But if the goal is to bring folks into your movement, you’ll have better luck targeting our wallets and tastebuds.
You probably didn’t mean it that way, but that’s an arrogant statement.
Veganism is an animal rights movement. In what other rights movement would you accept that the rights-breakers say: “you have to do x and y before we even think about recognizing these rights”.
“Cheap and tasty” has no ethical weight. That doesn’t mean that people won’t “treat themselves” to something animal derived. And what if there are animal products that are even cheaper and tastier?
What about things where taste doesn’t matter such as leather, fur, wool, silk, beeswax, horn, pearl, gelatine, collagen, keratin, make-up, soap, washing powder, cleaning products, zoos, circuses, animal testing, bull and dog fighting, recreational fishing and hunting etc.?
[Edit - holy shit this post was redundant. I apologize to anyone who suffered through that word salad. I need to quit posting shit when I’m sleep deprived. Did a bit of housekeeping on this post.]
A successful argument isn’t so much about the quality of a point being argued as it is its ability to change the behavior of the person you’re arguing with. So, a really really good point only holds value as an argument if it resonates with target. Animal rights, taste, cost, etc are all tools at your disposal in these kinds of debates: you’ll need to use those tools strategically as they apply not to you, but the person you’re talking to.
And to answer your question: pretty much all of them. Look at any controversy and side A will argue ferociously using points that don’t align with side B’s values, so we just spend a bunch of energy bashing heads, and ultimately accomplish nothing. Leverage side B’s values. As an unrelated example, abortion: I’m very pro choice, but when I’m debating a pro-lifer there are points that I’ll steer away from like women’s autonomy - not because they aren’t good points, but because I know the pro-lifers will not give a shit about that, so they aren’t good arguments. Data on intrauterine fetal death rates vs maternal death rates in states that do vs don’t allow abortions will carry a lot more weight to a crowd that pretends to be about ‘life’.
The technique is called “steelmanning” (basically the opposite of a straw man argument), and it works pretty well, but does require getting into the other side’s perspective and using it as ammo.
When you’re struggling to make ends meet, you’re not going to care about much else besides surviving the next day. Lowering your (and your loved ones’) chances of survival for the benefits of others is a hard sell. Whether you accept it or not, that’s the reality.
You probably didn’t mean it that way, but that’s an arrogant statement.
Veganism is an animal rights movement. In what other rights movement would you accept that the rights-breakers say: “you have to do x and y before we even think about recognizing these rights”.
“Cheap and tasty” has no ethical weight. That doesn’t mean that people won’t “treat themselves” to something animal derived. And what if there are animal products that are even cheaper and tastier?
What about things where taste doesn’t matter such as leather, fur, wool, silk, beeswax, horn, pearl, gelatine, collagen, keratin, make-up, soap, washing powder, cleaning products, zoos, circuses, animal testing, bull and dog fighting, recreational fishing and hunting etc.?
[Edit - holy shit this post was redundant. I apologize to anyone who suffered through that word salad. I need to quit posting shit when I’m sleep deprived. Did a bit of housekeeping on this post.]
A successful argument isn’t so much about the quality of a point being argued as it is its ability to change the behavior of the person you’re arguing with. So, a really really good point only holds value as an argument if it resonates with target. Animal rights, taste, cost, etc are all tools at your disposal in these kinds of debates: you’ll need to use those tools strategically as they apply not to you, but the person you’re talking to.
And to answer your question: pretty much all of them. Look at any controversy and side A will argue ferociously using points that don’t align with side B’s values, so we just spend a bunch of energy bashing heads, and ultimately accomplish nothing. Leverage side B’s values. As an unrelated example, abortion: I’m very pro choice, but when I’m debating a pro-lifer there are points that I’ll steer away from like women’s autonomy - not because they aren’t good points, but because I know the pro-lifers will not give a shit about that, so they aren’t good arguments. Data on intrauterine fetal death rates vs maternal death rates in states that do vs don’t allow abortions will carry a lot more weight to a crowd that pretends to be about ‘life’.
The technique is called “steelmanning” (basically the opposite of a straw man argument), and it works pretty well, but does require getting into the other side’s perspective and using it as ammo.
When you’re struggling to make ends meet, you’re not going to care about much else besides surviving the next day. Lowering your (and your loved ones’) chances of survival for the benefits of others is a hard sell. Whether you accept it or not, that’s the reality.
I agree. Rice, lentils, potatoes, oats, beans, pasta, tofu, etc. are among the cheapest items you can get.