If you’re not vegan, the video that follows is addressed to you.
Gary Yourofsky makes a number of interesting points in it.
Around the 1:20 mark, he raises the odd contradiction that the title of this post comes from. To find out exactly what this is, though, watch the video for yourself – it will have more impact that way.
Gary’s presentation is full of spirit, so you should find it engaging enough to watch – even if you’re already vegan.
If you’re not, this video presents both a challenge and opportunity, one that Gary unfolds for you as he goes.
One note
In other videos and articles, Gary says that violence against people that harm animals, though not a preferred option, can be a valid tactic. To be clear, Vegan Existence doesn’t endorse this position. While the purpose of this post is Gary’s video, not why Vegan Existence doesn’t endorse violence, a few short answers are:
1) that people who harm animals are all around us: the owners of slaughterhouses, relatives that eat animal products, the people that enjoy fishing etc. Given this, wouldn’t most people be legitimate targets for violence? Probably easier to ‘convince’ than large firms? Wouldn’t it be reasonable for some activists to put a bomb in the fridge of relatives that eat or otherwise use animal products?
2) it draws unfavourable attention to the issue of animal rights from the population at large. Some people will be attracted by violence, but in a world where animal use is the norm, most people won’t.
3) it limits the effectiveness of activists, as they either end up in jail or are monitored by authorities.
4) a great deal of energy goes into what even proponents of violence generally say is a marginal activity – that is, that violence, though an acceptable tactic, isn’t a desirable or major part of activism. Wouldn’t it make more sense to direct this focus on violence to activities that are not only more desirable and more accepted, but a wider part of an activists toolbag?