Changing the subject
In debates about practices that harm animals, the people defending those practices often steer the discussion toward other topics:
- if the topic is eating animals, they talk about health and the environment;
- if the topic is animal testing, they talk about the benefits for humans;
- if the topic is killing wild animals, they talk about environmental goals.
The main question almost never gets discussed: even if all of that were true, wouldn't the practice still be unjust because of the harm it does to animals?
Sometimes it's on purpose
Sometimes someone realizes they don't have good arguments to justify exploitation, but they don't want to change their mind. So they change the subject so that this doesn't become obvious. Other times, the shift happens without anyone meaning it.
The trap
The odd thing is that many animal advocates go along with the shift. They start debating health, the environment, or benefits for humans, and the harm done to animals gets left out.
Why does this happen?
Sometimes animal advocates themselves think these other arguments are more convincing. Or they're nervous about talking directly about speciesism. But because of this, the central question is never discussed, and speciesism goes unchallenged.
In short
- People who defend exploitation often steer the focus to other topics.
- Many animal advocates fall into this trap.
- As a result, speciesism almost never gets discussed.