Veganska länkar, resurser, tips, videos, artiklar

Hej David,
Jätteroligt att höra att du avstod från kalkonen!!!!!
Jag får både positiva och negativa reaktioner av mina veganska livsstil -olika för olika personer. Om man mobbar en annan person för att inte äta djur, visar det endast en persons osäkerhet med hennes val.
Jätteroligt att höra när personer värdesätter djurs syfte och liv framför en smakupplevelse/bekvämlighet, etc.

Jag tycker om detta citat:
"If you celebrate Easter, think about what you are celebrating: the idea that love conquers everything, even death. So don’t celebrate the triumph of love over death by participating in death. That makes no sense whatsoever. Celebrate love every day: go vegan.”
Gary L. Francione

Två andra filmer som jag rekommenderar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5pDU1yMWMw
http://vimeo.com/4808525# (inget ljud, men väldigt bra budskap)

Sida som varje dag postar väldigt tänkvärda budskap: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

Även här finns bra videoklipp och information: http://www.vegankit.com/
155 videoklipp relaterade till hälsa (fördelar med plantbaserad diet, och sjukdomar samt miljö-problem orsakade av en diet baserad på djurprodukte) och miljö, Dr. John McDougall:
http://www.youtube.com/user/drmcdougallmd

---

Mer tips:
Dear David Winther,
Thanks for your question!!

This is one of my favourite lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo
Very good documentary about health and environment: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

Let me know what you think!!

Be blessed!!!

-----

Roligt att du gillade dem!!
Här är en annan bra föreläsning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas
Och sen att lyssna på World Peace Diet av Will Tuttle. Den finns på Spotify som ljudbok och är verkligen en underbar bok (eller på Adlibris).
” I think we were really meant to eat vegan from the beginning.”
Så hur tycker du att vi ska leva nu? Har du börjat äta veganskt? Något hinder som du ser?

Breastfeeding on a vegan diet

Regarding breastfeeding on a vegan diet, maybe you will find this helpful:

I found this reply:

I am not sure what McDougall's specific diet recs are, but I think it is high grain vegan diet. I am vegan and have had to vegan pregnancies and nursed two vegan babies beyond one year with no problems. I can see the diet effecting your supply if it is drastically different than what you are eating now. looking at the link below it seems the only concern I could see is the lack of fats in his diet. I am surpriesed that he is no coconut at all, but I think that if you werethriving on the diet before you should be fine after just make sure you are eating the extra clories you need which is made harder by the elimination of fat. You may end up eating what feels like all day long since plant food is so bulky.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/free_4d.html

Also McDougal answered a question like this on his blog:

Mother's diet strongly effects her milk. The cleanest healthiest milk is from women who are nourished with primarily starches, with vegetables and fruits. Meats, poultry, fish and dairy deliver a high pesticide/chemical load. Dairy protein gets into mother's milk and causes colic and other food allergies.

All the essential fats, proteins, amino acids, vitamins (except B12) are provided in ideal kinds and amounts with these plants foods. (I recommend a B12 supplement for pregnant and nursing mothers.)

Any other reports to the contrary are false and scientifically unsupported.

Here is one such false report:

See the third article: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/defend.htm

Best wishes,

John McDougall, MD

Also there was this thread which has some suggestions:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=26763
---End of quote
Another thread:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31765

Free McDougall Program: Foods not allowed

www.drmcdougall.com

How I became a vegan when I understood it is wrong to use and exploit animals

Me and my wife become vegan this autumn. We stopped using all meat at the time we understood it is wrong to exploit other animals and to kill them. We stopped using all milk and eggs when we understood that these are causing animals suffering and death. Within some weeks we transitioned to become vegans. I stopped as soon as I realized that it is wrong.
 
We didn't want to be a part in exploiting animals by continuing to use animal products, so we stopped when we realized it is unethical. If we love animals and recognize their moral value, we can't continue to participate in stealing their lives and their purpose, and cause them unnecessary suffering and death for ‘palatable pleasure’/convenience.
Some websites that I have found helpful: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach and  www.vegankit.com

When it comes to a healthy vegan diet (which don't need to contain any soy at all), I recommend this website: http://www.drmcdougall.com/

I wrote this to a friend, which relates some to what one can eat:
"A vegan home-cooked diet can be very, very inexpensive (and much cheaper compared to a diet of animal products (which are heavily subsidized, and bad for us, animals and the environment).

