Thanks for your replies everyone. I pretty much take your point, but when I've got more spare time, I'll read the whole lot.
My position is that I agree that the best strategy  would be spending all our time and money on promoting a neo vegan diet. The abolitinists give good reason for this I think. However, if a vegan has heard this argument and still chooses to engage in welfare activity I think that is great because, apart from other reasons, we need to be involved in networks and groups different from us. I think it is good that people do both and it is good that people do put all their energy into promoting veganism. Vegan Outreach are a great example of this.
I say neo vegan above too, as in a world which is changing to veganism I don't have a problem with us giving the sheeps and chooks safe haven and then using their wool and eggs. Would it be so bad in this world to eat oysters, mussels etc too?

Hi Zany Zebra,

When you state: "The word Vegan was established 50 years ago and we have about 2-3% of the Western population, I would rate this a marketing failure. "

I can't agree! I'd think that getting 2-3% of the Western population to go Vegan in only 50 years is an amazing success!

I'm a bit more positive that you! However I personally think that the most effective approach for promoting animal liberation is Matt Ball's work.

It would seem that if you want to get a job done, (where the philosophers & political theorists are failing and just arguing), the solution is to get an engineer in to do it!

**I say neo vegan above too, as in a world which is changing to veganism I don't have a problem with us giving the sheeps and chooks safe haven and then using their wool and eggs. Would it be so bad in this world to eat oysters, mussels etc too?**  Petere Milne.  

Peter Milne, it is obvious you haven't read Dan and Gary's blogs.  In fact, you probably haven't even finished reading this thread, have you?   What you propose are big no-noes!!

*innocent face*

Dan and Gary have blogs? What do they write about, and are they worth reading?

Actually Rod I wouldn't be surpised if there were more plant based eaters 50 years ago, though only by circumstance of poverty.

I could say we have gone backwards but that is only measuring the diet but veganism is a mentality and the diet is a consequence, so we have progressed mentally.

The word failed is threshold and there was never a 50 year goal set, so no one can judge.

Now, now, now, BP! ;o)

and BP stop teasing those sensitive souls (I am not sure they can tell the difference between honest feedback and humour).

We have shown them what honest bluntness feels like, lets hope they just stop being blunt with non-vegans now.

I think levels of awareness are a more important indicator than numbers of actual awareness, because without first increasing awareness of the issues there is not really much of a reason for change to occur in the first place (which applies to pretty much any issue, really).

Okay, so 2-3% may not seem like a huge number, but what was our baseline anyway? It's not a question that was even asked back in the beginning, but it's an indicator of success that it's being asked today! Even people who don't know a vegan, don't want to be a vegan, and don't really care about vegans, still at least know something about what being vegan means. Okay, so in a perfect world they would care and they would come on board, but given the obstacles in our path just raising that level of awareness to start with is an incredible achievement. And having increased awareness, that then gives us something to work with in helping encourage people to take the next step, and moving from awareness to change - because you always need that awareness before you have any chance of achieving change that is based upon it.

There are of course many other factors involved in pushing things one way or the other, but my main intent above was to get across the idea that just because our numbers may appear small doesn't mean we have in any way failed. After all, there is additionally the numbers of people out there who are not vegan, and not even vegetarian, but who as a direct result of vegan advocacy have nevertheless made a conscious and consistent effort to reduce their meat consumption even so. Every 10 people out there who reduce their animal consumption by just 10% is equivalent to one person giving it up completely - okay, not as good as 10 people giving it up, but still better than only 1!

Hey DH, I don't care whether abolitionists agree with my ideas or not. If they want to have a go at me and call me names then that is ok. My point all along is that i would still give them credit for their love of animals and the good points they make. I don't need to criticise them in a rude manner even if they do it to me.
In a world where a love of all creatures is strong, then they can have their corner with the sheep running wild (though what they would do with the wool, I don't know) and I'll have my corner with the sheep keeping the grass down under the orchards  and using the wool to keep me warm : ).

Peter, a wise comment and I'm with you provided the wool keeping you warm doesn't include mulesing.

I fail to see how keeping hens in cages and pigs in stalls is showing a love of animals - all this in case someone gets the idea that because they are living a better life after being allowed to free range, it's okay to use, abuse and eat them.

What you referring to DH?

That is an issue DH, and it would be fine if both parties were left alone to do their own work without anger and insults but still free to make assessments and comment on each other's approaches in a polite but honest way.

Now some abolitionist's assessment is that we should all focus 100% on abolition and I don't feel comfortable with 100% of everyone however I am happy with 100% abolition approach for myself as I know there are many large welfarists organizations still out there.

Conversely I should be able to make assessment on someone exercising the abolitionist approach, for example in Dan's original post on "In Groups and Out Groups"  he has a paragraph that says "I believe the answer to this contradiction can be found in the historical observation of human behavior and attitudes toward “in-groups” and “out-groups”, where the line dividing members of a more powerful in-group from a less powerful out-group is based on some morally irrelevant difference, such as race, sex, ethnicity, or species."

My assessment is that may flow logically for him and other vegans, but every omnivore will notice how he slipped the word "species" into the end of that sentence and will be nodding their head negatively through the remainder of his script at how he is instantly making humans and the animals the same morally.

Dan's assumption he is speaking a universal flawless logic probably explains why he gets frustrated, confused and angry at omnivores. What confuses me is why he get's angry at a vegan that has taken the time to point out a fundemental flaw in his argument to omnivores. Why shoot the messenger? Could it be that 99% of the world is not immoral and stupid but be some failing to communicate by abolitionists?

ZZ, while you promote the idea of discussion free of anger and insults, and also talk about discussions being more important than ego, your actions can be quite different.

Dan's article didn't use any insulting language - that is, call people names - yet you and various other people here used exactly the kind of angry language you decry.

Unlike other posters that are new who you might go out of your way to extend a welcome to, you were hostile to Dan from your first post. Not only hostile, but made claims that were outrageously false - that 5 minutes of reflection would have corrected.

For example, you said 'What we will end up with by leading with the Gary Francione abolitionist approach is righteous nobility but with 100% failure.' Yet you claim this is the approach you take! If the abolitionist approach is such a dismal failure, why do you adopt it?

As just one example, vegan leafleting works. So the '100% failure' claim is false. Both the welfare and abolition side share this tactic.

You've suggested abolitionists are 'sensitive souls', that is, they overreact to small issues. This is ironic given Dan's article doesn't call anyone names, yet a howl of abusive protest greeted him in response to his 'tone'. He was 'arrogant'...

Same with Francione's article about Singer. Francione had the temerity to criticise Singer, and was called various names under the sun, yet people interested in Gary's work are characterised as Gary worshippers. Doesn't that seem a little ironic?

I remind you Dan was a visitor to this forum and new, so you, along with others, could have extended him the courtesy of being polite to him instead of telling him 'Up you’re a r s e, you pompous self indulgent person', that he's holed up in 'little ivory [?!] towers' with other abolitionists, and that he and other abolitionists are 'drongo followers'.

While you're vehement about how 'repulsively rude' and 'arrogant' abolitionists are, you didn't raise a word against people being rude to Dan. You rationalized this as some kind of education for Dan to help him see how blunt his statements were.

But Dan's article didn't attack anyone. He started out friendly -  he wished everyone the best in his first post, even after your hostile 100% failure post. Yet people started to attack him right away, well before he became more brief. Over what? His 'tone'. Not because he's inferring anyone is useless, or calling them names, or idiots, but because he's 'condescending'.

Who's being 'sensitive' exactly?

You're welcome to disagree with Dan, put up arguments against him and so on, but why all the outrage and indignation over his position? This seems very much like the 'righteousness' you find in abolitionist material. Just disagree, say why and leave all the other stuff out.

As you know, some omni's will find it insulting, condescending, arrogant etc, to suggest becoming vegan would be a good idea (you may recall articles in the media demonstrating this attitude). But do abolitionists say they find welfare insulting, arrogant, condescending etc? No, they disagree and try to say why.

One final thing. You said 'I saw the other abolitionist use the words "So be it"  in their resignation, the result is the same again with the animals abandoned because someone's ego does not allow them to listen to evolving views and tolerate the existence of other approaches even when the evidence shows their approach is at least very limited and likely 100% ineffective.'

By the 'other abolitionist' you must mean me. I wouldn't call myself an abolitionist just yet - though i lean that way. More a student of abolition at this point. As such, i can't say i've been impressed by the bitterness against Dan and abolition on this thread.

I explained the reason why i used the term 'so be it' when i used it, but you don't want to accept my explanation. You insist that my ego, and Dan's, don't allow us to listen to evolving views and tolerate other approaches. Wrong. I think we both listen to 'evolving' views. However just because we listen doesn't mean we have to accept them. If you listened to someone giving you heartfelt reasons to jump over a cliff, would you automatically do it? No, you'd consider it for yourself.

While abolitionists may think welfarists are wrong and vice versa, i certainly wouldn't suggest either group does it to abandon animals. They both take their positions with the sincere view that they're right and are doing the best thing.

If i was you - which i'm not - i might consider that claim insulting...

BP, in an earlier post you said this: I hope no offence is taken, veb, but I also hope you can appreciate the irony that what you see as a core aspect of abolitionism [education] is in fact the starting point of the welfare approach that abolitionists spend so much time denigrating.

Abolitionists acknowledge that people may not become vegan overnight. This isn't anything sensational. However the key component of education in abolition is *vegan* education. Not education to become a vegetarian or to eat less meat.

You don't educate someone who assaults people to beat them more gently. You educate them to stop. They may not do it right away, or even at all. But you persist in educating them to stop, to find other ways to release their aggression, hate or whatever it is - not to beat softer.

Veb, when something is a 100% failure this is a measureable indisputable result. How do I tell someone they are failing without you calling me insulting or hostile? I can understand this is disappointing news. Are you suggesting I don't mention it and leave a fellow vegan to waste their life? (The ones that snicker behind your back are the uncaring ones)

Not only have I been caring enough to tell someone they are failing I've gone on to advise them specifically what I think the cause of failure in their approach is. (I've even highlighted Dan's exact problem sentence in my previous post) I would have expected it to be debated and a creative solution found not just ignoring it or calling me hostile.

No where has Dan or you denied failure and told us "here are the resulting ex-omnivores gone vegan from our campaign", you seem to just want to ignore this inconvenient truth. I again say this is not for the sick pleasure of hurting my fellow vegan's egos but to hopefully let them see something important and costly that they seem to be overlooking.

Notice I am saying something is wrong not someone. I will sometimes lead a comment with the word "seem" to point out that is my impression and I am asking for confirmation.

One more thing, though the "The Abolitionist Approach" may be a copyrighted approach the word abolition is in the dictionary and that is exactly my goal for animal use. So I do consider myself an abolitionist but also creative, dynamic, patient and willing to get feedback to improve my approach.

I came into the movement for abolition of all forms of cruelty to animals 27 years and 5 months ago.

Back then there were some abolitionists that separated themselves from the other abolitionists and back then they did the same as Gary is doing today. They associated themselves with the anti human slavery movement and with Jainism. Dont believe me then ask anyone involved with animal lib back then. What gary is preaching is not original. It is old hat. And it has always failed.

During that time I have seen a lot of these abolitioinsts separate themselves from other abolitionists and make out they are a better form of abolitionists. They last, sometimes for years but they do not achieve anything and eventually they fade off the scene until the new batch comes along. Gary followers are just the new batch.

Why do they fade off the scene. I do not really know but I know they become bitter to everyone and they do not achieve much. I imagine to a certain extent they may fade off the scene because they make no impact. I will just do what I always do and  others will do what they always do. The abolitionists that feel they are a better form of abolitionists will do what they always do. So I suppose for me with Gary it is just a case of "here we go again". Once you have seen this over and over it becomes boring.

My way of getting even for their constant having a go at others is just to keep doing what I always do.

They are free to do what they always do and I am free to do what I always do.

I do not see them as being superior to other forms of abolition.

I think the abolitionist approach apologists are like the JWs who come to my door, preach to me and then and just can't understand why I don't accept their truth and become one of the faithful

just like the abolitionist approach apologists the JWs are not out to accept my point of view they are at my front door to convert me … a constant feature of their debate is criticism of other religious and spiritual beliefs

the JWs who hold study groups each week to make sure the faithful are indoctrinated into the dogma and learn the set piece arguments ... the abolitionist approach apologists want us to read Dan’s 30 000 page blog and the endless stuff produced by Gary

vegans don't need hundreds of thousands of words to know a way forward ... most of us live by a few dot points and do the best we can

I did not even look at Dans 30 000 page blog. There is work to do.

One good thing has come out of this. In April this year I had reached burn out stage after 26 years and 11 months of working for animals. I felt I just could not look at another animal issue.

Now 6 months on I am feeling better and have had a break from it all. This thread has actually invigorated me to get back into it and I have spent the last few days going through old files to see what I need to chase up on and to pick up where I left off. It won't be the kind of work that some abolitionists want it, will be the work that this abolitionist wants.

So not all is lost.

veb, black and white solutions only work in black and white worlds, and this world in which we live is stuck in a permanent shade of grey. Until you understand this, you will never understand why you're just not making any progress.

One of the most fundamental failures of your approach and of your understanding is that you just don't seem to get just how little the average person actually cares about animals to start with. So vast is the gulf between their position and the one demanded by abolition that you haven't got a snowball's chance of getting any substantial number of people to even think about changing their position and jumping across it in the single leap that is the only option your narrowminded absolutism provides for them.

This is why a welfarist component is critical to long-term success. Yes, in a perfect world, having someone hurt someone only a little bit less next time is far from a perfect solution - but when it is the only pathway that many will even consider following in the first place, it's better than having them maintain the 100% suffering that they would otherwise continue with if we followed your fanatically absolutist ways. At least this way we have a chance of eventually getting them to the same end point, albeit in stages, and even if we do still fail there will at least still be a reduction in suffering even if not the complete eradication we hoped for. Your method leaves only two options: complete success, or complete failure, and it is fundamentally incapable of complete success so where does that leave the animals, hmm?

You need to start living in the real world, veb. For the sake of the animals, if nothing else. Extremism always fails, and until you realise this you'll never know why you're not getting anywhere.

veb, you have to have somewhere to start - some way of getting your target audience's attention.

If I have someone behind me in the queue at the supermarket and I see a piece of a cow wrapped in plastic in their trolley, I can maybe get away with handing them a "Why Vegan" and saying "Could I interest you in a brochure which could help you and me, the animals and the planet on which we all live?"  Or even "Can I interest you in one of these?" and there is the possibility that they will take it, read it and just maybe contact me again after they've had time to digest it.

Same person, same queue, same piece of cow wrapped in plastic - "I see you have some meat in your trolley.  Could I interest you in going home to read Dan Cudahy's blog?  You don't know him?  Look it up on Google. He writes a lot of sense on why you shouldn't eat animals.  It's a good read."  How far do you think I'd get?

DH, as you may know already from prior discussions, it was precisely that sort of welfare approach that got me moving (albeit slowly) on the path towards being vegetarian. The catalyst was an interview Phillip Adams did with Peter Singer on Late Night Live a few years back.

Once I was vegetarian, it was dietary education that then got me the rest of the way towards becoming vegan, with the realisation that not only did it further promote improved welfare, but it was also pretty easy after all!

Had I been given only the all-or-nothing approach that Gary, Dan, and veb are so forcefully and persistently promoting as the only acceptable option, I would still be a avid meat-eater, and so would my family, because I would have rejected such absolutism out of hand (as most people do). That's the reality that abolitionists refuse to acknowledge - their goals are certainly noble, but their methods only entrench suffering, rather than alleviate or end it, because it allows for no middle ground and refuses to accept that most people just need some time and space to feel comfortable enough to attempt the transition. As a result, many people who could have been won over are instead turned away, and how that does help?

A comment on the theory of "in groups vs outgroups".

This is actually a term originally termed by social psychologists to describe a social phenomenon whereby people considered part of one's in-group are the subject of biased attribution. This means, if a person is considered part of your in group, you will maximise and exaggerate perceive similarities and good qualities in a highly favourable way, while if a person is not considered part of your in group, that is, they fall into your "out group", it is likely that the features of good qualities are minimised and poor qualities are maximised. This process naturally seeds and feeds prejudice.

