The problem of focusing on anti-fur-campaigns instead of all animal use

Sad that we can't discuss any moral issue without being hateful to other people. I disagree with some vegans, but I don't hate them. There is a big difference actually. I can believe that many vegans are doing their best to help animals, but I can still disagree with how they are trying to do this.

And it is also sad that people believe that vegans who agree with Abolitionist veganism can't think for themselves. Most people embracing Abolitionist veganism first believed that promoting Animal welfare reform and single issue campaigns was good, and then changed their mind because of convincing arguments. 

They thought for themselves. They questioned how things have been done the last 200 years.

Dan,
Vegan education is not a single issue campaign. A single issue campaign is a campaign that sends the implicit or explicit moral message that there is a moral difference between one animal use of one species and other animal use of other species. That is one of the problems with SIC's. Veganism covers all animal use, so it is not a SIC per definition.

I believe that the anti-fur campaign and other SIC's that focus on one single animal use of one single species implicitly promotes speciesism (although I do believe that most people are unaware of this), since it makes non-vegans believe/reinforces the belief in non-vegans that there is a moral distinction between fur vs. meat, dairy products, eggs, etc.
If you don't believe in this go to any page of an Animal welfare-group in a thread discussing how animals are treated for fur, or how monkeys are exploited for vivisection, or a anti dolphin-slaughter-campaign, and you will see non-vegans condemning other non-vegans, without understanding that the exploitation that they are participating in is different from the exploitation of that the people they are condemning are participating in. The campaign against dolphin slaughter in Japan reinforces that dolphins are more valuable than other species, and is often also used for racists to spread their hatred.


 It distracts non-vegans from facing the exploitation that they are participating in their own lives 3 times a day at every meal, and every time they buy leather clothes, or are attending a zoo/circus, or using and exploiting animals in other ways. Their energy is instead focused on other people that are exploiting animals, when it should be focused on themselves. If you want to have a demo against fur or any other SIC, I would recommend you to make into a vegan demo instead with a clear vegan message and clearly point out in all posters, etc., that there is no moral distinction between fur and other use of animal products – and that all animal use involves the exploitation of vulnerable sentient beings; and that using animals for fur is as wrong as using animals for meat, dairy, honey, eggs, leather, entertainment, vivisection, etc. Then we can help people to go vegan; and people won’t be confused and believe that the problem is the treatment of “fur animals”, which anti-fur-campaigns almost always focus on. Instead they will understand that the problem is the use of all animals, including the killing of animals regardless of how they are treated.


More moral problems with SIC (see the sic-section):
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html

Once again, I am not attacking, bashing or hating any vegan. I just want to share this perspective.

More resources:
Picking the Low-Hanging Fruit: What Is Wrong with Single Issue Campaigns?

-------
Another comment:
A vegan friend organised a circus demo recently. They turned many people away from the circus by telling them it was really cruel. So I said this would have been effective if you had handed out abolitionist leaflets also. She said this would have been too much for people. So these same people leave the circus in their leather shoes and buy animal corpses and feel noble. It's the same with fur. People feel all self righteous because 'they' don't wear fur but while they are wearing and eating animals it's rather pointless don't you think? If WE keep saying the public can only take baby steps they will only take baby steps.The point is it's all deeply deeply unethical and it's this message that should be given loud and crystal clear. We are talking about a global holocaust here. It's rather serious.


Another comment:
I started out supporting anything and everything and realised after a while that I wasn't really supporting anything. By supporting a save the whales campaign I'm not supporting save the Tuna. If I support save the Tuna, I'm not saying save the Mackerel. If I support anti-fur, I'm not saying I support anti-leather. At risk of being in an infinite loop it became clear the *only* thing that stops all animal use is veganism. I felt wrong supporting Sea Shepherd trying to stop (illegal) whale killing when I can go to any supermarket and see a multitude of equally morally important fish on display. So... what could I support that fights for ALL animals, which doesn't fetishize certain species, which doesn't fight for some animals that are currently in vogue... veganism.