By Ben Abelson

The other day one particular student group incurred some of my personal ire. As I entered the corridor leading to WesShop this past Friday I saw a sizable display set up in the hallway.
A large television depicted images of animals being tortured. Since dinner was presently out of the question, I decided to approach the students behind the adjacent table to see what all
the fuss was about. A large sign proclaimed something like, "Proctor & Gamble tortures animals for their products: Don’t buy Scope, Prell, etc." The sign answered a lot of my questions
about the demonstrating group. Obviously, taken in conjunction with the televised display, one would gather that Proctor & Gamble wasn’t the most humane business. Boycotting P&G
is an admirable cause. While I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to not buy P&G products, it would stay in the back of my mind somewhere. There really is no excusable reason to test
human cosmetics/products/foods on animals. I can easily agree with these types of statements, as I guess would most Wesleyan students.

As I glanced over the items on the table I saw a good deal of pertinent information – pamphlets about animals rights, anti-P&G stickers, etc. I wasn’t exactly filling my pockets, but I
wasn’t upset either. Then my eyes wandered across a frightening sticker. An easily recognizable Ronald McDonald was holding up a large bloody knife and an animal skull (it looked
something like a rabbit). Blood dripped down Ronald’s arms and quite possibly caused irreparable staining on his lovely clown costume. Why Ronald, I thought, beloved childhood
friend, wherever did you get that knife and bunny head? Grimace simply couldn’t have given it to you! The point of this sticker didn’t really get any clearer when I read the lettering beside Ronald. In large blood-red type the sticker shouted something like, "Don’t support McCruelty. Boycott McDonald’s." (I don’t remember the exact slogan on the sticker – the term ‘McCruelty’ and the idea of not eating McDonald’s food were both proposed) I was getting really confused – what possible association could McDonald’s have with P&G’s animal testing, or animal product testing in general? Plenty, according to the member of W.A.R.N. (Wesleyan Animal Rights Network?) that I talked to.

"So, uhm, what’s the point of this sticker?" I asked. The girl behind the table gave me a shpiel about how McDonald’s was a "cruel to animals" company. Ignoring the fact that cows
probably aren’t ecstatic about being included in Happy Meals, what did McDonald’s do to earn this "cruel" reputation? I dubiously asked the girl if McDonald’s used animal testing.
Was that why they had been included in the P&G protest information? In response, she tried to explain how McDonald’s cows were raised on rainforest land, which helped to destroy
our ecosystem. She seemed somewhat put-off when I corrected her inaccuracies by informing her that McDonald’s (psuedo-environmentally-consciously) only uses beef raised in the
U.S. When I again asked the girl how this information was pertinent, and how McDonald’s could be considered "cruel" she started to get angry. Her responding diatribe about how
McDonald’s food was horrible, fatty, and cholesterol full did little to answer my questions. Do we need or want W.A.R.N. members being our moral health authorities? What does
"unhealthy" eating have to do with animal rights? 

Finally the girl broke down all pretenses about McDonald’s having anything remotely to do with animal testing, or Proctor & Gamble. "Listen, we’re an animal rights group," she said,
"that means we’re not just supporting an end to animal testing, but an end to people eating meat as one of our goals."

According to my helpful friend, the only reason that W.A.R.N. was printing out virulent anti-McDonald’s propaganda is because McDonald’s restaurants serve meat. There was no other
animal-rights basis for these stickers. What’s the point here? Why not print out stickers that say "Boycott Restaurants, They Are Cruel." Or, "Don’t Eat Those Unhealthy Fatty Meats:
They Are Mean To Animals." W.A.R.N.’s unrealistic campaign against eating meat in restaurants is a mockery of effective protest. 

Maybe this particular member didn’t correctly inform me. Maybe W.A.R.N. was protesting McDonald’s meat because it contained animal hormones (I have no idea if it does or not). But,
why target McDonald’s? Why not print out wider ranged stickers? Something like, "USDA Beef should get an F (like on a test!)" would probably be hugely popular. However, maybe
their point was to target "corporate" meat-using industries. Would this actually stop people from eating meat? Meat could still be easily a short hop, skip, and a jump to free every cow in
Texas.

Basically this girl, with the backing of W.A.R.N., was saying that one couldn’t support animal rights without being a proselytizing vegetarian. This would appear to be counter-productive. W.A.R.N. is asking people to boycott Proctor & Gamble products, but then telling them that they are immoral, or at least cruel, if they eat any meat products. By irrevocably tying these two protest goals together W.A.R.N. will likely only ostracize those meat eaters that would have supported their P&G protest. Being made to feel guilty for eating
meat, or going to McDonald’s, isn’t going to make me want to help out W.A.R.N. on other issues. Being told I’m bad or cruel isn’t going to make me go out of my way to affiliate myself with the accuser’s group. 

Perhaps this guilt is an operating method of W.A.R.N.– by making people feel as though they are cruel for eating meat W.A.R.N. might hope to drive the masses into a vegetarian lifestyle. But, unfortunately for them, W.A.R.N.’s guilt isn’t going to cause me or most people to change our personal behavior. The days of Middle Aged Catholic Church-esque self-flagellation are over for society. If I wanted some extra guilt during the day, I could always call my parents.

I guess the basic question left unresolved in my "discussion" with the helpful W.A.R.N. member was whether or not eating meat is cruel to animals. Obviously, I don’t think it is. Yet, I have no problem with people who choose to be vegetarians. My problem is with rabid vegetarians. 

Vegetarianism is, like many other things, a personal lifestyle choice. When we choose lifestyles, I think that the most that we can ask of anyone else is that they respect our choices. Attempting to force others to adopt your own choices is obnoxious, counter-productive, and rude. 

Most people are greatly offended when evangelical religious groups look for new converts. When religious authorities attempt to convince you to join their ranks, they are effectively (and sometimes literally) saying, "You worship the wrong ideas, your belief system is incorrect, and you’re going to pay for it." No one has the right to say that to someone else. This is what W.A.R.N. was saying to me. This is why I’m angry. 
 

Abelson is a member of the class of 2002.