Animal cruelty isn't a great analogy.

It's not a vocal minority, it's a vocal subset of the majority.

A vocal minority is when the opponents of a popular viewpoint are louder than its proponents.

Always relevant:

The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Previous discussion on HN [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16454645

anti-nimby housing activism is a better analogy. The case against more housing construction is very weak at a objective and public policy level, but the only opposition is arguably a minority of people because selling it to the public is difficult. Urban charter schools are another one.

I see the same thing with the Amazon HQ. It's easy for Amazon to spin it in a positive PR direction by talking about jobs and increased revenue, but the policy case for giving in to Amazon's demand is actually weak.

https://hbr.org/2018/07/landing-amazon-hq2-isnt-the-right-wa...

Animal cruelty is a great analogy because the people who oppose it, which are the minority, are more vocal than those who are proponents of it, which make up the majority.

Do you really think only a minority oppose animal cruelty? How many people are proponents of animal cruelty? Neither of us have data to back it up but if you polled people I think the majority would be against animal cruelty, they just wouldn't spend their time opposing it, that's the difference.

Majority of people (me included) continue to buy meat and other animal products, thus promoting animal cruelty.

I do too, but animal cruelty still bothers me and I try to buy products where I believe that the cruelty has been minimized. Animal cruelty is a spectrum and a lot of people care where on the spectrum they lie.

Except when it's the animals that have been killed for their food, then suddenly the conditions those animals are in are not concerning enough to take action. At the moment it's the minority taking any sort of effective change. Boycotts are too much effort for people these days.

Who are proponents of animal cruelty besides dog/cock fighting fans/operators? I doubt that these groups form a majority.

If they know how most food animals are treated, which seems likely, then most people who eat meat are OK with severe, sometimes grotesque cruelty. It goes beyond opinion: they put their money down for it.

People make compromises with their social circumstances.

They're not "ok" with the level of cruelty but in a pervasive environment of limited culinary and social choices, they're okay with living with that knowledge.

Personally, I think you get further raising better people than trying to impose a moral standard in a population that (for the most part) eats diets that hamper cognition and volition ala high sugar and ultra processed crap. Intermittent fasting and a decent diet would do much more for the quality of moral calculation of people than telling them that their entire culture is morally bad. Because we're humans who utilize different strata of values, not mere moral robots.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, the moralists and priesthoods of the world devalue the very small things which give arise to moral judgment: Diet, climate, and habit.

from merriam Webster online [0]

> Definition of proponent: one who argues in favor of something

Even if people are enabling something doesn't mean that they are proponents. Let's stop with the newspeak and use the correct words for things please.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proponent

Knowing how many food animals are treated and having the option to choose differently are two different things.

Not everyone has the money to choose differently.

At times there is no choice. This is especially true if you are a 15 year old. At 15, you basically eat what your parents eat. You can't generally afford food. You can't always just get a job if your parents won't provide education and/or if your school decides your grades aren't up to working. Oh, and you can't work all that often due to child labor laws.

At times, the actual choice is a bad one. Take eggs, for example. When I have the choice, I choose eggs from hens with larger cages. I realize these are hardly large, but they are better than the alternative. I've only lived one place that I could buy eggs directly from the source (during summer time) - but I'm literally an ocean plus some away from that now.

People honestly need a little bit of animal proteins lest they must take supplements. (Truth: I take vitamin D, as I can't make enough at my northerly location). I'm also mostly vegetarian. I eat fish once a week and I eat eggs and cheese.

I can only speak from my personal experience from living in Perú and the US. So I'd say that the majority of Peruvians and Americans support animal cruelty with the decisions that they make every week at the grocery store.

Being a financial supporter does not make one a proponent. There is nobody out there that I know of (maybe lobbyists) who actively argue that there should be more animal cruelty.

"Vocal" is maybe not the most accurate word for this. The reason why things don't happen despite polls showing majority support for them happening (or vice versa), is because the polls don't show how much people care one way or the other. People who care more will also do more - being vocal is one of the things, but another one is e.g. fundraising for campaigns and voting in primaries.

An unrelated example: polls show large supermajorities in favor of many gun control proposals (universal background checks poll at ~90%, for example). But most people who say that they want it, don't consider the opposite stance on that a deal-breaker for their vote - there are many other issues that are more important to them. On the other hand, the 10% that is opposed, is very firmly opposed, and that issue is close to the top for many of them, to the point of single issue voting. And when those people all turn up in the Republican primaries and vote as a bloc, those votes are enough to prevent candidates that displease that crowd from even getting to the general. And so you have all those party line votes, with every single Republican voting against, even though the majority of their constituents - and even the majority of their supporters - would prefer them to vote differently.

Or see Taleb's thoughts on Minority Rule: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

What's the debate about animal cruelty?

Most people are quite happy to keeping buying cheap factory-farmed meat and dairy, despite vague awareness of the generally horrific conditions of the animals (and humans) producing it.

It is rarely labeled that way so the history of the animal doesn't come into play when purchasing.

When people think animal cruelity they think beating your family dog vs the state of factory farming or organic farming.

To continue this thread I suppose...

I've been thinking a lot about trying to purchase pasture raised and sustainable meat products lately and part of that has been buying pasture raised eggs.

My last incredibly priced carton actually included a little slip inside with pictures of the hens in their pasture, and I believe even an offer to visit their farm.

Was really nice to go the other way. Instead of thinking about or ignoring the cruelty, to think about these happy hens.

But damn is it expensive!

Oh, so “animal cruelty” is Newspeak for not being vegan.

As someone who grew up on a farm: there are entirely reasonable ways to define standards of livestock welfare that don't require veganism.