And make no mistake, we all do it. The in group can be our family, our neighbourhood, our football team, our religion, our country, our profession... choose whatever layer you like, let alone the further complications that arise between species. We are all part of a complex layering system of attributions that is additive and augmented by about 4 main factors. These factors are: similarity (which can be assigned on a variety of bases, e.g., physical appearance, cognitive functioning, evolutionary phylogenetics, emotional capacity etc.); familiarity (how well we know the targets of our attributions); past experience (the kinds of experiences we have previously had in connection with the target group/member); and learning (what have we been taught about the target group/member).

I bring up this point to demonstrate how complex human social interactions are once you start talking about inequality and prejudice. In order to change prejudiced attitudes and attributions, one has to work on breaking down and changing the perspective of the prejudiced person. This is no simple task. It's REALLY difficult even to do this between human groups, let alone human vs animal groups.

The first problem, and the biggest problem I have with pure abolitionists, is that abolitionists assume that other people perceive them as they perceive themselves (e.g., equals? in group members? good quality citizens?). This total ignorance and lack of understanding of human nature is one of the primary reasons why vegan education (and other kinds of activism) fails so often. Simply put, if your target does not perceive you as part of their in group, they will look to maximise all your faults and minimise all your good points. Not consciously, it's just how social interactions operate.

Now.. I ask you all in honest sincerity, does the average Joe on the street consider a vegan abolitionist (especially if you like to wear loud AR messages and haven't bathed for a week), part of their "in group"? Do you think they consider the animals they eat as part of their in group? The short answer is no.

Abolition is the ideal from the vegan's viewpoint. That is a given. However, how do you get the person who considers vegans and animals as out group members to shift in their cognitive appraisal and attributions towards seeing animals as more closely aligned with their in group?

Do you force feed them an ultimatum? Do you simply TELL people that humans are in fact, the same as pigs, dogs, (insert animal of choice here). Do you expect that people will just suddenly go.. "Oh yeah.. how stupid of me to not get it before.. think I'll just go vegan right now". Granted, that may work for about .005% of the population. The rest will immediately start to make mental attributions about the differences, not the similarities, so they can serve and maintain their own biases.

The more likely scenario is that people are educated on the cruelty of caged hens, sow stalls, etc.. which in turn increases awareness of similarities, increases familiarity, expands experience and learning, and you never know, the result may just be that people start to see the animals they eat as more similar than dissimilar, which should have a knock-on effect of increasing perceptions of valued qualities and minimising the negatives as the target becomes more associated with the in group than the out group.

As for vegans being seen as more in group members than out group members.. how do you think that might work best? Vegans cloistering themselves away neurotically judging all and sundry and only associating with others of "suitable moral character", that is, other strictly abolitionist vegans? I'll stop short of a rant there on the wanting approachability of many vegans. Suffice to say, in light of social identity theory and the workings of in group and out group attributional bias, it's hardly the right approach.

Sorry for the long post, I wasn't going to bother trying to explain the theory behind in group and out group social theory in this context, but after consideration, I feel that Dan has taken the concept out of context and extrapolated it beyond what it was meant to explain for his blog essay. I have spent several years studying this phenomenon in connection with empathic processes, and feel well qualified to comment and offer a more comprehensive explanation of the topic for those who are interested. It's not just a passing essay topic for me. And since I am currently researching some of the very first applications of this theory in an inter-species context, I can also say that to apply this theory in favour of an abolitionist approach is prematurely and naively simplistic at best, and misleading at worst.

In my view, true in group vs out group attribution theory as posed by social identity theorists (see Tajfel & Turner, 1974) would actually support a combined welfare and abolitionist approach for all the reasons I have tried to explain above. Welfare initiatives would theoretically increase the likelihood of the bias being lessened via the factors that actually influence whether another being is categorised as "in" or "out" of the group the beholder sees themselves as belonging to.  

Cerberus said "Welfare initiatives would theoretically increase the likelihood of the bias being lessened via the factors that actually influence whether another being is categorised as "in" or "out" of the group the beholder sees themselves as belonging to.  "

That's an interesting point as I did think it seemed logical that welfarism actually delayed abolition, but what you are saying is that someone who buys "happy meat" is closer to the abolitionist group so they do not seem as extreme and thus are likley to listen to the abolitionist message.

So welfarism by this diagnosis is not just caring for the animals during the transition to abolition but actually a step required to get to abolition of animal use.