Runkle had some general recommendations for what our printed message says, and specific recommendations on appearance, layout, working with printers.

Content:

Images: A study showed that people respond best to photographs of canine-type animals.

Don’t condemn the audience. People don’t respond well to accusations and guilt-trips.

Different audiences require different words, colors, layouts. For example, a message will look different if directed to a teen audience as opposed to an elderly one.

Appearance:

Fonts: Choose fonts carefully. Different fonts convey different moods. Too many fonts clutter a page and confuse the reader.

Color:

Similarly, colors convey mood as well as character. MFA’s logo, for example, is blue and grey, conveying a sense of trust, stability, and honesty. You’ll notice that many banks choose blue for their main logo color.

You can find many sites that explain what colors symbolize. Some examples: here, here, and here.

Photos:

Use high-quality photographs. You don’t have to pay a photographer in most caes because many suitable images are available at low- or no cost. For example, MFA has a Flickr account with photos anyone can use.  Vegan Outreach also allows use of its images. Additionally there are stock photos at several sites:

gettyimages.com

istockphoto.com

dreamstime.com

Royalty-free photos can be used for free but they are available to anyone. You many find the images you choose on many sites. If you want exclusive images you will need to pay for that restriction.

Design:

You don’t have to do this all yourself. You can outsource parts or all of your printed work.

A good source for logo work is xerocity.com. Many designers compete for your business so you can see multiple concepts before you spend a dime. A similar option is 99designs.com.

Printers:

If you want a vegan printer contact robert@veganprinter.com for suggestions. Or go to indieprint.com.

Inexpensive online printers abound. Try jakprint.com, psprint.com, printplace.com, for example. The downside of these economical printers is that the color is not always correct.

A good source for getting multiple quotes is printlocal.com.

Distribution of printed literature:

Literature can be distributed in many ways: newsstands (you can get these boxes from Peta), festivals, libraries, and leafleting, for example.

Evaluating effectiveness:

Use simple surveys to determine how well your printed materials are working. MFA, for example, sends out a survey a certain number of days after sending out requested literature, asking if the recipient made any changes as a result of reading the piece.

Other:

Business cards are a must.

You might want to publish a newsletter or magazine.

You can save money by printing pieces jointly, paying part of the cost of a large order that is designed by a major animal organization. The additional cost would pay for having your contact information printed on the material as well. Many organizations are open to joint printing.
—
Our notes from the 2011 AR conference will be all at http://www.vegansoapbox.com/topics/ar2011/. Notes from 2009′s conference are at http://www.vegansoapbox.com/topics/ar-2009/.

[Princeton] University should brace itself for a new wave of vegetarianism on campus, if Thursday night’s 75-35 vote against eating meat on ethical grounds is any indication. Bruce Friedrich, vice president for policy and government affairs for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and bioethics professor Peter Singer presented the affirmative case on the resolution, “This house believes that eating meat is unethical,” at a debate sponsored by the American Whig-Cliosophic Society on Thursday evening. Visiting Fellow for the James Madison Program Peter Wicks and Matt Sanyour ’11, chair of the Cliosophic Society, took the role of the opposition. The debate, which took place before a packed audience of more than 200 students and community members, touched on topics from the suffering of animals and the question of human superiority over animals to the meat industry’s impact on the planet and on food prices for the world’s poor.

Way to go, Singer and Friedrich!

What points did they argue in the debates? You can read the basic argument here: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/no-defense-for-eating-animals/

The losers of the Princeton debate whined about the loss because they themselves conceded the major point that factory farming is unethical:

Sanyour asserted that Singer and Friedrich had not addressed the essential premise of the resolution and had instead presented “a critique of the existing praxis in the meat industry, not a debate on the ethics of eating meat in general.”

The problem with the nonvegans’ logic is that “the existing praxis in the meat industry” IS about “the ethics of eating meat in general”. Virtually ALL of the animal products for sale at grocery stores and restaurants come from factory farms. I don’t mean 51% of meat, dairy, and eggs. I don’t mean 75% of animal products available for purchase. I mean 99%. To speak of nonveganism IS to speak of factory farming.

