onsdag 25 juni 2014
It is not respectful to use all of the parts of an animal
Some people claim it is respectful to the animal to buy the liver of a dead animal, etcetera.
This mentality also permeates the "slow food" movement (they refer to it as the "nose to tail" use of an animal and insist that it's more ethical and respectful to consume as much of another animal's body once you've stolen her life). Whether you take her life in the forest, in a slaughterhouse or behind a barn, I guarantee you that this being whose life you stole her wouldn't care which part -- or how many parts -- of her dead body you took for your own selfish use. And however little or much you use has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not you were wrong to kill her. ~ My Face Is on Fire
tisdag 24 juni 2014
Introduction to Abolitionist veganism and anti-speciesism
There are
two different groups calling themselves vegans – one group that believe in the
ideology of Welfarism/beliveve that it is justified to use it temporarily to abolish all animal use; and one group that believes that it always is wrong to
use animals, and it is always wrong to promote speciesism and animal use in all
various forms. Abolitionist or anti-speciesist vegans believe that it is wrong
to promote animal use as a means to reach an end of a world without animal use
– just like they believe it is wrong to promote discrimination against humans,
e.g. sexism, to reach the goal of a world without discrimination towards
humans.
I am an Abolitionist vegan. I don't hate others who justify speciesist methods. I don't judge their intentions and their heart. I believe they are wrong, but that doesn't mean that I love them less or care less for them.
I am an Abolitionist vegan. I don't hate others who justify speciesist methods. I don't judge their intentions and their heart. I believe they are wrong, but that doesn't mean that I love them less or care less for them.
Abolitionist
vegans actively promote veganism. We believe and work for a world where animals
will be respected as sentient beings and will not be used as resources. We
believe that breeding animals is morally wrong, just like creating a new
“species” of humans that would be subservient and to a large extent live their
lives controlled by other humans, would be morally wrong. We strive for a world
where all sentient beings should live their life in freedom and not be
controlled by anyone else. Today we have a moral responsibility to take care of
the animals [1] that are bred into existence. This we do e.g. by rescuing
animals from shelters, including the animals which otherwise would be killed
and exploited at kill “shelters”. We are morally opposed to organizations that
are affiliated with kill shelters , and that e.g. participate in the killing of
healthy feral cats with an interest of a continued existence [1b]. We aim to
abolish the property status of animals, which enables all animal exploitation
that takes place of “domesticated animals” [2].
We promote veganism in many different creative nonviolent
forms – in everything from cooking classes – cooking plant-based foods while
educating about veganism (which is not a diet [1c]), to seminars, educating
friends and acquaintances, leafleting, putting up posters, vegan stalls in
universities and markets, etc. There are an endless amount of opportunities.
But the most important thing is to never compromise with the message.
The ideology of Welfarism is one that says it is okay to use and kill animals as long as they are treated in a "humane way". Abolitionist vegans believe that this is an immoral and speciesist notion and that the promotion of speciesism is both immoral and will never lead us any step closer to a vegan world devoid of all speciesism. In the same way like violence will never lead us closer to a peaceful world without violence, or the promotion of sexism won't lead us to a world without sexism.
Abolitionist
vegans don’t promote Animal welfare reform, which also could be called Animal
exploitation reform. Animal exploitation reforms are reforming industry,
usually to increase the profit of the businesses that earn money of exploiting
animals, e.g. farmers, slaughter houses [2]. We believe it is immoral. It is
morally problematic to advocate a reform of animal exploitation, since you by
doing this are legitimizing animal exploitation. You are merely telling
industry to exploit animals in another for them more profitable way, at the
same time as you are sending the message to the public that this reform
provides a moral way of using/exploiting animals. Further reading [3]
We don’t promote campaigns with an implicit or explicit speciesist and welfarist, racist,
sexist or discrimination of others-message. We don’t promote campaigns that
send the confusing message to the public that there is a difference between one
animal use compared to another animal use, or exploitation of one species
compared to another species. Thus we
don’t e.g. promote anti-fur campaigns, which confuse the public into believe
that/perpetuate the existent belief of non-vegans that exploiting animal for
fur is unacceptable (which of course is correct)., but that there are other forms of animal use that are morally
acceptable – e.g. using the skin of animals (leather). We call these campaigns
single issue campaigns. Further reading of why anti-speciesist vegans are
opposed to single issue campaigns [3]
We don’t
promote “Meatless Monday”, which is a speciesist campaign focusing on meat, but
endorsing the consumption of dairy products, eggs, use of down, and other
animal use. We don’t make veganism into a diet, or into an environmental cause [3b].
