Philosophical Vegan Forum

By that I meant that a lot of people have it much easier than others and may have never/seldom have to fight for getting rights that many others enjoy. I didnt want to generalize. But For such people enjoying so many rights to say things like f**k human rights when so many others are deprived of and are struggling to fight for their rights is what I had issue with. Promoting being indifferent to human rights while enjoying so many of them themself.

Kyron. Please consider using the quote function to highlight one sentence or point rather than the whole post. This will make your post easier to read and reply to.

Kyron wrote:I disagree. You make it sound like most vegans are born vegan and raised in a world that commits these atrocities and doesn't understand it.

Most of the world don't know that they are committing atrocities. "My parents do it, all my friends do it, everyone around me does it, so how can it be an atrocity." This is why someone like Gary Yourofsky can be so effective in waking people up to reality.

Kyron wrote:I do not direct my anger at meat-eaters, who are just ignorant to the topic and desperately don't want to feel like a shit person.

I don't get angry at the uninformed who listen to what vegans have to say. However, I do get angry at people who refuse to listen and people who have received and understood all the information but still decide to eat meat.

Kyron wrote:If you'd read the wiki article I linked to about Attitude Polarization (or brushed through the many studies on this) you'd see that this isn't some simple opinion on things I have, it's backed up by research. It's a phenomenon of the human mind. And that's the main reasoning for my argument as to why Gary's attitude is non-beneficial.

The research on Attitude Polarization was mainly done with dialogues and group discussions. Gary rarely engages in dialogue but favors monologue and Q&A. Hence Attitude Polarization is irrelevant to this discussion.

Kyron wrote:he's a racist

He has said that he hates all races equally. How does that make him a racist.

Kyron wrote:misanthropic

Of course! How can you not be given the state of things.

Kyron wrote:violent person.

As far as I know, he has only engaged in non-violent Gandhi style protests until now.

Kyron wrote:What do you think constitutes being branded "an asshole"?

People who contribute to the suffering of human and non-human animals.

garrethdsouza wrote:By that I meant that a lot of people have it much easier than others and may have never/seldom have to fight for getting rights that many others enjoy. O didnt want to generalize.

I understand that. Heh. I was just pointing it out. (:

Jeebus wrote:Most of the world don't know that they are committing atrocities. "My parents do it, all my friends do it, everyone around me does it, so how can it be an atrocity." This is why someone like Gary Yourofsky can be so effective in waking people up to reality.

I agree, most of the world doesn't. I guess we'll just agree to disagree whether or not Gary's presentation is as helpful as it could be.

Jebus wrote:The research on Attitude Polarization was mainly done with dialogues and group discussions. Gary rarely engages in dialogue but favors monologue and Q&A. Hence Attitude Polarization is irrelevant to this discussion.

.. I don't see how it's irrelevant considering it's based mainly on conflict of beliefs. Either way, whenever Gary does exchange in a dialog/interview with meat-eaters, he does so in an even more hostile manner. And that is my point. This hostility and ill-temper, is not helpful. You can't just order people to do something and expect them to listen, or tell people that they're helping in the worst thing imaginable and expect them to believe you, and not think you're just being crazy. And, even though he mentions that we use words like "b a c o n" and "leather" to hide what they really mean, he still fails to acknowledge that there's a genuine psychological disconnect between meat and animals to most people. He is constantly saying "stop killing animals" to people, as if they're physically doing it, rather than, through economic supply and demand. Which again, puts people off and makes them unnecessarily defensive. In my opinion, an informative, light-hearted, though serious method of presentation is much more effective and is met with much less defensiveness. Much like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4HJcq8qHAY - Just look at those comments.

EDIT: Here's a paper on the subject: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/7 ... mation.pdf

Jeebus wrote:He has said that he hates all races equally. How does that make him a racist.

Because being racist has little to do with hatred of other races. It has more to do with believing that one race is better than another, and that is not restricted to believing your own race is superior. His comments on Palestinians give the impression that he thinks that they're worse than others. But his hatred is spread equally, so that's okay?

Jeebus wrote:Of course! How can you not be given the state of things.

Because I believe people are individuals, and most people have a good heart, even if they're misguided?

Jeebus wrote: As far as I know, he has only engaged in non-violent Gandhi style protests until now.