In general, eating meat = eating factory farmed meat. There is no debate. This is fact.

Only cockeyed logic that denies the practical realities of today’s food production would convince someone in a developed nation that animal-eating is morally acceptable. The evidence against animal-eating is overwhelming. It really, truly is, with or without animal rights philosophy.

If one wants to argue about the ethics of eating the rare and hard-to-find “humane meat,” they must first concede that the practical reality means that only an elite few will be able to do it.

Consider Jonathan Safran Foer’s words in Eating Animals:

“We shouldn’t kid ourselves about the number of ethical eating options available to most of us. There isn’t enough nonfactory chicken produced in America to feed the population of Staten Island and not enough nonfactory pork to serve New York City, let alone the country. Ethical meat is a promissory note, not a reality. Any ethical-meat advocate who is serious is going to be eating a lot of vegetarian fare.”

After acknowledging the reality that the promoters of “happy meat” are elitists, one would then have to prove that trivial human interests of taste, convenience, or tradition trump nonhuman animals’ interests in life, freedom, and the absence of suffering. And they’d also have to prove that the related consequences of animal-killing and animal-eating, such as increased violence, poor health, and environmental destruction were ‘worth it.’

Simply put, the burden of proof lays with the animal-eaters. It is the animal-eaters who must defend their actions, not vegans who must defend ours.

The issue is, ostensibly, violence. But it’s not really. It’s a bunch of other things all lumped together including things like: ego, religion, and in Best’s case, as many GRE words as he can fit into one essay.

I figured I’d chime in myself with a list of my random thoughts on the matters. But before you read my stuff and comment, please try to be fair and read their articles, too (yeah right):

• Animals should not be property. Only immoral laws allow animals to be treated like slaves. (Francione and Best would agree on this point. And well, isn’t this the most important point anyway? Shouldn’t the importance of this singular shared goal outweigh most of the animosity and negativity between them?)
• Francione seems to think that breaking immoral laws is tantamount to violent action. To him, illegal activity is the same as violent activity. I strongly disagree. Some legal activity is violent and some illegal activity is nonviolent.
• Best seems to think that breaking immoral laws is not only ethically justified, but probably obligated. I agree, to a point. I strongly support open rescue. I support any rescue, for that matter. And I strongly support actions that shed light on animal exploiters, showing the general public exactly how cruel they are. But I don’t strongly support some other tactics that Best does support.
• Francione advocates education. And he seems to believe that education alone will solve everything, despite references to other liberation movements that employed tactics far beyond mere education.
• I think Francione mischaracterizes Martin Luther King, Jr. If King’s definition of nonviolence were more similar to Francione’s, then why did King write, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded”???
• I think Francione is misguided when he argues purely in favor of vegan education. He says, “If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built” but there’s little evidence to support that notion. Factories and warehouses are destroyed all the time (due to weather, taxes, mismanagement, etc.) yet even a strong continued demand for the products won’t always resurrect them.
• I think Best is misguided when he argues against culinary activism and other forms of nonviolent and legal activism. Many a vegan and many a dedicated activist were inspired by practical and tasty nudging.
• A multi-pronged approach to the abolition of animal exploitation is necessary. There is room for all of us.
• From my limited experience, the best reason to eliminate or limit “unpopular” activism (even if it’s effective) is the threat of retaliation and the personal consequences. Animal advocates are out-numbered, out-funded, and often hung-out-to-dry by the rest of the movement, as well as the rest of society.
• “Unpopular” activism isn’t just the stuff that some people call violent, it’s any kind of activism that’s highly controversial within the animal movement. For example, nude activism.
• I think Francione, in his constant view of naked women as sex objects and his demeaning attitude towards and lack of acknowledgment of women activists, is a sexist. He simply does not seem to be capable of seeing women’s bodies as anything other than sexualized. And why, for God’s sake, why does he choose MLK in his bus analogy when Rosa Parks makes so much more sense? Francione wrote, “Would Martin Luther King have campaigned for civil rights, claiming ‘I’d rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus’?” as if deliberately ignoring the major influence that female activists played in the American Civil Rights Movement!
• I think Best misunderstands or mischaracterizes and unreasonably rejects pacifism. Indeed, nonviolent direct action fits within many pacifists’ philosophy. But I do agree with Best’s characterization of Francione as a “pseudo-pacifist.”
• I think Best might intentionally obfuscate his meanings. The content of Best’s writings – already unpopular – are made more unpopular through academic language.
• Best spends too much time arguing against Francione and not enough time arguing in favor of direct action.
• Francione spends too much time arguing against methods he thinks are ineffective and not enough time actually doing what he thinks is most effective: vegan education.

