Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My impression is that veganism has a political component (that goes beyond animal rights, which are not exclusive to the left) that may put off conservatives or at least compel them to describe themslves simply as 'vegetarian' even though they may actually practive veganism.
My impression is that veganism has a political component (that goes beyond animal rights, which are not exclusive to the left) that may put off conservatives or at least compel them to describe themslves simply as 'vegetarian' even though they may actually practive veganism.
Does it exist? I'm vegan and all my friends who are vegan are liberals. I think they assume I'm a democrat. Haha. Any one else a vegan republican?
Seems like everything gets politicized anymore. Even the foods we eat get politicized. I really don't understand why veganism would be considered a liberal or conservative or poltical thing to do. Next thing you know, physical fitness will be a liberal or conservative thing to do. So ridiculous. And it seems like it's only getting worse the further into the future we go.
Does it exist? I'm vegan and all my friends who are vegan are liberals. I think they assume I'm a democrat. Haha. Any one else a vegan republican?
My foster daughter and her partner actually had a room mate for quite awhile who was not only a vegan but a lesbian and a Republican. According to our foster daughter it was very unusual but they do exist.
I am republican and I actually am very health conscious.
Isn't it possible to be very health conscious and still not be a vegan? Now, if you live in Seattle it might be hard to be a Republican period but certainly not hard to be a vegan.
I dislike the fact that animal rights have become politically polarizing. I am a liberal, but I wish that eating an ethical diet was not thought to be a liberal thing. No one thinks slavery is a liberal or conservative thing, and my guess is no one thinks laws opposing animal cruelty are particularly liberal or conservative. I don't see why views about the bonafide animal torture that occurs in factory farms should be any different.
The problem when issues like this become politically polarizing is that half of the country assumes a certain belief simply because they don't typically agree with the other half. This is currently being demonstrated with climate change. In the vast majority of the world (essentially every country but the US), people of all political stripes accept that climate change is both real and man-made due to the scientific evidence. In the US, Republicans are far more likely to believe it is either not real or not man made. The scientific evidence is just as persuasive as it is anywhere else in the world, but they simply don't want to believe the same things liberals believe. That's the problem with political polarization, and I hope this doesn't continue with animal rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7
Its the same with protecting the environment period. I'm not sure how that became more of a liberal thing than a conservative thing.
I'm really surprised to hear this. Everything that I have heard from the conservative viewpoint is that animals are things or property and the property owner can do anything with them that they so choose, up to and including factory farming/cruelty, or hunting the "thing," keeping it in captivity for entertainment, or even "disposing" of an ill or unwanted pet/farm animal.
The liberal viewpoint is that animals are sentient and/or have rights, and those rights should be enforced across the board. This is where the divide happens - the conservatives don't want the liberals telling what to do with their property.
I'm simplifying, but that is the divide that I see.
Everything has always been political. If I say that I'm a Southerner and have a rebel flag, a dyed in the wool liberal, and I'm also a Zen Buddhist that eats a cruelty free diet (all true), those are all political statements to one degree or another. I suspect that many of those few Republicans that eat a vegetarian diet do it due to health concerns, not out of respect for the lives of the animals. A vegan Republocan would be very rare, unless it was a health choice. Like MoonBeaM33, I have never met a socially conscious Republican that was a vegan for any reason.
Sure, there's exceptions to most every rule, but I go by my experiences. Republicans, and conservatives in general, always look at me like I have two heads when I tell them why I don't eat dead sentient beings, or even why I don't drive a car (it's good for the planet, my bike pollutes the air a lot less than a car, etc).
Not all liberals are aware that "animals" (not us, them 4 legged ones, or those w/ wings) are sentient either, and even among my Buddhist friends some of them continue to eat meat, which I totally don't get. Not everyone on the spiritual path is as far along as others though, so that's part of it. One step at a time w/ awareness.
Actually, veganism has become almost a religion to most people. I don't carry it quite that far, but do go out of my way to avoid any food products that cause harm to other beings. As a photographer that shoots B&W film, all of the photographic papers in the world are coated w/ a silver gelatin emulsion, and that derives from the hoofs and bones of animals. Now did those animals die during slaughter to be eaten? I have no way of knowing that, so it is not much of a concern. If that were true, and if the specific papers that I have contained gelatin made from animals that were specifically slaughtered for food, then I would not use those papers. On the other hand, the hoofs and bones came from animals AFTER they were killed, so it's not like eating the animal itself that was killed to eat. So that's something else to think about.
I'm really surprised to hear this. Everything that I have heard from the conservative viewpoint is that animals are things or property and the property owner can do anything with them that they so choose, up to and including factory farming/cruelty, or hunting the "thing," keeping it in captivity for entertainment, or even "disposing" of an ill or unwanted pet/farm animal.
The liberal viewpoint is that animals are sentient and/or have rights, and those rights should be enforced across the board. This is where the divide happens - the conservatives don't want the liberals telling what to do with their property.
I'm simplifying, but that is the divide that I see.
I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I didn't say that conservatives don't tend to have a "property" view of animals or that liberals don't tend to care more about animal rights. In fact, I think I said exactly that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever head of it?
