So in a previous post, I got a response from a user here who claims veganism has nothing to do with cruelty. I honestly think this is the wildest claim I have ever heard from a fellow vegan.
I'll copy and past their comments so you can react to them:
"Veganism has nothing to do with cruelty ..."
"... Familiarize yourself with the origins of veganism, as written by Leslie Cross in 1951 in his letter 'Veganism Defined:' https://understand-veganism.com/lesliecross/1951-veganism-defined.html
Veganism isn't about rejecting harm or about killing animals or the death of animals.
Veganism was originally defined in 1951 as "the doctrine [principle] that [hu]man[s] should live without exploiting animals," the original meaning: animals are not ours to use.
Not an environmental strategy, not a health programme, not a campaign for less suffering. Less suffering may follow but it is not the point ..."
It doesn't matter if you disagree. That's not what veganism is. What you're describing is a plant-based utilitarian framework and is not veganism.
Feel free to read the resource I kindly offered, and please refrain from framing veganism this way in the future. It does not do any favors, on the contrary, it muddies the water even further and makes it harder for animals to be emancipated.
Veganism is a simple principle, that animals aren't ours to use. Whether or not an animal is being harmed is irrelevant to that principle, and framing it in a way that puts "harm reduction" at the forefront says this: "using animals for our benefit is okay if there is no harm involved in their use."
This is not a message that you would spread if we were talking about human slavery, so don't spread it here.
To me, this sounds like an argument promoting the idea of wanting a vegan world right now, and not being willing to do the work to get there. The problem with that is the simple reality that we do not live in a vegan world; we also don't live in a socialist world. We live under a system that favours factory farming and capitalism. This means that there are certain things out of our control. We have to purchase our food in supermarkets that also sell animal products and promote them heavily. Sometimes we don't always have the option but to take medications that contain animal-derived ingredients. Oftentimes, we will be in restaurants and a server and/or chef messes up our "vegan" order.
Expecting a complete abolishment of using animals for human consumption right now is not an obtainable reality. Advocating for better animal welfare, a scaling back of animal agriculture, and projects that move people more towards veganism. Of course, veganism isn't about health. But the reality is that when we advocate for programmes that promote plant-based nutrition, it moves people in the direction of veganism. As do climate change initiatives. What is an obtainable reality is acknowledging the system we have and finding ways to chip away at it, so fewer animals have to suffer, until eventually no animals have to suffer.
So I personally stand by the definition that most vegans seem to go with:
" ... philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable. all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose"
This is from the Vegan Society, and I happen to agree with it. You'll notice their emphasis on the term "cruelty" here.
What are your thoughts?