A starch-based (e.g. potatoes, rice, lentils, beans) diet with vegetables and fruits (and some also take very inexpensive B-12-supplement) is as I guess you know very inexpensive.

One can even become self-sustained. On 1/10 of an acre one can grow 6000 pounds of plant-based food per year in California.

A non-vegan diet is killing humans and other animals (e.g. in droughts caused by enormous amount of green-house gases), the environment, causes poverty and starvation:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

So is anything stopping you from a choosing a vegan diet (and inspire you friends to do this too) of love, compassion and non-violence. You already believe in this in your heart."

Love, compassion, non-violence = vegan, compared to Torah, Judaism, religion

A new mail to a religious friend about animals:
Hello .....
Hope you are doing well!!!

"Thank-you, I shall take care of your pants for you."
Thank you!!

You wrote: "I think that the question of whether we should really eat meat is a good one, but I don't think that you can't be a Jew to ask it, (...) but are you really sure you are thinking about everything here? "

I am sure that a non-violent, loving and compassion is the right way to live. To treat all people with love and compassion, to do actions that help people, poor persons, that fights injustice, poverty, starvation. To do actions that helps ending the animal slavery. To not treat animals as property, but as individuals.

You wrote: "Can you please think about this? The universe can't be made by its self so there has to be some infinite being and since there is an infinite being there has to be a relationship made, in order for us to be able be all we were made to become."

I have thought about it a lot. I agree with you that there is a certain moral that we should aspire too. You think it is in Torah.
I think there is some wisdom in Torah, like for example that people ate plants in the beginning before the fist "sin", the commandments 'you should not steal', you shall not kill (I learned that it covered all killing, before it was redefined to 'not murder').

I reason, first of all, that Torah's treatment of animals as property is unethical and that viewing animals as property is the cause to the worst animal abuse you can find. If we disregard animals rights - their right to their own life, their right to their own produce (e.g. milk), their right to their family, their right to live in freedom, their right not to be used by us -- then we allow others to disregard other animal rights.
See 'Animals as Property': http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/#.UVcAGFcWngM

"Going vegan is the path to real health for oneself, for the Earth, for animals, for all of us -- we are all interconnected and it's time to question the violence at the core of our culture and stop participating in it and stop making excuses for servile behavior. The only reason anyone eats animal foods is because they're following the orders given them from infancy by a culture of violence and exploitation. It's time for us to think for ourselves, and to came back to our hearts and honor the feelings of kindness for all. Thanks!"

I recommend World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle; www.worldpeacediet.org.

It will open a new world for you. As I said before,it is available here: https://www.spotify.com/

So if you remove all commandments related to domesticating and using animals, there are much fewer commandments.
Violence is never the solution. In Torah people are punished e.g. because they are working on shabbat. Death-penalty is not a loving and compassionate way and it doesn't solve anything. Violence can't be fought by violence. Violence give birth to more violence. Just because a person don't agree with keeping the shabbat doesn't mean he is unethical. Then we have death-penalty to women who were accused of committing adultery. The women could get this punishment if she was accused and couldn't prove that her hymen was found after intercourse. However, we know that women can lose their hymen before having intercourse. So a woman could get killed without having committed adultery.
I believe that adultery is unethical [e.g. causing harm and suffering to your partner], but I don't believe in the violent death penalty. Humans have no right to take the life of another being. Then we have all of these violent wars - killing innocent people just to fight over a land. Commandments about war captives, etc.

