Why campaigns against factory farms, zoos, etc. promote speciesism

Colin Wright wroe:The reason that people who promote SICs (Single Issue Campaigns) don't understand why they are counter-productive is because those people think that the problems that they need to address are that humans commit atrocities against nonhumans in factory farms, zoos, labs, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

That's not the problem we need to address at all. The only way to fix all the problems with factory farms, zoos, labs, etc. is to eliminate the root of the problem. The root of the problem is speciesism.

So in order to eliminate the factory farms, zoos, labs, and all the other atrocities, including domestication in general, the only thing we REALLY need to do is... eliminate speciesism. Nothing else will help.

But, since all SICs are BY THEIR NATURE speciesist... engaging in them creates and fosters a state of speciesism in the people who do so. And since people who are willingly engaging in speciesism can't understand why speciesism is the problem, they are not making the connection why SICs are counter-productive (this is like the "racist" who thinks they are not racists simply because they know that ____ are inferior to their ethnicity).

Most people who engage in SICs claim that all we need to prove that SICs are productive is hard numbers as to who did what from SICs. But that's the error - hard numbers don't show whether the speciesist paradigm has changed in any significant way. Especially since there are MANY non-Vegans who call themselves Vegan because they are speciesist and don't really understand the term Vegan in the first place.

"Hard numbers" won't have any bearing on the issue. What will have a bearing on this issue is when we see more people exclusively educating others about Veganism and less people engaging in SICs. In essence, less speciesism and more Veganism.

That's not EVER going to happen from people engaging in SICs. SICs are the problem, they can't be the solution.

Edit: If you're going to try to argue against this, I suggest you use rational arguments that address the point made in the OP, not just Appeal To Emotion and other fallacies. Thanks.

Single-issue human rights campaigns?

"'ve always believed that animal rights are entwined with human rights I don't think that single-issue campaigns are useful for non-human animals, because they have property status and therefore no rights of their own. However, when it comes to human rights, most humans are protected by some basic level of rights (although that notion in itself is problematic, because we see so many violations and exclusions). So, where do my other abolitionist friends stand on single-issue human rights Campaigns?"

Smara replied: In order for the term SICs in human rights to make real sense, one has to define what a non-SIC would be. What would it be? It would not be something equivalent to vegan advocacy, because human slavery and the property status of humans is already abolished according to the law, although it is not always applied or there are ways to go around it. The difference between SICs for humans (i.e. mean as campaigns for several human rights causes here) and SICs for nonhumans lies in that it’s the default position of most humans and the law that humans should have the right not to be property, and be protected by harm that is the result of discriminations. Exceptions of this exist, but when human rights of this nature are violated UN and other organisations can in theory intervene and he heard. The solutions to human rights violations can only be applied as a case by case matter as there is no central one that would solve them all and legislation is different in different countries. A campaign for the ending of all human slavery and discriminations won’t be even recognised as such unless specific issues are pointed out. On the other hand, it’s the default position that nonhumans have a property status with no rights that protect *them* at all, and that humans should do as they please with them without them having any interests to be protected. As a result, when one campaigns for a single issue for nonhumans, one automatically implies that this issue is more important than others or that others don’t really matter. This is being amplified by the animal organisations, that use that people that think it’s OK for nonhumans to be exploited in some ways, which do explicitly or implicitly say that this x form of exploitation is ‘more cruel’ than others, therefore it has priority, or they just don’t mention other forms of nonhuman animals use that cause human ‘discomfort’. That way, the idea that some forms of nonhuman animal use is acceptable is being reinforced + the issue is not animal rights and their any use but the x use and treatment. That way, humans feel better about using nonhumans in a, b, c, d, e, f, … ways. These problems don’t *necessarily* exist in human campaigns. Of course, a human campaign can give e.g. a racist message to people, but I can’t see any other way out of it except of trying to give e.g. a non-racist message at the same time. 

Also, by advocating for veganism and not SICs we try to end the property status of nonhuman animals and speciesism, and liberate them from human oppression once and for all. This will be achieved by the human population not using nonhuman animals themselves. There is no point in campaigning for the end of slavery for humans because it’s illegal and it’s ending where it explicitly or implicitly takes place is a matter of applying or amending the existing laws, or forming new ones , not usually or always something all humans could engage in so that it ends. And it’s not “end of all human exploitation”, as non-consensual exploitation is already illegal. The situation is also different in different countries and one has to target the particular form of human slavery. Other human campaigns have to do with particular human rights issues which each country’s government has to change by legislation, even though the same issue campaigned all over the world, when possible, is also common and may indeed have a better effect. 