Veganism is about the nonhuman animals, their right to not be exploited and to
not be treated as property/resources.
We don’t
promote campaigns that focus on the treatment of animals, such as
anti-fur-campaigns, but that focus on all animal use. Because the moral problem
is that we use animals regardless of how we treat them and regardless of how we
murder them. We are against all exploitation and no human have any right to
recommend others to exploit animals in other ways, or to ever be unclear or
start a campaign that can be interpreted in this way
We believe
that animals are sentient beings, and they are not our resources, and all our
actions are aimed at shifting the paradigm from the speciesist view of viewing
animals as our resources, towards viewing and treating them as sentient beings.
Just like we wouldn’t shave someone’s hair and use this as an accessory without
that person’s consent, we don’t take the wool of a rescued sheep to use it for
our purposes. We don’t coerce animals into doing things, nor use other forms of
violence – not in action and not in words. We don’t use violent methods as some
popular well-meaning but confused dog trainer (e.g. Cesar
Milan) do [4]. We don’t coerce/force animals into doing things, e.g. breaking a
horse to use for riding. We don’t train or use animals for our use/purposes,
e.g. teaching a dog to do dance tricks, or riding a horse for our
entertainment/exercise/trying to fill our emotional spiritual needs/desires. Our
relationship to "domesticated" animals is not one of control/enforcing our will, but acting in
the animals best interests and giving her/him as much freedom and autonomy within
the constraints of what is best for the animals well being –e.g. the animal is
domesticated and can’t survive by her own in the wild, so we don’t release the
animals in the wild.
Abolitionist
vegans reject all violence and discrimination towards human and nonhuman
animals. We are totally opposed to all explicit or implicit sexist, racist and
other discrimination of others-campaigns that are common among Animal Welfare
organizations [6]. We believe in nonviolence both in action and speech, being
nonjudgmental towards people’s intentions, while being very clear and
judgmental when it comes to people’s actions.
Learn more
about Abolitionist veganism: [7]
Footnotes
1 c. See
this excellent poster and other good posts on this page: https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/photos/a.1481329078758310.1073741827.1481322565425628/1617803015110915/?type=1&theater
2.http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/
3. See some
of the articles linked here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html
3b. https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/photos/pb.1481322565425628.-2207520000.1403637399./1549317488626135/?type=3&theater
4. Not about Abolitionist veganism, but about how harmful violent/forceful/fearful/coercive methods are to animals: http://yodogcast.tumblr.com/post/55504306960/the-damage-of-the-dog-whisperer-a-scientific-critique
5.http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/the-moral-problem-with-teaching-dog-to.html
6. http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/why-i-dont-sign-petitions-against-dog.html
; http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-kapparos-campaign-a-good-example-whats-wrong-single-issue-campaigns/;
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/why-petas-sexism-campaigns-for-animal.html
7. Check
the articles in the other footnotes. Also read: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/
and articles of that website.
måndag 23 juni 2014
Moralisk skillnad på att döda för underhållning eller för föda?
Zijad skrev: "Sjuta älg rådjur stycka ge till familj grannen äta JA!!! NEJ om man gör det för skoj skull. Buuuu!"
En del väljer att döda djur för underhållning. Andra väljer former av underhållning som inte dödar djur.
En del väljer att döda djur för mat - för att de gillar smaken eller för att det är bekvämt; eller för att man är av den falska tron att man inte kan få den näring man behöver från en plantbaserad diet. Andra väljer att få föda på sätt som inte dödar djur - alltså man konsumerar inte kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg, honung, osv. Det förekommer alltid förtryck när man ser och behandlar djur som resurser för våra behov.
Vad är det för moralisk skillnad?
Djuren vill varken bli vår föda, eller bli föremål för underhållning.
För en elefant så är det irrelevant om hon blir dödad för mat eller för underhållning - det är samma skada, det är samma förtryck.