Just my thoughts…

Francione’s article referenced above: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-violence/
Best’s article references above: http://negotiationisover.com/2010/02/14/the-loss-of-a-halo-francione-and-the-mask-of-jainism/

OK, go for it. Let the discussion begin…

“I’ve actually met people who WANT to live vegan lives, but resist being associated with ‘vegans’! They continue to eat eggs and dairy almost out of protest against or potential fear of embarrassment about the ‘hardcore’ ‘purist’ vegan fiction.”

These are people who say they care deeply about animal welfare or animal rights, yet they won’t go vegan because they’re afraid of being associated with veganism. Others say they want to go vegan but they’re unwilling to cede the moral argument about animal rights to those ‘mean,’ ‘rude,’ ‘obnoxious’ vegans.

Regardless of their rationales, they’re staying omnivorous or vegetarian in order to spite vegans. They’re hurting animals in order to “get back” at vegans. Or so they think…

Could it really simply be plain, old fear and anger that prevents a vegan transformation? Or is it something else?

How often have we heard this type of reasoning? It comes in many forms:

• “You vegans hurt your message. Stop being so rude and obnoxious and then I’ll listen to you.”
• “I care about animals, but veganism is too extreme.” (example)
• “I’d go vegan except I’m not an animal rights activist.” (example)
• “Don’t tell me how to live. It’s my life.” (example)
• “Vegans think they’re morally superior.” (example)
• “Vegans are hypocritical.”

These “reasons” are not true. They are excuses, rationales, justifications, and regurgitated lies. The reality is that those excuses are merely talking points for proponents of animal exploitation. Literally, the examples  linked above come from The Center for Consumer Freedom:

“The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the “Guest Choice Network”) is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” (source)

“A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned.” (source)

People say all kinds of things and use all kinds of excuses to justify their behavior. People’s verbal rationales for why they do what they do are not always accurate. We can’t simply trust everyone who says they continue to eat animal products because _. Sometimes they’re lying, even when they don’t know it.

This is evidenced by the fact that many people claim to continue eating meat because it tastes good, yet the same people can’t reliably and accurately distinguish the taste between real meat and faux meat. (source)

Obviously, anyone could stop eating eggs and dairy and also not associate with vegans. Lots of people recycle or drive hybrids yet don’t identify as environmentalists. Lots of people choose not to vote yet don’t identify as anarchists. Anyone can choose to eat a plant-based diet and call it whatever they want. Eating like a vegan doesn’t mean you have to adopt the stereotypical vegan image (whatever that is).

So when someone says they avoided or postponed veganism because the vegans they’d met were rude and obnoxious, that person is likely deluding themselves. In reality, they avoided or postponed veganism because they simply weren’t ready to go vegan.

Instead of listening to their conscience or the animals, they waited for vegans to provide them with the “right” argument, tone, or meal. And instead of thinking for themselves, they allowed anti-vegans to define their choices for them. They let industry front groups like The Center for Consumer Freedom dictate their choices, define their beliefs, and put words in their mouths.

The vegan image of being rude, hardcore, purist, or self-righteous, is not the problem. If you’re vegan and happen to be rude, hardcore, purist, and self-righteous so be it. There are plenty of polite, moderate, flexible, and humble vegans. There’s room for all of us.

Even if the “rude vegan” image were the problem, those who perpetuate the myth that vegans are rude would find a new way to discount veganism and promote carnism. That’s what they’ve been doing all along – they just keep finding new myths, lies, and spins.

We don’t need to reframe our pro-vegan messages.
We need to eliminate their anti-vegan messages.