracted but afraid of being banned for arguing.