Animal welfare people: too damn nice?

On any given day on the Daily Kos, many of us will refer to Republicans and or conservatives as rethugs, wing-nuts, ditto heads. I'm not complaining about it, sometimes it's actually pretty funny and some of those guys really deserve every inch of criticism they get.

But why is it that people, myself included, who advocate for better treatment of animals in our society feel that we need to approach others in a diplomatic way (at least most of the time, heh). You don't hear people calling others: omnivultures, meatfiends.. (ok, I'm not a very creative writer and can't come up with any more).

But seriously, should those of us who advocate that animals should not be used to re-test beauty products over and over again and who think that the large factory farms (vid) treat animals inhumanely adopt the Daily Kos strategy of "fight, fight, fight," should we be more like Howard Dean than like John Kerry?

Well what is our message, those of us who don't eat a full omnivore diet?

This is the hard part because people who advocate for better treatment of animals do so for a variety of reasons. Some people are animal rights oriented. Which doesn't mean that they think that chickens should be brought into voting booths to peck a vote for Chicken Little; but that animals have certain interests and these should be respected. The basic idea is animals exist for their own well-being and not for the use of human beings.

Others eat a vegetarian diet for religious reasons, but personally I became more animal conscience in terms of thinking about suffering. I think suffering is bad. I think unnecessary suffering is especially bad. I think that not-suffering is better than suffering. Hence, a vegetarian diet contributes less to suffering.

Now I've heard people comment about how people who want better treatment of animals are trying to force other people to think a certain way. This seems to be a common complaint.

Well can anyone point to one Kossack who doesn't do this? When writing about Supreme Court nominees that would not respect civil rights, are we just weighing in our opinion, or are we trying to convince other people of our progressive values and ideals. I think the latter. We want to actively influence others, as Howard Zinn says: "You can't be neutral on a moving train." I don't think we're destined to be collaborators in maintaining the status quo.

I also hear smears that people involved in such issues are extremists. Well, there certainly are extremists, no doubt. I personally support animals to be used in medical research if it is done humanely, it goes back to the reduction of suffering thing. But most people who choose a vegetarian or vegan diet are just compassionate people who, you know, wouldn't hurt a fly, well.. maybe a fly, but not a cow.

But back to the question.. why don't we "fight, fight, fight'? Well, I speculate that most people in the field don't think that would be pragmatic. When explaining why eating meat contributes to something bad, it isn't a surprise to find that person being defensive. Who wants to think that their everyday actions are wrong? This interests me in a more general sense about progressives and framing.

From "talks" I've had about animal welfare, I have noticed that I have gotten no where if I've just slung insults back at those who call me names. It just doesn't work. Now, I'm not sure WWGLD (I might soon! -I'm on page 8), but from my experience, being calm, respectful of others opinions and views, yet willing to be firm in my convictions has been the most effective strategy.

Cross-posted at MLW