The majority of vegans are using slogan lines such as 'No death on my plate' without the foresight or understanding that they are flawed statements. The problem is it’s just not true. Crop agriculture comes with a cost. The chances of our meals having a death toll of zero are incredibly slim. Overly simplistic messaging that is easy to debunk, or that points the finger at the others, tends to make people emotional. Although the slogan can used strategically to get the conversation on the table, it also could be responsible for pushing people from neutrals to anti-vegans.
DAVID RAMMS: What if some of the most popular vegan slogans are pushing people away from veganism?… An example of a bad argument and its negative impact on the world are the, “no death on my plate” or, “no one died for me to eat this meal” slogans I’ve seen countless times within the vegan movement.
The problem? It’s just not true that veganism means there is no death caused by our lifestyle, or that no animal died for our meals. Crop agriculture comes with a cost, as does the production and transport of almost every item we purchase. The chances of our meals having a death toll of zero are incredibly slim.
It might pedantic for pointing this out, but does it make it any less true? The “no one died for my meal” slogans are simply incorrect, and I worry they’ve provided masses of guilt-ridden anti-vegans low hanging ammunition to easily undermine our vegan message.
It also feels like these kinds of slogans are more designed to raise the status of vegans than speak up for the animals. Instead of: “No death for my meals”, try: “We can grow plants without harming animals, we can never farm animals without harming animals”… it clearly doesn’t have the same edge as the “no death on my plate” slogan. But it’s more reasonable, clear and intellectually honest…
Another example: “Research shows veganism reduces the risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the world’s three biggest killers”. Again, a fantastic statement to catch the attention of the public. But again, this statement is false…
Instead of: “Research shows veganism reduces the risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the world’s three biggest killers”. Try: “Research shows a balanced, healthy plant-based diet can reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the world’s three biggest killers”… nuance, and an admission that there is no guarantee of health improvements, is a significant improvement on this point…
Many of these statements with “edge” could have been responsible for pushing people from neutrals to anti-vegans. Overly simplistic messaging that is easy to debunk, or that points the finger at the “others”, tends to make people emotional. Of course, this can be used strategically to get the conversation on the table.
Some activists are strategic with their use of language, and sort of “poke the bear” as a way of leading onto more fruitful discussions… The majority of vegans are using these sorts of statements without this foresight or understanding that they are flawed statements…
We can all agree that neutral is much easier to deal with than anti. I’d much prefer someone say, “you know, I’ve just never really thought about it” rather than, “I’ve spent the last three years debunking all of your annoying vegan propaganda”… it’s important for us as representatives of the animal cause to ensure what we’re saying is true, and makes sense. What do you think? Can we find a balance between accuracy, nuance and virality? SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: