Shanti shanti shanti

I love your blogs and dont see anything wrong with them. Also it is because of your blogs that i eventually want to become vegan. I had been a vegetarian for awhile and had never intended to go vegan (mainly because i just didnt know much about milk and eggs) Im lactose intolerent so i hardly touch milk anyways, and i dont like honey, so i really just need to wean myself off eggs.

Anyways i have read many diffrent kinds of AR blogs but it took yours to get me thinking about veganism.

but i do have a question for you... What about pet chickens? My grandma has four pet chickens, they even all have names, and she has no intention to eat them. There is no male around and they live in a pretty big enclosure.. they of course still lay eggs but they wont hatch and eventually would just rot if left there.. Is it wrong to eat those eggs? They seem very happy, and have all the food they want... IDk im kinda 50/50 on whether it would still be wrong or not to eat the eggs. I understand i wouldnt be vegan but if i cut everything out, milk, honey, eggs and products with eggs in it at the store, i would be pretty damn close lol.

Would it still be cruel?

We love and appreciate you Stephanie. Don't change your style or any of the content you provide, because it's wonderful and helpful. At least you don't try to ban commenters for the site. 

@Amanda: This can sometimes become an issue at farm animal sanctuaries - the two I've worked with have dealt with it by removing the eggs and placing them at the perimeter of the establishment for predators to eat. I certainly don't have any issues with pet chickens, and I doubt very much any vegan would. My cousin has a similar set up to what you just mentioned (the chickens have a large enclosure, plenty of freedom, and will be there for life, regardless of their egg production) and although I don't believe it will cause these particular chickens any harm to consume their eggs, I don't think it fits in with the vegan ethic. I don't think it's cruel, but nor do I believe it's vegan - does that make sense? However, I think most (if not all) vegan agree that veganism isn't necessarily about total purity, and I think few would take huge issue with a choice to consume those eggs. It also depends on your reasons for going vegan in the first place...

Thanks for all the support, friends.

I haven't commented much on your blog, but I read it regularly and appreciate the information and insight that you provide. Thanks!

I suggest that you don't count any comment that disagrees with you in the slightest as "off-topic" or "trolling".

I just wanted to say that my comment about pet feeding was in no way meant to "stir up a heated debated" as you took it to be. I simply care a lot about dogs and want people to feed them a proper diet. I didn't decide that just for your blog, I've been giving advice on it for years; for example, here's a search for dog food answers I've given on Yahoo Answers: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-US&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=abbyful+yahoo+answers+dog+food&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I apologize if it offended you that I have an opinion differing from your own. However, I don't see that as a reason to close a thread. People can disagree civilly. Just because people disagree doesn't mean a conversation has to be shut down or deleted. Knowledge is power, regardless of what side of opinion you are on for different topics, it's always good to see the other side and the "big picture".

There are obviously people, even on this blog, that have either more lenient views or more rigid views than you on animal rights, unfortunately it seems if they aren't spot-on with your views they are chastised. (And I'm not talking about me here, I'm talking about the person that said "go vegetarian" and the person that said "pets are slaves".)

You can disagree with someone on one topic and agree with them on another. People are not "enemies" because they disagree with each other.

That is all, I won't be posting in this thread again. You can yell at me now, or delete this post, or close this thread.
It's not my intention to post this to make you mad, but I feel that it probably will even though I tried to write it as non-confrontational as possible.

I feel for you, Stephanie. When you first began this blog, I commented about a post and checked the "Email me when there are new posts in this thread." Huge mistake. Just reading some of the insane comments wears one down. So I can't imagine having to read -- and sometimes respond to -- all of them.

Amanda, I agree with Jen. I'd also add that if one were going to have pet chickens, it'd be better to get them as rescue chickens than to buy them at a store or something.

Stephanie:

I got into your blog through the sustainable food blogs. For some reason, the horrible ad hominem attacks and endless hyperbolic arguments were... attractive? somehow? who knows.

I appreciate your views and will absolutely stand by your right to defend them however you please. Your insight is valuable and you are a convincing force. Kudos (or cookies, if you prefer).

Here, then, is my problem. And this goes for almost everyone out there who is commited to and often consumed by their cause. You actions are simply unprofessional. Change.org presents itself as something a bit above a stupid liberal webring, and its staff writers should strive to uphold that image.

Oh, and don't start the "if you don't like it, stay away" garbage. The information presented is often very good, even if the presentation itself is lacking.