Moreover, with human rights, the injustice is not a matter of good or bad treatment but the injustice is always wrong regardless the treatment or ‘enrichment’, but something that nonhuman animal SICs suffer from as well. The only issue in nonhuman animals injustice as a start is the abolition of their property status, it’s not any other rights of theirs, as any other would presuppose the abolition of their property status first. Human rights are many. And for each one, we don’t campaign for e.g. the rights of non-heterosexuals with Korean parents to be married, but for every human adult in the y country. 

In general, I can’t see how else it could be done at the moment, but campaign against particular forms of human injustice , although I also do believe that the message should be generalised as much as possible, e.g. for humans of all races, religions, sexes, etc., and target the injustice from all similar institutions, governments, corporations etc. , which is something humans wake up to as well. I also believe that when vegans advocate for SIC human justice issues – e.g. forms of slavery, discriminations, rape – they *should* also include nonhuman rights, if at all possible, (as no less important than the human rights) and give a vegan message at the same time. If it *is* possible to include them and we don’t, then I think the campaign suffers the problems of the SICs for nonhuman animals, as nonhumans are already discriminated against and the campaign approves of their exclusion from our moral community. So, maybe these should be the “least SICs” ones which involve human justice causes.

Quote: Smara AnAnimal

Nonviolent vegan protest against animal exploitation of Mc Donalds and other restaurants/stores?

How about a nonviolent protest against all animal exploitation inside or outside of any non-vegan food store or food restaurant? Not a single issue campaign-protest, but a protest that shows that all animal exploitation for food, clothing and other purposes is wrong. No a campaign that e.g. focuses on fur, and confuses people to think that there is a moral distinction between fur and other animal use.

I don't agree with everything that this author writes, but he has many good points: http://www.veganpublishers.com/wayne-hsiung-the-evolution-of-veganism-is-empowered-activism-the-next-stage/


Based on what I read in that article and other thoughts, I wrote this:

We could stand with signs depicting images of certain animals, and saying e.g.: ‘This animal wanted to live but was killed to be used for meat. We have no nutritional need for meat and other animal foods, and it all involves unnecessary suffering and death. Go vegan!”

 Another sign: “This animal wanted to live and be with her family. This animal was used for dairy and got slaughter when she was 5 years old. Each year they forcefully made her pregnant, and when her baby was born she was ripped away from her within a week. She mourned immensely, just like any mother would by losing her baby. Her male babies was slaughtered when they younger than 6 months for veal, or 18 months year old to become meat.” In parallel we could hand out Abolitionist vegan fliers to people passing by.

The benefits of these campaigns are many:
-Raising awareness, making people opt out of animal exploitation and go vegan (including choosing not to buy their animal foods-product at the store/restaurant).

-Creating media coverage and visibility among the public. Especially if you manage to get a movement of many vegans that do this outside of many different stores in parallel.

-Getting and inspiring vegans to do vegan education wherever they are. Creating a movement of vegans how arrange vegan stalls and protests outside of stores/restaurants, etc., serving products of animal exploitation.

-Getting vegans to come in contact with us and learn more about Abolitionist veganism.

-Showing vegans involved in SIC’s, that you can do demonstrations and protests, create awareness and make people go vegan without engaging in SIC’s.

-Educating vegans about the difference between a SIC-protest and an Abolitionist vegan protest.

Some things that “Direction Action everywhere” do are a bit misguided, but we could learn from the good they are doing. They are very effective and reaching many through what they are doing, e.g. their protest against all animal food, including attacking them for serving “humane animal foods”, directed towards ‘Chipotle’.

-" strong, confident, and inspirational social movement that can resist social erosion and corporate influence to create real and permanent change. In short, we need to start being assertive"

Of course we can also arrange vegan stalls; but protests are also good and seem to in many instances get some more coverage and reaching some more people. E.g. there were not that many people who noticed the stall I had on a street with lots of traffic in Oslo.

Pauline Wooding I totally agree with you, Anders. Excellent post. I think this is what is needed now. It will make people stop in their tracks and break out of their comfortable complacency - even if just for a few minutes. I've been thinking that this is more the way to go, with activism needing to be a bit more visible than it is. A few people simply declining to consume animal products feels passive and not making sufficient impact. I agree that it could be a protest outside any outlet that sells animal products (peaceful, of course), as they'e all as bad as each other.

---

Thank you for the chance to have this interesting discussion, Anders. 

