I'd like feedback on my article: Vegans Can Eat Meat: Here's Why

1. 89

   Astralroseposted 6 years ago

   Hello Fellow Hubbers,
   
   I'd like some help with passing the Quality Assessment Process. Will you please give feedback on my article Vegans Can Eat Meat: Here's Why. What can I do to improve? Thank you!

   replyreport
   1. 95

      DrMark1961posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Astralrose I do not think the article did not pass the QAP because of the awkward phrasing, but of course it does help to clear that up as chasmac suggests. The main problem with the article that I saw is that it kind of rambles. It is more like a blog post. The article should tell you why vegans can eat meat, not just raise a lot of questions. I thought that the article raised a lot more questions than were answered.
      Compare it to your article on babies crying. That article answers the question in the title, tells us why they are crying, and has clear methods you can use on how to get a baby to cry less. If this article is going to pass QAP and get decent traffic, you should set it up in a form that is more reader friendly and answers the question in the title. You could save a lot of it, but then again a lot of it will probably need to be written again. (Maybe your subtitles could be bullet points, and then later down in the article you could go over them in more detail.)
      Also, subtitles now need to be written in APA title case.
      Best of luck with this.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I want it to be like a blog post. It is allowed here, right? How about revising the title, will it help?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            DrMark1961posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            HP has approved some blog type posts in the past, so I cannot tell you for sure that they would not accept it, but this is a business, and they want magazine type articles. This is a business, and if it is not set up like a magazine type article it will probably not get much traffic. No traffic=no money for you OR for the company. That is the reality of the situation.
            I am not sure about changing the title. I do that all the time if an article I have written is not getting great traffic, but if the new title does not fit the article well I will have to rewrite it.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I appreciate your feedback. I'm aware of the situation. If I have a business I would want it to be profitable, too, so, I'll think about rewriting it. I just can't seem to figure out where or how to start. Lol.
               Thank you very much!

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  DrMark1961posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not a vegan but if I were to write this I would want people to know if vegans are expected to eat only carrion-if they do want meat. One of my guinea fowl was out in the road a week or so ago and was hit by a motorcycle. I would never eat him. Another villager came by later and took him home to cook him. 
                  Is that okay by vegan standards? When can vegans eat meat?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     The state or condition (fresh or decaying) of the flesh is not a concern of veganism. It is really a matter of personal choice if a vegan chooses to eat a carrion.
                     Regarding that scenario, vegans will not eat it but probably would choose to feed the dead fowl to a carnivore or keep off the road for other creatures (ex. worms)  to feast on. The only meat vegans can eat is the meat of an animal that died of natural causes like old age, and that too, an animal that has lived in health and freedom, or perhaps some of the remains (not all of it) of a lion's fresh kill, or one that died from an illness.
                     
                     So, should I include this writing in the article?

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        DrMark1961posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, that is a very interesting reply. I think it would help your readers understand better if you elaborated more on this subject in your article. Thanks for the reply.

                        replyreport
   2. 90

      Rochelle Frankposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The introductory biography on that article says you are an "Animal Rights Abolitionist"... so you want to abolish animal rights? Did you mean to say advocate or activist?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         No, it just means that I take the abolitionist approach to animal rights such as rejecting all animal exploitation and rejecting the regulation of animal exploitation; it is basing only on animal sentience and no other cognitive characteristic. It also regards veganism as the moral baseline of the animal rights position and rejects all violence.
         
         But, you're right. I should change that word. It sounds like I want to abolish animal rights. Thank you.

         replyreport
2. 90

   chasmacposted 6 years ago

   Interesting article, but you have quite a bit of awkward phrasing that needs improving.
   
   "Veganism is not about not to eat meat". See how awkward that looks and sounds? "Veganism is not about not eating meat" is more grammatically correct, but still awkward because of the double negative. "Veganism is not about avoiding the consumption of meat." is better.
   
   The next sentence is "Meat is once a living being who didn't want to die..."
   Your meaning is clear but the phrasing is again awkward and technically not correct. Unless a particular piece of meat is a whole animal, such as a chicken, you can't refer to it as any kind of being - only that it came from a living being. If you say "That chicken you bought at the supermarket was once a living being that didn't want to die." it would be correct. That's because chickens and beings are both countable nouns, so we can equate them. Meat is an uncountable noun.
   
   The next sentence "Since meat cannot be obtained..." is fine but should be preceded by a space.
   
   Next you mention non-human animals.
   "No non-human animal, a pig, for example, would voluntarily offer himself to be slaughtered." I assume you're doing that to make the point that humans, too, are animals. That's fine, but it leaves your sentence open to the misinterpretation that human animals, unlike, non-human animals, DO voluntarily offer themselves to be slaughtered. Of course, no-one with any sense would take that meaning, but the fact that it's possible to take it wrongly means the writing will be considered sloppy. Also, don't use 3rd-person personal pronouns like "himself" for animals unless you're talking about a particular animal whose gender is known. You're not talking about a particular animal, so you should say "... would offer itself...".
   
   There are other examples, too. Try to find and fix them.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for this comprehensive feedback. I'll fix the article with your suggestions.

      replyreport
3. 90

   chasmacposted 6 years ago

   Astralrose, is it just your opinion that vegans can eat meat under those circumstances you mentioned? I thought vegans shunned all animal produce including milk and eggs under all circumstances. So I researched a little and was surprised to find there are several categories: ethical vegans, environmental vegans, strict vegans and more. I also found vegans on forums discussing eating roadkill like Dr Mark's poor guinea fowl. So some say yes, it's no problem provided you don't go out in your car hunting for animals to run over.
   
   Although I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, I rarely eat meat, but I can agree that eating roadkill is ethically fine as there's no intention to kill or harm the animal. I don't see why it matters whether an animal died by being accidentally hit by a car or a falling tree or died of natural causes like old age... or cancer.
   As your article explains:
   "The dead becomes a thing, which is not a bad thing, because it is no longer living. It is no longer sentient and, therefore, not capable of feeling pain and leading an independent existence. The concept of violence cannot be applied to the dead. How we treat the dead is a matter of culture and social consensus. It falls outside the bounds of ethical vegan philosophy."
   I agree with that completely - so it should be fine to eat accidental roadkill as that's a natural death - if some vegans find it unethical to eat it then, like your article nicely states, that's outside the bounds of ethical vegan philosophy.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I have read a few philosophical articles about the ethics of eating meat and I find them logical as it happens in nature -the dead gets eaten. The link I included (that of James McWilliams offer more explanation about it. Veganism was and never is about not eating meat. Veganism is against the cruelty, the harm and all atrocities that we humans inflict on the animals, 'cause like I mentioned, not one animal -human or non-human would volunteer to have his or her head to be cut off (except probably in some religious fanatics). There are compelling studies that show the greatest similarity we share with the non-human animals (like pigs have intelligence like a 3-year old human child) and when it comes to emotions, they too are emotional creatures that show affection; they grieve; they sulk, they feel joy and pain, etc.
      
      Sadly, this part of veganism (the real part of it, I should say) is not widely accepted but one can find a few philosophers, who have really thought about it and fully understood the concept), who have no issue with eating meat in the condition I mentioned.
      
      Thanks for seeing it through.

      replyreport
4. 94

   daydreamsposted 6 years ago

   You need to reformat your headings as headings, and not bullets.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Astralroseposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You mean the reasons why many vegans are opposed to the concept of eating meat? I will do that. Thanks!

      replyreport