This is true, but the bulk of this hyperbolic criticism comes from vegans, and they're going to use terms like "animal cruelty" no matter what livestock welfare standards you set.

Do you dispute that current lifestock welfare standards in the meat/dairy/egg/etc. industries permit what most would agree is animal cruelty if the same things were done to, say, the family dog?

Yes, I dispute that, if we are talking about Australia. As a farmer (both meat and crop), the better you look after your stock, the more you make from them. There is no incentive for cruelty and it will cost you money. Admittedly, we don't have feedlots on the same scale as the US and the majority of beasts go pasture to plate fairly quickly.

Not all farm animals in Australia are free range cows. For example, cage eggs and sow stalls are still legal.

My point is, it would have been clearer and more honest to use the term “factory farming” if you’re talking about factory farming. I don’t know or care much about factory farming itself.

That's a bit disingenuous, isn't it? This particular thread of comments started when you reacted to criticism of "cheap factory-farmed meat".

Because that's when it became clear that's what was meant by "animal cruelty" in the first place, at least by the person I was responding to.

I'm pretty unconvinced. I don't see any reason to believe your line of reasoning; that the original poster is a hyperbolic vegan. Do you have anything beyond your assertion?

Who else would derail comments on an article about Amazon cancelling their NYC expansion with tangential and disingenuous discussions about factory farms?

Also, the way different accounts seem to seamlessly continue a deep and tangential discussion thread is also kind of suspicious. Almost like it’s one person who keeps switching alt accounts.

This off-topic debate started because of the assertion that it's the vocal minority that have rejected Amazon. The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

Regardless of peoples eating lifestyles it's undeniable that factory farms which produce most of the economically accessible meat are little concerned about animal welfare or the environment. The public on this matter also are least concerned about these matters related to the meat they buy off supermarket shelves, only when it's a video of a 'cute' animal being abused. It is only the minority of people in this instance that take a principled stance, if the silent majority did care we wouldn't be producing so much factory farmed meat after years of publicizing the abuse in the media.

I'm not a vegan but the way you characterize anyone who has a 'minority view' as some radical that only wants to cause problems is the attitude that allows corporations to operate it's abuse of worker standards and public funding to no one else's gain but themselves.

> The discussion on industrial animal cruelty for cheap produce is an example of how the wants of the majority doesn't always produce the best outcome for the well-being of other people, creatures, and the environment.

The discussion would have been clearer if the unambiguous term "factory farming" was used instead. The use of these ambiguous and disingenuous tactics of argumentation is reminiscent of PETA in particular. If you don't want to be characterized as a nutjob, don't act like one. That's my point.

Quote the original poster: "Most people are quite happy to keeping buying cheap factory-farmed meat and dairy" (emphasis added by me).

That was two levels downthread of the otherwise disingenuous and unexplained use of the term “animal cruelty” here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19165463

Either someone shared with you an out-of-context link to this subthread for brigading purposes or you’re being totally disingenuous right now.

This is the second time you've claimed that this thread is some sort of conspiracy.

For myself (and maybe the others), your responses jumped one step beyond reasonable. Because someone used animal cruelty to describe factory farming, that poster is a hyperbolic vegan? I think the fact that you were being hyperbolic incited a few extra replies due to the... irony?

Well, either it's a sockpuppet conspiracy (go ahead, check out my post history), or multiple people agree that your hyperbolic snark was not constructive. I'll freely admit we've come a pretty long from Amazon's HQ though!

I like how using the term “animal cruelty” isn’t hyperbolic, but using the term “vegan” is.

I mean, Veganism is the easiest way of avoiding animal cruelty.

Unless you have a cat and refuse to feed it meat. That’s cruel to the cat, in my opinion.

Edit: Cats are obligate carnivores and can't physically remain healthy without eating meat.

Then there's the flip side with creeps like me. I'm a plant sadist who feeds tofu to my Venus flytrap.

Loud minority of Vegans vs everyone else.

> Migration is the other way round

Migration meaning what? Immigration within the US? That's been a hot button topic since the first Bush nationally, and has been the source of propositions in California since the my first memories of the early 80s. Interestingly, the more the internet was adopted, the more high profile the immigration debate became, nationally. Clinton talked quite a bit (even after his presidency), Bush Jr ignored it, and so on.

Almost everything in your comment is factually wrong.

Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986.

Clinton was an immigration hawk.

https://hackinglawpractice.com/blog/20-year-law-signed-conti...

GWB fought hard against his own party for immigration reform and liberalization.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/senate-ki...

> Almost everything in your comment is factually wrong

That is, in itself, incorrect.

> Reagan passed landmark immigration liberalization in 1986

Yes, bringing it to the forefront, but without a way to communicate effectively, the party in power passed landmark legislation without a national consensus. Most people were unaware, until it passed and had no recourse after.

> Clinton was an immigration hawk.

I'm not sure what you believe, but that's incorrect, imo. He gave strong lip service in "securing borders" but was instrumental in toothless legislation that paved the way for the current passive acceptance alongside the tripling (ish) of the illegal immigration. The insistence that legal immigration continued to outpace illegal immigration year-over-year before and after his presidency is classic Clinton doublespeak meant to push an agenda by interpretation, which he maintained after his presidency. See his last John Stewart Daily Show appearance. Winners write the stories, so this will likely just be forgotten by the future.

> Migration is the other way round: most people don't give a fuck, but have a loud vocal base that will even hurt themselves to make a point and you will be heard.

GWB's reforms were not well supported, so the initial point I made stands, regardless of what was reported. The idea that GWB was doing anything but appealing to a wider base. What he did, was speed up deportations (ending catch and release) and stopped talking about it after his election. So you can interpret that how you will, but it certainly wasn't "fighting hard".