Smara AnAnimal:
I like and agree with your points above. Not sure if “offense” is the right word though.
“According to historian Paul Goodman, the antislavery movement grew by 45950% (not a typo) in half a decade after William Lloyd Garrison shifted the rhetoric of the movement away from reaction to assertion.”
Assertion is a better and more appropriate word, I think. From looking up the definition of “offense” it is usually connected with violence. Whether an unequivocal, peaceful, and just for all vegan message can cause offence to nonvegans is of course irrelevant.

I think that a peaceful, non-invasive, well thought of and planned, vegan-antispeciesist, non-SIC, non-obsessive, non-ridiculous, non-brainless and non-speciesist/non-sexist/non-racist etc. demonstration can have positive results--along with the ‘traditional’ (which can be very original nevertheless) vegan education of course. However, the ones I have seen so far suffer either from not being really peaceful or not vegan-antispeciesist, or from the lack of one or more ‘nons’ from the ones I mentioned here. 

----
Another post by Smara:
 I think the demo in the picture of the link you gave looks wrong for many reasons.
1. It looks hostile, like “we won’t let you pass until you squeeze between us, because we dislike you so much and want to make your life difficult”.
2. No one will sit in front of those people the way they have arranged themselves to be able to read the signs and see the pictures.
3. They imply that the problem is Chipotle and not the public who consumes the animals and their products.
4. It is a SIC about farmed animals, and if I see well it is mostly about the use of their flesh.
5. They don’t allow dialogue with the public, and they don’t seem to have anything for them to give them to take home.
6. They don’t give a vegan and anti-speciesist message about that all nonhuman animal use is wrong.
7. They are unoriginal and uninspiring.


Learn more: 

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Why is animal use is increasing?

Good status from a friend:
"With veganism being entirely beneficial to animals, people, and the environment, why does it seem like animal use is increasing?

In answer to that, I'd like to share what I have been learning:

When we demonstrate for single animal issues, the loud and clear message we give and reinforce is that some animal uses are OK (just not the one we are demonstrating about) and that some species of animals are more worthwhile than others.
I've also been learning that when we support welfare actions, we are totally reinforcing and giving our “OK” to the belief that using animals, as long they appear to be getting treated “humanely”, is fine.
It does not matter that neither of these outcomes are our intent; they are what is perceived regardless, and that is all that matters. Supporting these actions gives the green light to consume animals and animal products as long as they can somehow be viewed as “humane.”
It's time to promote veganism only if we want to see change. It's time to spread the unequivocal message that all animal exploitation needs to end. Welfare actions have been taking place for a couple hundred years, and like it was noted in the question, animal use seems to be increasing. Time for a new approach. Promote veganism only and require it as the moral baseline or society, in general, will continue to not take justice and equality for nonhuman animals seriously."
Written by Rhonda A.

More to read:

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Why I don't sign petitions against dog meat in China

By Jonathan Hughes:Urgh. Woke up to find an invite to sign a petition asking the Chinese Government (via Barack Obama and José Barroso) to stop the slaughter of dogs in China for meat. Suffice to say, it's not a petition I will be signing, nor endorsing. A personal point of note since I live with two cats and love them dearly… if this was about cats, I still wouldn't sign. Here's why:

1) It's speciesist. Clearly. If this needs spelling out - it's just about dogs. No mention of the way any other animals are killed (for food or any other use) – they *may* also be skinned alive and treated terribly. But this petition *only* cares about the dogs. Speciesism is everywhere and is pervasive – setting up one animal to be more worthy of saving than others deflects attention away from the countless billions of 'less worthy' species. The actual text of this petition includes the following: 'The DOG is always considered, by all civilizations, man's best friend and it never hesitated to sacrifice its life for men.'
Speciesism in a sentence, right there (and and an unhealthy dose of misogyny/sexism and turning dogs into an object/non-person with 'it'). The creation of petitions like this just furthers the idea that 'some lives matter more than others'. I do not subscribe to the view that *any* awareness of animal suffering is a good thing. Quite the contrary – this just says that dogs suffer and will do nothing for a reduction in non-human suffering…. see point 2.

2) Let's say it works – let's just pretend for one moment that this will actually work – what then? Will the Chinese dog-eaters switch to Tofu instead? Or, is it more likely that they will eat pigs, chickens, cats, sheep etc instead? How is that a win? Great for the dogs but no good for any other non-human. Net suffering remains the same – the slaughter is just moved to another species and if we see ALL sentient beings as equally morally important, how can this ever be considered a win? It simply can't. Pushing slaughter from one species to another isn't a win. It's a step nowhere.

3) It's xenophobic. Clearly. Why ask 'Race X' to stop eating 'Species Y'? How is 'Race X' any different to every other race in the world? Over a trillion animals are slaughtered every year – EVERY race is involved in this. Why single out one? Because they are 'worse'? Tell that to every fish that dies gasping for breath on board a boat deck.

4) There is no mention of veganism - no mention at all. There's no mention of reduced consumption of animal products at all - just an urge to not use dogs. Non-human suffering will not (effectively) end without veganism. More vegans = less animal suffering. How about we try and create vegans instead?

PLEASE just take a step back and *think* about what you sign.

There are numerous other reasons why I won't sign a petition like this...
Find out more here:
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns/

Boycotting Air France for shipping monkeys to laboratories; but not SAS for serving animal foods?

PETA posted a new campaign about Air France and how they are transporting monkeys to vivisection-laboratories.

They encourage nonvegans (an vegans) to protest vivisection-laboratories, lauds nonvegas for their compassion when they boycott "Air France". These very nonvegans will take another flight and participate in the very same animal exploitation that they claim to object by consuming animal foods on their airplane. Vivisection, which is exploitation and morally wrong - but not transparently frivolous, will continue as long as people think it is justified to harm animals for completely frivolous reasons, such as palate pleasure or convenience. PETA is launching a never ending amount of single issue campaigns that doesn't change anything. They are not attacking the root of the animal exploitation-tree, but the branches of it.

My reply to a person commenting on their thread that she will boycott Air France:

Sophia,
Everyone on this thread agrees with that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary harm on animals.
Airlines sell animal foods.
We have no nutritional need for animal foods. The production of meat, milk, dairy products, honey, leather, eggs all involves exploitation. The animals used for eggs and dairy products are killed when their production declines. Cows, chickens and other animals regularly get their families destroyed. Cow mothers get their babies ripped away from them within the first week of them being born. Air companies buy these products and distribute them to their flight customers. I went vegan when I realized all of this, since I didn’t want to be a part of paying for animal exploitation.

Is there any difference between this exploitation and the exploitation in vivisection? And if there isn’t, why do you boycott just Air France, and not every airline, since they all are based on animal exploitation?

Learn more here:

Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Why do some people hate vegans that are critical of promoting Welfare "reform"/SIC's

Another post I wrote in the parallel discussion thread on a Facebook-page where vegans who oppose SIC's are critisized; and some people hate vegans who oppose SIC's:

I agree with the principles of Abolitionist veganism. This doesn't mean that I agree or condone with all of how any person acts on their Facebook-page. You need to be able to differentiate between principles and persons advocating for these principles.
I think it is profoundly sad that you compare other vegans to the hateful "Westboro Baptists". You criticize others of a behaviour you don't like, but then you restort to hating other vegans who have spent thousands of hours of educating non-vegans about veganism. How can you criticize others of being demeaning, when you are doing it yourself?

It is possible to be critical of other people's approaches, without hating or demeaning other persons. We can have arguments based on substantial arguments and still be friends.
I think anti-fur-campaigns are problematic based on the following reasons: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/the-problem-of-focusing-on-anti-fur.html
I still think that people participating in these campaigns are well-meaning people and doing their best to fight for the animals. I just think that we always should advocate veganism, and not confuse nonvegans to believe that their is a moral difference between fur and other animal exploitation. After all - if we want people to go vegan, we shouldn't contribute to their speciesist confusion.

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.

Comments regarding a petition that calls the government of USA to stop the gassing of dogs and cats on animal shelters

My comments about a petition that calls the government of USA to stop the gassing of dogs and cats on animal shelters:

Most of the people signing this petition are sadly nonvegans, and all these petitions make them feel like heroes and animal lovers who are helping the animals from the institutionalized animal exploiters. They feel like heroes that are fighting all day long signing petitions. This is far from the truth. They should instead be confronted with their behavior of the animal exploitation that they participate in and pay for every day, and the fact that nothing will changes for the animals as long as they have animal foods on their plates and pay someone for killing animals for their clothes, etc.

Furthermore, the petition in itself is actually sending the implicit message that it is morally acceptable to kill animals in animal shelters, but that it should be done in a more "humane way". This is the problem with almost any petition. It almost always sends an underlying implicit speciesist and/or racist and/or sexist message.

The animal foods on their plates (meat, fish, milk and eggs) or clothes (leather, down, fur, etc.) come from individuals that had an equally horrible death.

A good petition would have been: Stop killing animals on animal shelters. You can help animals by rescuing them and adopting them from shelters. Stop breeding animals. Stop perpetuating this system where animals are property and can be killed by her owner for any reason (Watch this video: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/slides/theory2.html about this). Stop participating in animal exploitation for food, clothes, entertainment, breeding of pets and any other reason. If you breed or use animals in any other way you are an integral part of this problem. Go vegan!

I challenge every vegan to stop perpetuating speciesism, which is done e.g. by sharing speciesist petitions; and every nonvegan to stop the hypocrisy and animal exploitation of consuming and using animals and go vegan.

And while we are on the issue of gassing animals. PETA are advocating that chickens should be slaughtered by being gassed to death. Where are all petitions complaining that supposedly “animal rights”-organizations go hand in hand with animal exploiters?: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peta-and-kfc-no-differences-of-opinion-about-how-animals-should-be-treated/

More to learn about single issue campaigns in this excellent podcast (please listen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__oszGN5PjM

Djurkampanjer, rasism och underskriftslistor för att få ett slut på t.ex. hundslakt och kattslakt i Sydkorea eller Kina

Ja,visst är det helt sjukt att utsätta djur för lidande. Problemet med underskriftslistor som bara fokuserar på ett land/folkgrupp och deras djurplågeri är att de antingen är rasistiska/uppmuntrar till rasism. Det är bara se alla kommentar på vilken underskriftslista som helst, där man framställer ett land/folkslag som värre än ett annat folkslag, trots att 99% av befolkningen betalar för och deltar i exakt samma utnyttjande genom alla ickeveganska val som de gör.

Mer att läsa här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/problems-with-petitions-against-eg-live.html

Tankar om demonstrationer mot djurförsök av primater på Karolinska Institutet

Det finns en kampanj som riktar kritik mot Karolinska Institutet för att de genomför djurförsök av primater. Denna fråga är en kampanj som djurorganisationer gillar att driva. Den ger donationer och många medlemmar. Det är en kampanj som många kan ansluta sig till. Varför? De allra flesta gillar apor och hatar att se apor bli utsatta för lidande. Och för det andra, det är enkelt att kritisera andra för något som man själv inte deltar i. Det är enkelt att delta i en kampanj mot djurförsök, eftersom man själv inte arbetare som en forskare på ett laboratorium.

Så ickeveganer sitter runt lunchbordet eller demonstrerar utanför Karolinska Institutet. De äter kött, mjölk och ägg, bär sina läderskor, sin ulltröja, läderskärp och kritiserar forskare för att använda sig av djurförsök. Dessa personer har alltså betalat för att djur ska utnyttjas, skadas och dödas för att de gillar smaken av mejeriprodukter, bacon, ägg eller andra djurprodukter, eller för att de är för lata/bekväma för att köpa något annat. Eller kanske helt enkelt för att de är av den falska tron att vi behöver animaliska livsmedel för att leva ett sunt liv. De flesta djurorganisationer talar i princip aldrig klarspråk i denna fråga, och fokuserar så mycket på behandling, att de vilseleder dessa personer till att tro att de gör djuren en tjänst om de köper "ekologiskt kravmärkt kött", "kravmärkt mjölk", etc.
Dessa förvirrade och säkert välmenade personer kritiserar forskare för att använda sig av djur för att bota sjukdomar, som f.ö. till stor del är orsakade av vår konsumtion av animaliska livsmedel och andra destruktiva levnadssätt.

Hur kan man förvänta sig att det ska bli ett slut på användandet av djur för att bota sjukdomar, som många menar är ett nödvändigt ont, när 99% av vårt samhälle dagligen utsätter djur för onödigt lidande för "underhållning" i form av zoon och cirkusar, läder, ull, päls, kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg, djurtestade hygienprodukter med animaliska biprodukter, etc?

Karolinska Institutet serverar animaliska livsmedel till sina studenter. 99% av befolkningen utsätter djur för onödigt lidande dagligen. Men här sitter dessa ickeveganer och känner att de är goda djurvänner för att de signerar underskriftslistor eller deltar i demonstrationer, utan att de förstår att de är en del av problemet. Det är de som behandlar djur som resurser, och betalar för paradigmet som möjliggör att djurförsök sker. Världen kommer inte förändras av att personer lever en livsstil av hyckleri, eller av att godhjärtade personer blir klappade på axeln och känner sig som hjältar, när de istället borde konfronteras med det lidande som de dagligen betalar för. Om en person deltar i demonstrationer mot andras djurförtryck, t.ex. delfinslakten i Japan, kan man enkelt gömma sina skuldkänslor över sitt eget.