Det kanske är någon psykologisk skillnad. Men det förändrar inte situationen för offren - för djuren. Så vad är det för moralisk skillnad?
------------
Ja - fast varje gång som du konsumerar en fisk/kött/mejeriprodukt/ägg eller använder djur på annat sätt- så ignorerar du deras mest grundläggande intressen.
Med ditt val så proklamerar du att detta är resurser som jag kan förbruka och använda för mina intressen. Detta gör du trots att du med enkelhet kan få all näring från en vegetabilisk diet.
Så hur kan du klanka ner på någon annan som också ser på djur som resurser som man kan förbruka för sina behov. ??
I detta fall så dödar hon djur för att försöka fylla sitt behov av glädje/frid. Självklart anser jag det är helt fel. Men jag förstår inte hur det skiljer sig jämfört med att döda för föda.
Alla människor söker efter glädje/frid - och vi går fel när vi tror att vi kan finna dessa i objekt eller genom personer/relationer eller genom att manipulera objekt eller andra personer. Rekommenderar: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxXWjjtATq3OM545gMh9PUg
Jakt och att skryta över jakt
En person postade bilder på en kändis som kramar döda djur som hon har skjutit, och skryter över sin jakt.
Jag lyssnade precis på denna:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm8A-Bp6tZ8 .. Väldigt upplysande - om varför krig och annat som skadar finns.
Om man blir upprörd över det som personen på bilden gör, så ska man bli upprörd också över allt annat skadande av djur som sker på vår jord - inklusive allt skadande, dödande och förtryckande av djur för kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg, läder, päls, dun, djurtestning och alla andra syften. Ingenting av detta kan rättfärdigas.
Det finns plantbaserade alternativ till kläder, mat, underhållning, osv.
En bra text:
"People are angry that Bachman killed the lion unnecessarily. There was no need, no compulsion for her to do so. She did not kill the lion in self defense. She killed the lion because she enjoys killing animals.
And most of us think that that’s terrible; we don’t think that we should make animals suffer and die just because we derive some pleasure from it.
Or do we?
We kill and eat about 56 billion land animals not counting fish. There is no necessity; no compulsion. We do not need to eat animals to be optimally healthy and animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.
The best justification we have for imposing suffering and death on those billions of animals, many of whom have had lives far more hideous than the lion Bachman slaughtered, is that they taste good.
So how exactly does this distinguish those of us who consume animals from Bachman?
That’s a rhetorical question: there is no coherent moral distinction between her and most of us. The fact that Bachman kills “charismatic species” and the rest of us just kill chickens, pigs, cows, and fish is completely irrelevant."
-----------
Det är enkelt att hänga ut kändisar eller andra personer -- men det finns väldigt, väldigt många personer som har t.ex. fiskat och sedan skrytit över den fångst som man gjort. Säkert någon vän som du har, eller någon familjemedlem, eller du själv.
Jag hade själv inga problem med att fiska eller konsumera djurprodukter, innan jag förstod att det var fel, och blev vegan.
Det är ingen som helst moralisk skillnad mellan det jämfört med det som sker på bilden. Annan art, samma förtryck.
Är du vegan - -annars deltar du i samma förtryck av djur som visas på bilden.
Bekvämlighet, njutning, lathet, oavsett anledning så är det förtryck.
Jag dömer inte någons intentioner, eller goda hjärta. Vill bara upplysa så att man kan ändra till ett levnadssätt som inte skadar och förtrycker djur.
Jag lyssnade precis på denna:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm8A-Bp6tZ8 .. Väldigt upplysande - om varför krig och annat som skadar finns.
Om man blir upprörd över det som personen på bilden gör, så ska man bli upprörd också över allt annat skadande av djur som sker på vår jord - inklusive allt skadande, dödande och förtryckande av djur för kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg, läder, päls, dun, djurtestning och alla andra syften. Ingenting av detta kan rättfärdigas.
Det finns plantbaserade alternativ till kläder, mat, underhållning, osv.
En bra text:
"People are angry that Bachman killed the lion unnecessarily. There was no need, no compulsion for her to do so. She did not kill the lion in self defense. She killed the lion because she enjoys killing animals.
And most of us think that that’s terrible; we don’t think that we should make animals suffer and die just because we derive some pleasure from it.
