# Your Positions

- We should all be vegan. Animals should never be exploited, because they are sentient and have the capacity to suffer. ([Start over](/Vegan Philosophy Adventure))

- Buying leather, honey, meat, dairy, and sweatshop-produced goods is never OK. Paying to go to a circus or zoo for the purpose of entertainment is never OK. We should be more-or-less devoting our lives to protesting and working against these practices, even when it makes other people feel bad or comes with personal sacrifice. ([Go back](A))

- Causing psychological distress in omnivores by portraying the realities of animal exploitation is OK, but only if there are no other equally effective long-term strategies. Advocating that people eat less meat, having no-pressure Socratic-style dialogues, and listening patiently to the views of omnivores are more effective long-term strategies for ending animal exploitation, so we should be using these the majority of the time. ([Go back](AA))

# Things to Consider

A frequent criticism of animal rights activists is that they push their views on others and "moralize". Of course, you could argue that Martin Luther King Jr. was moralizing: he was literally a reverend preaching about racial equality. From other animal rights advocates, a frequent criticism of those who listen patiently to omnivores is that they are "bootlickers": they are simply appeasing omnivores, validating their views, and letting them be complacent in their overall inaction. There is a question: where do you draw the line between when you should be respectful and patient, and when you should use harsh language, show those brutal videos of chicks being ground up in an industrial grinder, and call animal farmers rapists and murderers? 

The concern with being upfront and brutally honest about your views is that it might turn people off. Their brains might just shut down, and for stupid emotional reasons they may stubbornly refuse to even try a vegan diet for a few weeks, because they had a bad interaction with someone who called them a rape supporter. On the other hand, the rise of "Meatless Mondays" and other such incrementalist ideas threatens to water down the message of veganism. If people are congratulated for going 24 hours without supporting animal abuse, and then let off the hook for the other 144 hours of week, this may end up cementing in their heads the idea that meat and dairy consumption is ethically OK, just ought to not be done in excess. At this point, it may be harder to convince them to take further steps, since they are already "doing their part". 

Many people associate in their heads veganism with other movements towards social responsibility, like recycling, not wasting water, biking instead of driving. Lots of people are more than willing to do these things some or most of the time, but will get pissed off if you suggest they should do them all the time. Their objection is that "no one is perfect", and advocating for perfection is going to far. But would those same people hold similar attitudes towards rape or violent assault on humans? Should we be OK with people raping or assaulting people less?

# Select the Position that Best Represents Your Views

(A) [We should cause psychological distress in people who are actively and stubbornly endorsing animal exploitation for the same reason we should cause psychological distress in people who see nothing wrong with sexually harassing others. They deserve it, and the behavior is not going to stop unless people start feeling social pressure to stop it. We don't need their consent to justify showing them brutal footage of animals being abused, because they didn't ask for consent when they caused it. However, we should be patient with those who are genuinely open to changing. The majority of people are open to less intense dialogues, and plenty of people are willing to watch this footage themselves voluntarily, so the majority of the time we should not be forcing our opinion on people.](AAEA)

(B) [Even when people are being stubborn and espousing vile views on animals, we should always attempt more subtle forms of discourse first. It's not about what we think, it's about what they think, and usually the best way to change how someone thinks is to give them the feeling of agency in the conversation, and having patience. However, if someone refuses to engage in conversation over a long period of time, and seems to be ignorant of the realities of animal exploitation, then we ought to show them those videos of chicks being ground up. In these situations, people need a reality check.](AAEB)

(C) [Simply having a conversation about animal exploitation is going to cause psychological distress in basically any omnivore. But we shouldn't be *aiming* for this, even when a person is refusing to engage. In fact, psychological distress shuts down people from actually engaging and puts them on the defensive. We should not be trying to cause psychological distress, but on the other hand if we are to have a serious dialogue, it is inevitable, and we should not avoid dialogue just to avoid it.](AAEC)