So, when you bitch at your commenters, rather than continue to back your point with clear, consistent writing, or you close comment threads because they irritate you, I question your professionalism, not your expertise. You're passionate, I get it. But leave the ranting for personal encounters and/or email responses.

Frustration that finds its way into your writing in the way it did yesterday reeks of a lack of maturity. I know its a heavy task, but calm down. Take everything (yes, even your cause, even yourself) a little less seriously, put it all into perspective, use the delete key, and re-write your flames as well-reasoned responses.

Stephanie,

Since you deleted my comment to Ryan, thanking him for his understanding and compassion, I sent him my appreciation personally. You cannot delete that. It had nothing to do with you, so you really had no right. If my appreciation towards a good post offends you, then you should really look at your reasons for feeling that way, and what the other post said that brings that type of positivity. That is where you are missing the point. 

Getting angry is counter-productive and unhealthy. Communication and debates are good, although it must feel pretty powerful to shut things down whenever you choose. When we have no choice and no vote on whether or not to continue...you have all of the power to shut down and delete. Your backup defenders are strong and will be there to defend you when you are too "spent" to care. I don't mind the comments from them either, although the language that you and your friends use does lack maturity. There is no law against mobbing, although the www.bullybusters.org would still take offense to the actions and harsh use of words.

You have made it very clear that some are not welcome in the AR blog. That's okay. There are plenty of sites that want to do good and make a difference without judgements. There are other causes to put our positive energy into. It's sad that you take offense to this.

We are clearly nowhere near the same page and I am okay with that as well. I misunderstood what Animal Rights was about. You set me straight. You may want to change the name to Vegans-R-Us. Personally, I have already given up meat and dairy, but thanks to you I will never call myself a Vegan. I will never look at it as something to aspire to, when so much unkindness comes with the title.

I was kind in my last comment, and it was deleted. I'm positive that this will be too, since this reply lacks the niceness. To make the assumptions about me, not knowing anything about me or my background...It shows your lack of compassion. To even be making those comments to anyone about their choices or lifestyle... I am not worried so much about what was said to me, but some of the replies to people that were newer to the site and naive to the ways that it is conducted...it needs to stop. People have killed themselves for on-line bullying and you have no right to mob someone who may not have the gumption to defend themselves. Some of the commenters are young. You really don't want to go there. You should not. At this point, I don't care if that offends you. Abusing people is not any better than harming animals, whether it is emotional abuse or physical. You really need to think about what you say to someone before you project your anger towards them. If you get nothing else at all from this reply, at least take that into consideration.

Thanks anyway, but I've lost any respect that I came in here with for this type of Animal Rights cause and what I thought would be a group of like-minded caring individuals. (There are some really good people that come here, and to them I say thanks. They know who they are.) 

I will not open any other private messages from you. That is my right. That is my choice. Just like when you delete my comment to someone else without the chance for them to read it. You made the rules. I have not hidden any messages to you. Everything I wrote to you was posted for everyone to read as is this one.

Here's something you might want to read and then delete:

www.firstamendmentcenter.org

Two last words to the all powerful OZ ...

anger-management

(Now press delete)

I will let you have the last word, as I am signing out of here...

Michele...

"Personally, I have already given up meat and dairy, but thanks to you I will never call myself a Vegan. I will never look at it as something to aspire to, when so much unkindness comes with the title."

Why would you not stop eating eggs because of this? I have met a few bad vegetarians even b4 i went veg but that doesnt mean i was going to continue to scarf down on meat because they pissed me off. Your statement seems EXTREMLY IMMATURE! If everyone thought like that than no one would be vegetarian or vegan because there is always going to be someone who makes us mad. You cant clasify a whole group on a few amount of people you dont like.

Also if you think all vegans are unkind how about instead of continuing to eat eggs why not go vegan and show people that there are decent vegans out there by acting like a decent vegan.

Anyways no one is going to agree with each other so i personally feel this topic should be closed, otherwise the fighting is going to continue.

Is it possible to view blogs as a written form of mini-talk shows and the authors of the blogs as "hosts" (that is, if comments are allowed on the blog and responded to by the host)? Talk shows allow for the audience to respond to the material presented in the show with either comments or questions. Anytime dialogue from audience members becomes derogatory, inappropriate, or veers off topic, that part is edited out of the show, so as to keep things flowing, cohesive, and relatively pleasant and informative for the majority of the viewers (unless it's the Jerry Springer show ;-)). As much as I am not a fan of censorship, a blog host has a right to run her ship in the most professional way she deems possible, especially when she is getting paid to run it professionally. Not that I am comparing any blog writer to Oprah (not my favorite talk show host; I'm just using her as an example offhand), but I'm sure there are times when Oprah has lost her cool with an audience member, in which case I imagine she just takes it off line (off air) or edits it out and life goes on. The host is definitely the person who sets the tone and is the captain of the ship steering the content in a way that is representative of what she wants to convey. I see paid blog writers in the same way - they should be granted the right to move the direction of the content in the way they wish and to have the ability to *directly* edit any interaction to enhance the quality of the piece. 

In terms of journalism, I have no firsthand knowledge of it, but I suspect that sometimes the lines of journalism get rather blurry when a writer is required to respond to comments and answer questions after the article is written (especially when comments wax aggressive, insulting, or inflammatory). Before the advent of blogs, these post-article discussions did not exist in professional journalism of paper-based newspapers (not in my memory, perhaps I am wrong), unless it was a self-help column like "Dear Abby," and even in those cases, the answers and questions were very contained, as were letters to the editor, which appeared in its own section apart from all else (and they still do I guess - I haven't read a paper-based newspaper in years!). Because blogging is a relatively new form of media, there is no known code of ethics or universally established (standardized) rules in the blogging world, such as I would suspect one would learn in a proper school of journalism (I haven't heard of a "blog-writing school," but maybe one is out there?). The lack of such formal restrictions is in a way refreshing, since independent bloggers can for the most part make up their own rules of style, format, conduct, and etiquette (in comparison to old school journalism, which seems to have strict parameters) and open up honest and open ongoing dialogues between the writer and her readers like never before in history. Blogging is a relatively new format, which is still working out the kinks in terms of where it fits in the world of media/journalism. I think it will be interesting to see the evolution of paid blogging and what it morphs into - whether blogging gradually begins following the more strict lines of objective journalism or if it takes a far different direction, a rogue route where emotional content between the writer and readers is the accepted norm.

I have noticed that online newspapers have become more and more open to comments (usually appearing below the article), and in most cases the writer/columnist/journalist herself is inconspicuously absent in them (nobody questions or notices her absence - it is accepted and normal). It is not expected of the journalist to answer questions, appease or calm down commenters, or offer thanks to anyone who responds. It is less personal and makes the writer less accessible, but I have never found this to be a problem (i.e., I am not offended that the writer has better things to do with her time then wrangle with her readers, leaving them to their own devices to discuss and debate the topic as they wish. It is not a required self-evident "duty" that the journalist respond online, and I think commenters often forget the luxury they are receiving when they are offered the chance to interact with a paid writer, including getting the chance to ask pertinent questions and express their opinions and ideas directly to the writer).

The job of a paid blogger is more encompassing in certain ways than a traditional journalist, since she is often expected to engage daily with her readers (and at times generates negative responses if she does not), as well as deal with the sometimes heightened emotions certain readers may be exhibiting on a given day. I may be wrong, but I can imagine in some cases, because blogging is a fairly new movement in the world of media, the job description of a paid blogger could be on the vague side, without a whole lot of precedent and leaving too much room for interpretation in terms of a job description, particularly when it comes to dealing with people who post heated comments. I wonder if there may be a need to provide better guidelines that protect and respect the writer (and empowering her to directly control the content)  - perhaps a more standardized/detailed job description (regardless of how much or how little one is paid). (For those of you who are wondering, I do not know Stephanie personally - in fact, I've only posted on this blog maybe three times, at best. I am merely speculating on the position of all paid bloggers - this is not directed at Stephanie herself. But these are some thoughts that employers of paid bloggers should certainly take into consideration. As well as commentors who may have forgotten that paid blogging is a relatively new ball of wax and provides a fairly new luxury of immediate accessibility to the writer that readers at one time did not possess.)

Sorry for the long ramble (I truly have difficulty writing short comments)! Hopefully I have not insulted anyone with what I have written - that was not my intention. These are just some thoughts I was processing in trying to understand the nature of what is going on here. In any case, I think this is a great blog -- it is well written and informative and I agree with close to everything you (Stephanie) write (I am a vegan who supports abolition and believes animals should not be used...period. I also have three rescued animals in my care :-) - they are enslaved only in the sense that humans have made them so by breeding them.).

Closed, in the interest of everyone's sanity.