Om du är vegan: När du inte var vegan - trodde du då att det var en moralisk skillnad mellan djurförsök och uppfödning av pälsdjur jämfört med konsumtionen av kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg och andra produkter som du dagligen använde dig av? Om du trodde det - berodde det då till stor del på djurorganisationer med välmenande personer som skapade vilseledande kampanjer? Berodde det på kampanjer som skapar den falska föreställningen om att det är en moralisk skillnad mellan det djurförtryck som 99% av befolkningen deltar i, jämfört med det djurförtryck som denna befolkning upprör sig över? Är det inte fullständigt vilseledande att arrangera fackeltåg med tusentals personer, och en majoritet ickeveganer, som protesterar mot utnyttjandet av minkar för att sedan gå hem till middagsbordet och utnyttja andra djur? Självklart kommer gemene människa på gatan tro att det är en moralisk skillnad mellan pälsindustrin, jämfört med det djurförtryck som denne person deltar i dagligen.

Frågan är om vi vill förespråka veganism, eller vilseledande speciesism? Speciesism = diskriminering av individer av en annan art.
En speciesistisk kampanj är en kampanj som skapar föreställningen att t.ex. en primat är moraliskt sett mer värd än en råtta. Vilseledande och speciesistiska kampanjer som skapar föreställningen att det är en moraisk skillnad mellan olika djurförtryck kommer inte att leda till en vegansk värld. Vegansk utbildning i alla dess ickevåldsamma och kreativa former däremot kommer att leda till en vegansk värld.

Bryr du dig om djur? Menar du att det är fel att skada djur utan god anledning? Anser du att djur betyder något moraliskt sett? Då finns det bara ett rationellt svar till den övertygelsen: Sluta att använda dig av och utnyttja djur för mat, kläder, "underhållning" och alla andra syften. Bli vegan. Läs mer här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/varfor-veganism-varfor-inte-mjolk-lader.html

Mer läsning om djurförsök och den etiska frågeställningen: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/ar-det-etiskt-ratt-att-gora-djurforsok.html

Till sist vill jag rekommendera några resurser:
Det här är en jättebra podcast om de moraliska problemen med kampanjer som fokuserar på ett sorts djurförtryck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__oszGN5PjM
Sverige blir veganskt om du utbildar andra om veganism: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/fortsatta-att-dela-om-veganism-det.html

Är det rätt/moraliskt att skada/döda djur för mat?

Är det rätt att skada och döda djur för mat???

Vi kan leva minst lika hälsosamma liv på en vegansk diet utan djurprodukter (kött, mjölk, ägg, osv):
Vi har inget som helst näringsmässigt behov av att äta kött, mjölk, ägg och andra djurprodukter. Världens största hälso- och nutritionist-organisation, American Dietetic Association, vidkänner att en diet utan djurprodukter är hälsosamma och innehåller all näring, och även kan förse med hälsofördelar i att förebygga och behandla vissa sjukdomar [1].
Djurprodukter är skadliga för oss: Se bl.a. forskningen bakom www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ och http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/

Det finns det ingen som helst nödvändighet att vi skadar och dödar djur. Vi kan med enkelhet leva och vara optimalt hälsosamma på en vegansk diet och således behöver vi inte skada och döda djur för att få den näring som vi behöver. Den enda anledningen till att äta djurprodukter är att vi gillar det/bekvämlighet, vilket inte är en god anledning till att skada och döda djur. Om vi säger att det är moraliskt acceptabelt att döda djur för njutningen av djurprodukter, så måste vi också acceptera att det är moraliskt acceptabelt att döda djur för andra sorters njutning, inklusive de som njuter av djurplågeri. Vi anser att djurplågeri är moraliskt förkastligt just för att det skadar och dödar djur utan någon god anledning.
Jag rekommenderar dig även att läsa igenom: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-alskar-vi-hundar-men-dodar-och.html och http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

Problems with petitions against e.g. live cooking of lobster

 I think such petitions are problematic, since they send are either sending the implicit message/often interpreted to mean by the readers that there is a difference between animal cruelty of different countries, and difference between animal cruelty of different species, and also only condemning one sort of animal cruelty against this species (the campaigns sends the implict message that the problem is the "live cooking", the problem is not ALL killing). I think those petitions confuse many non-vegans, making them think they are helping animals without challenging their speciecism and their non-vegan habits of animal cruelty against other species for food. Here are some more problems:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
I think we should focus our time on this kind of education: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html [in English, see instead: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ] - i.e. showing non-vegans that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong and showing that they already agree with the basic premise, which will they cause them to go vegan if they just follow what they believe.

