An animal advocate recently announced that he was looking forward to a talk by Matt Ball, currently of VegFund.
He posted THIS article written by Ball as part of the announcement.
The article is one of those forget about "purity," don't be "dogmatic," and don't scare people away with your veganism pieces we've seen from time to time over several years now. It might be relevant to point out that Matt Ball used to work for Vegan Outreach and told Animal Rights Zone that the VO team now regret using that title.
Of all the article, this stood out for me...
We need to ask questions such as: Do I bother asking for an ingredient list when eating out with non-veg friends and family, perhaps ending up not eating anything, and risk making veganism appear irrational and impossible?
I asked the poster of the announcement what he thought Ball was getting at - he replied: "I think what Matt is implying is that if vegans make veganism appear to be some sort of exclusive dogmatic club, it can potentially scare off pre-vegans from even trying, and do more harm than good in the long run."
OK, so the construction of some "exclusive dogmatic club" doesn't sound too great in a social movement context. Neither does scaring off pre-vegans "from even trying."
The remedy for that, it seems, is not too ask too many questions about whether some food item is 100% plant-based or not. Don't get too involved with the ingredients when eating out. I'm intrigued by how this is supposed to work out in the real world. The vegan gets to a cafe a little late and finds that the "pre-vegans" have ordered stew with bread rolls for everyone. Is this a case where the vegan does not bother with the ingredients? Don't check if there's dairy, eggs, or flesh in the stew. Don't worry that the bread (or the spread on it) may have dairy in it?
Remarkably, commenting on this issue, someone from a European vegetarian organisation said he could imagine circumstances in which he'd eat meaty gravy rather than make a fuss.
He posted THIS article written by Ball as part of the announcement.
The article is one of those forget about "purity," don't be "dogmatic," and don't scare people away with your veganism pieces we've seen from time to time over several years now. It might be relevant to point out that Matt Ball used to work for Vegan Outreach and told Animal Rights Zone that the VO team now regret using that title.
Of all the article, this stood out for me...
We need to ask questions such as: Do I bother asking for an ingredient list when eating out with non-veg friends and family, perhaps ending up not eating anything, and risk making veganism appear irrational and impossible?
I asked the poster of the announcement what he thought Ball was getting at - he replied: "I think what Matt is implying is that if vegans make veganism appear to be some sort of exclusive dogmatic club, it can potentially scare off pre-vegans from even trying, and do more harm than good in the long run."
OK, so the construction of some "exclusive dogmatic club" doesn't sound too great in a social movement context. Neither does scaring off pre-vegans "from even trying."
The remedy for that, it seems, is not too ask too many questions about whether some food item is 100% plant-based or not. Don't get too involved with the ingredients when eating out. I'm intrigued by how this is supposed to work out in the real world. The vegan gets to a cafe a little late and finds that the "pre-vegans" have ordered stew with bread rolls for everyone. Is this a case where the vegan does not bother with the ingredients? Don't check if there's dairy, eggs, or flesh in the stew. Don't worry that the bread (or the spread on it) may have dairy in it?
Remarkably, commenting on this issue, someone from a European vegetarian organisation said he could imagine circumstances in which he'd eat meaty gravy rather than make a fuss.
RSS Feed