"On December 5, 2013, Yourofsky shoved the chair of Israeli journalist and columnist for Ma'ariv's news website Erel Segal, after a heated interview between the two ended when Yourofsky realized Segal was wearing a leather jacket,[http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.563134] causing Segal to fall on the floor.[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/174921] Yourofsky was charged with assault, but the trial was cancelled since Yoursofsky had left Israel, forfeiting his bail money.[http://www.the7eye.org.il/141855] Yourofsky said publicly he had pushed Segal in self defense.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z97iVtKtrWg]"

"In 2003, a Yourofsky lecture at East Tennessee State University was cancelled as a result of an altercation. A faculty member had placed a stack of pamphlets in support of animal testing on a cart outside the lecture room. After Yourofsky saw the pamphlets, heated words were exchanged. Yourofsky grabbed the cart and propelled it, causing the pamphlets to scatter across the floor. The lecture was canceled and Yourofsky left the building.[http://web.archive.org/web/200711070955 ... S&ID=21782]"

Not to mention some of the horrible things he wishes upon meat-eaters in general. (not specifying those who are psychopathic, non-caring, assholes.

Jeebus wrote:People who contribute to the suffering of human and non-human animals.

And that's where your criteria ends?..

Jebus wrote:

Kyron wrote:What do you think constitutes being branded "an asshole"?

People who contribute to the suffering of human and non-human animals.

There are a mix of definitions available, but the best and most essentially to the point I've found are:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... id=6051436

An asshole is a person who doesn't treat people with respect.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/asshole

Type of:
disagreeable person, unpleasant person
a person who is not pleasant or agreeable

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... efid=12612

someone being arrogant, rude, obnoxious, or just a total dickhead....

Mainstream dictionaries get it pretty wrong, this is the closest I found:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/asshole

ass·hole (ăs′hōl′)
n. Vulgar Slang
1. The anus.
2. A contemptible or detestable person.
3. The most miserable or undesirable place in a particular area.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition.

Many dictionaries think it can mean stupid, which it doesn't (at least, not any more if it did).
Detestable as a little better, but still pretty relative.

This one hit the mark with regard to the subjectivity:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... fid=590068

Anyone who doesn't do exactly what you think they ought to do, exactly when you think they ought to do it.

Most consistently, an asshole is somebody who is not being polite or courteous. Somebody not being respectful or pleasant or agreeable.

If you're being pushy and telling people something they don't want to hear, you're being an asshole. And perhaps sometimes you should be.
Although there is a lingering question as to how effective assholes really are. Is it because they were assholes, or just because they were geniuses (and just happened to also be assholes)?

Bob Sutton has been on the forefront of Asshole research for a while.
He as a short e-book (or something), The Upside of Assholes: Is there Virtue in Bad Workplace Behavior?
http://changethis.com/manifesto/show/32 ... deAssholes
It's a pretty quick read, should only take a few minutes, but highly recommended.

For me, it wouldn’t be worth the trouble to work with Jobs or someone like him. But I’ve become
convinced that it is naïve to assume that assholes always do more harm than good. So this
essay, and the longer chapter from my book that it draws on, considers the upside of assholes.
Beware, however, that these ideas are dangerous: They provide ammunition that jerks can
use to justify, and even glorify, their penchant for demeaning others.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... hy/249136/

Sutton's counter-thesis was that assholes--which he defined as those who deliberately make co-workers feel bad about themselves and who focus their hostility on the less powerful...

This is a pretty strong definition (more so for the workplace than out, but still); being hostile, and making people feel bad about themselves.

An asshole isn't necessarily a bad person. Being an asshole has to do with human social interaction alone, and says nothing to your net positive or negative effect upon the world.

I don't see any reason Yourofsky wouldn't be properly considered an asshole by the best definitions I have presented here. But on that basis alone, neither is there reason to think he's not a good person, or hasn't done substantially more good for the world than bad.

Kyron wrote: I agree, most of the world doesn't. I guess we'll just agree to disagree whether or not Gary's presentation is as helpful as it could be.

I don't think anybody is saying that Yourofsky's methods couldn't be improved upon. If you got that impression from anybody here, you may have misunderstood.

Nobody's methods are perfect -- that would be astronomically improbable. We can only perfect our outreach methods through extensive trail and error, and more importantly extensive unbiased research into efficacy. To my knowledge Yourofsky isn't basing his activism on research, but more on intuition. He's doing reasonably well, considering, but certainly he could improve.

Now, whether that improvement would mean being even MORE "in your face" about it, or more meek -- that's hardly clear. We can't guess on that based on our personal feelings. We need hard data to back up these kinds of claims.

The only thing I'm comfortable standing particularly strongly against is pseudoscience. Beyond that, as far as I can tell, different outreach methods (provided it's not violent) reach different people.