What do you think?

------------------

Quote by Gary Francione (Author of http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ):
"You claim that those who are critical of Asian practices, such as eating dogs, are racists. Does that mean that you are a cultural relativist? Do you think it's okay that Asians do that?"

My reply:

First of all, I do *not* say that anyone who criticizes such practices is a racist. I say that such campaigns tend to encourage racism and xenophobia because they characterize what others do as morally worse or as more "barbaric" than what is done by those in the culture or society of the person making the criticism. That is, such campaigns almost always result in people who eat cows and chickens and other animals characterizing Asians as "bad" people. I have a problem with that. Don't you?

Not everyone who makes a negative comment about eating dogs is a racist but some certainly are. Look at the comments that are made whenever anyone posts a story about dog eating. Many comments *are* just downright racist. But I am not interested in judging individuals on matters of intention. I am, however, interested in discouraging campaigns that inherently lend themselves to expressions of racism and xenophobia.

Second, if there is anything I am not, it is a moral relativist of *any* sort. I am a moral realist. I reject relativism of any type, including cultural relativism. I think it is terrible that anyone eats dogs. But I also think it's terrible that anyone eats cows or chicken or aquatic animals, or drinks milk, or eats eggs or cheese, etc. I don't see eating dogs as morally distinguishable from eating cows, chicken or any other animal products. Period.

 

--

 Seagull LivingStone: <The cruelty of Asian cultures towards animals is infamous> I would suggest that Asian culture has no monopoly here. Several minutes ago, I received an email saying that "We don't skin animals alive the way Orientals do." Putting aside that rugs may be "Oriental" but people are Asian, anyone who would say such an ignorant thing has never been in a US slaughterhouse, where animals are often alive when being cut and skinned. Indeed, the Washington Post did an article on this several years back. Have you ever seen the way animals are slaughtered here in the "humane" US? In any event, to say that Asians deserve special mention here is, indeed, both racist and xenophobic and I would ask that you not make those comments here. Thank you for your cooperation.

---Vincent Guihan I think it's vitally important for animal advocates to unpack the inherent racism (sexism, classism, ableism, etc.) in many welfare-oriented, single-issue oriented campaigns. Not only is this a moral duty, in practical terms, it marginalizes animal advocacy as a 'whites only, middle class only, patriarchs only' venture.

It doesn't help that leading proponents of engaging 'other communities' in the welfare/SIC/MDA community engage in a practice that shows a serious disconnect between their nominal view that people of colour, the poor, women, etc., should feel welcome in animal advocacy, unless they're Asians, Latinos, slaughterhouse workers, scientists or waiters, women, etc., since animal advocacy groups tend to vilify these groups when there's a nickel on the table to do so.

(Although I think the notion of engaging 'other communities' often tends to be benevolently misguided when it amounts to a tacit assertion that people of colour, the poor, etc., are not already part of the advocacy community, which it often is. They are; my understanding is that they often just aren't explicitly interested in engaging with advocates who trade on racist, sexist, classist and ableist ideologies in order to promote an advocacy that could not reasonably achieve positive impact or outcomes for animals -- that is, they have the same critique of mainstream animal advocacy that anyone who is not drowning in welfare ideologies has).

-----
 Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.

If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.

When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."

---
 Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.

If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.

When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."

------

In order to believe that petitions and other single issue campaigns will be effective as a method of animal rights activism you also have to believe that not only will they change what they intend to change but that they will also influence people's attitude so that they will not simply shift their exploitation somewhere else. Foe exaple, will those who suddenly find dog meat unavailable start eating tofu instead of another type of meat? Will those disappointed at the loss of the 'bull run' suddenly stop visiting other events where animals are exploited for entertainment? I'm afraid there is absolutely no substantive evidence to suggest this is the case, therfore no reduction in the overall burden of animal exploitation results from these campaigns.

Alan O Reily

No moral difference between eatings dogs, wearing fur and using and consuming other animal products

Please consider this quote :

"I get a lot of requests to sign petitions to end dog and cat meat trades in other countries. The latest one I got was a pledge to "exclude Switzerland as a holiday destination until eating cats and dogs is outlawed by the Swiss government."

 

The reason I won't sign petitions like this is because they are speciesist. There is no moral difference between dogs, pigs, cows, cats, sheep, fish - but campaigns like these make it seem like dogs and cats matter more, that it's not okay to eat them but perfectly okay to eat other animals and products that come from them.