Or do we?
We kill and eat about 56 billion land animals not counting fish. There is no necessity; no compulsion. We do not need to eat animals to be optimally healthy and animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.
The best justification we have for imposing suffering and death on those billions of animals, many of whom have had lives far more hideous than the lion Bachman slaughtered, is that they taste good.
So how exactly does this distinguish those of us who consume animals from Bachman?
That’s a rhetorical question: there is no coherent moral distinction between her and most of us. The fact that Bachman kills “charismatic species” and the rest of us just kill chickens, pigs, cows, and fish is completely irrelevant."
-----------
Det är enkelt att hänga ut kändisar eller andra personer -- men det finns väldigt, väldigt många personer som har t.ex. fiskat och sedan skrytit över den fångst som man gjort. Säkert någon vän som du har, eller någon familjemedlem, eller du själv.
Jag hade själv inga problem med att fiska eller konsumera djurprodukter, innan jag förstod att det var fel, och blev vegan.
Det är ingen som helst moralisk skillnad mellan det jämfört med det som sker på bilden. Annan art, samma förtryck.
Är du vegan - -annars deltar du i samma förtryck av djur som visas på bilden.
Bekvämlighet, njutning, lathet, oavsett anledning så är det förtryck.
Jag dömer inte någons intentioner, eller goda hjärta. Vill bara upplysa så att man kan ändra till ett levnadssätt som inte skadar och förtrycker djur.
söndag 22 juni 2014
Problems with promoting Animal welfare reform to abolish animal use
During the 1980s and 1990s, those who promoted welfare reform campaigns claimed to really be "animal rights" advocates. But the entire point of the animal rights movement was to promote a new way of thinking about animal ethics that rejected welfare campaigns as unacceptable.
At the present time, welfarists are trying to appropriate "abolition." claiming that they really want to see abolition in the long term.
Again, the point of the abolitionist approach was to refocus the animal movement on animal rights and away from welfare reform.
Think of it this way: the peace movement that rejects war. Imagine those who favor war claiming that they are part of the peace movement because they really want peace in the long-term but see war as a means to peace.
The means cannot be inconsistent with the end. War is inconsistent as a means to peace. That is the point of the peace movement. Promoting (supposedly) humane animal use is inconsistent with no use. Welfare reform is inconsistent with the abolitionist approach to animal rights.
Palmolja vs. andra oljor och annan monokulturproducerad mat
Monokultur-palmolja är inte ekologiskt hållbar. Det stämmer ju. Men det finns ju INGEN monokultur-olja som är ekologiskt hållbar; och vars produktion tar hänsyn till djuren, så varför singla ut palmolja när det finns samma etiska problem med alla oljor och ALL monokulturproducerad mat - vilket är all mat som säljs i vanliga livsmedelsbutiker?:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/hur-norge-sveriges-och-hela.html
------
Insekter dödas alltid i dessa odlingar. Förutom det dödas djur vid skörd och när man använder jordfräs. Förutom det så dödas alla djur som utgör ett hot mot grönsakerna - insekter, och även andra djur om dessa utgör ett hot mot grönsaksbestånd.
"To produce fruits, vegetables, and grains, it is not necessary to kill any animals directly. However, there probably are some wild animals killed in the process of planting and harvesting plant-based foods on a large scale. Some possible causes of these deaths are farm machinery such as harvesters, ploughs, or tractors, chemical pesticides, or direct poisoning or trapping of animals who pose a threat to the crops. As Davis puts it,
"Although accurate estimates of the total number of animals killed by different agronomic practices from plowing to harvesting are not available, some studies show that the numbers are quite large.""
http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc
Bin utnyttjas i produktionen av mandel: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/but-vegans-eat-almonds-and-bees-are.html
Jag har aldrig sett någon statistik som visar att fler djur blir dödade totalt sätt när det kommer till palmolja. Ursprunget till kampanjen verkar vara speciesistiskt - att man anser att orangutaner är mer värda än många andra arter/att utrotningshotade djur är mer värda än andra arter. Det är ingen syn som jag vill sprida. Sen förstår jag att många som förespråkar denna kampanjen inte håller med om denna syn, men det förändrar inte kampanjens implicita speciesistiska budskap.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)