 

If we were to refuse going to Switzerland because they eat dogs and cats, in order to be morally consistent, we'd have to refuse going to any country that exploits animals - which isn't possible because sadly animal exploitation is everywhere!

 

Watch my video about the problems with single issue campaigns here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpp7Zhijm8o

 

Let's be a strong, consistent voice for ALL animals and promote veganism - unequivocally - wherever we can. Let's work to end ALL animal use in ALL countries, because no matter what species, they are all sentient individuals who deserve the basic right to not be treated as the property of others. "

 

The above campaign sends the message to non-vegans that there is a moral difference between killing dogs, and between killing other animals. We should instead spread vegans campaigns against all animal use. More thoughts: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

Vegan education vs single issue campaigns and animal welfare reform

For each hour, we can choose to either devote it to change the root problem of people's thinking, to enable them to understand that all animal exploitation, including all domestication, is wrong. It is a zero sum game.

Or we can choose to devote it to e.g. single issue campaigns, which never change people's mentatlity at its roots. They don't make people understand that all animal exploitation is wrong. Such campaigns, including efforts to trying to regulate the law through 'animal welfare reform', have been popular for the last hundreds of years - yet the animal exploitation in the world increases for every day. They have very little impact, since they don't transform people's worldview and mentatlity about animals. We can't and shouldn't force people to change their worldview; but we should spend our time dedicated to do our best effort to educate in a way, which will enable them to change their worldview. First of all we need to plant a vegan seed in order to enable them go vegan. If we plant a seed of e.g. that only fur is wrong, it will not help them to understand the necessity to go vegan.

What is starting to turn the tide, and what is causing more and more people to go vegans, is a grass root movements of people who inspires our friends to go vegan, e.g. through study groups of World Peace Diet, table conversations at work about veganism, and vegan outreach tables.

I regularly see and hear about people going vegan through vegan education (mine and others). E.g. this weekend where I was involved in a discussion in a spiritual Facebook-group about veganism, a person understood the necessity of going vegan. We have so much to learn also about how we educate our friends about veganism.
Here is more information and links about the problem of single issue-campaigns:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

--

I would also like to share this about the efficiency of vegan education:
NZ Vegan did a street stall promoting veganism on Queen Street yesterday!

I asked how it went and the response was: "Really amazing, and such a palpable difference from when I started doing this - the common theme now is "I have been thinking about going vegan" or "I just went vegan recently" or "I am vegan yay!" or "my friend/girlfriend/cousin is vegan". It's happening! It's really happening!!!"

This is awesomely exciting news! I just got a message the other day from a nonvegan woman who said she is now committed to going vegan!

I am definitely doing my "Free vegan cupcake with a conversation" stall SOON! What are you doing to help nonhumans?
From this website: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Clare-Is-Vegan/360638237346574

If you are not vegan please read through the recommended links in the menu at the right section. Go vegan if you understand it is morally wrong to exploit, enslave, hurt and kill animals for "taste", habit or convenience. Going vegan is the only morally right thing to do: www.vegankit.com

 

----
More Reading:

Protests have been part of our history and all cultures of the world for the longest. Protests have been part of our history and all cultures of the world for the longest. People have protested all sorts of things, from war to poverty to women’s rights and animal rights. But how useful is it to even protest? With this article, I am possibly bringing a controversial take on the effectiveness of protests but I need to make a point here.

The need to protest is something I completely understand. I did protest in the past, against wars, for immigrant rights, against fur and animal cruelty. Then I came to realize that it was a waste of my time. The reason for this is that it has little educational value.

http://thebusyvegan.xanga.com/773175137/why-protests-are-for-the-most-part-useless/

 

Veronique Perrot HC I get similar responses when i go out there with Vegan education. There are obviously always a few who yell "i love meat" to you but its just the typical defense mechanism when a truth is put in your face and you don't want to face it. On the other hand, i did demos against vivisection where cards were handed out about the bad guys of UCLA. People signed them for the poor monkeys and when back to business as usual and very likely forgot about them the next day while they were munching on their cholesterol/heart disease laden sausage pizzas.

 

Veronique Perrot HC I understand what you're saying Leigh but I am less concerned about doing "what's right" (and I don't think most protests fall into that category) versus doing what's right for the animals, as in what is the most effective and what will help them the most. I am not advocating instant gratifications, which is what protesters do when they think yelling at the institutional abusers will accomplish. That is pointless. Because it doesn't eliminate the demand, wastes time and resources which could be better spent with actual vegan education. There is a lot less instant gratification or ego boosting at talking to people about Veganism, because it is not spectacular or lacks shock value. You have no way to judge the effect in the long term.