So I don't see to what gain it would be for humankind and all other animals of the world if I would follow an instruction manual with so much violence to other people and other animals. I know I did this for many years, but it was more like I was assuming that it was right based on a erroneous "logical proof". So, I recommend you to not assume that someone else is right; or that everything will make more sense when you have studied much more -- it doesn't!!
And what good did I do? Now, I am saving thousands of animals and I am also saving starving people, reducing green house-gases and thus the global warming-effect, that will cause more and more droughts and floods in this world. Every time I advocate for the animals, I am making a different. The posts that I wrote about Torah don't make this world to a more peaceful, loving, compassionate, non-violent planet, free of injustices, wars, poverty and starvation. The harm we inflict on other animals is the root to so many other evils that befall us.

You realized yourself that it is wrong to kill animals; and thus that there are errors in the Torah commandments. Continue to search, continue to dig, and especially become vegan for the animals sake (including humankind) and your sake. As long as a person is participating in exploiting animals (e.g. taking their milk and/or eggs), he/she cannot realize many things. Oppressing other individuals make us emotionally blind and disconnected. You have observed this behavior in humans that are oppressing other humans. More and more people are dieing of starvation, poverty, more and more other animals are being killed and used - so I think it is your responsibility to act and also to become a part of influencing other to become vegan.

First we take the purpose and freedom of animals and domesticate them; then we suffer from this:

"The Sanskrit word for war, gavisti, literally means a desire for more cows. This comes from the pastoral period of the Vedic society, during which cattle were a main source and symbol of wealth. During this time, many inter-clan wars were fought over getting and keeping cattle, and the warrior class of the society, known as Kshatriyas, were largely responsible for stealing cattle from other clans, and protecting their own clan's cattle. "

We sow suffering and death, and we reap suffering and death.
I rather study wisdom from all sources, and keep that which is loving, compassionate and non-violent - that which doesn't treat anyone as property; and that which doesn't cause suffering, harm and death to my fellow men and fellow other animals.

I don't believe there has to be an instruction manual. And you know that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before they learned how to write. I think there have been thousands of people who have known the right way to live throughout the ages, but knowledge can get lost. And all conscious beings are able to figure out how to live without having to rely on someone else, or some easily redacted book, influenced by its authors conceptions about humans and other animals.
All humans who want to can learn and find out about the loving, compassionate, and non-violent way to live. It may have been written down. But everything that is written down can be redacted by humans with their own agenda.

I don't agree with everything in the Buddhist tradition (and it may also be redacted), but the origins of it emphasize to live a life of love, compassion and non-violence to all beings. And today many misrepresent it, e.g. non-vegan persons who claim to observe it.
Just one tradition that you can learn from.

You wrote: "I'm not able to know at this time many explanations, but I have a good idea where I can learn and grow, not everything is bad about Judaism, but everything is wrong with the others that try to supersede or replace it. Judaism has been founded on rationalizing what is so important that we intelligent beings should exist, please still think about it. "

Are you sure? And people use "intelligent", "rational", "logical" and "scientific" to rationalize all sorts of beliefs. Just because someone is using that methodology doesn't mean they come to the right conclusions. If you have the wrong premises - e.g. that is right to use violence against other people or animals - then you will also make erroneous conclusions. If we are oppressing others, we don't understand so many essential things about what is an ethical lifestyle; and what we write will be fundamentally wrong.
I would say that the core of our being is love and compassion; and that we can learn the most from the people who are spending all their time to treat other beings with non-violence, love and compassion.
'
What do you think?
With hopes, love and care,
Your friend

'Counter-argument' to veganism - it is so expensive to buy vegan food

A vegan home-cooked diet can be very, very inexpensive (and much cheaper compared to a diet of animal products (which are heavily subsidized, and bad for us, animals and the environment).

A starch-based (e.g. potatoes, rice, lentils, beans) diet with vegetables and fruits (and some also take very inexpensive B-12-supplement) is as I guess you know very inexpensive.

One can even become self-sustained. On 1/10 of an acre one can grow 6000 pounds of plant-based food per year in California.

A non-vegan diet is killing humans and other animals (e.g. in droughts caused by enormous amount of green-house gases), the environment, causes poverty and starvation:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm

So is anything stopping you from a choosing a vegan diet (and inspire you friends to do this too) of love, compassion and non-violence. You already believe in this in your heart.
What do you say?

Vegan- Domestication of 'pets' and other animals is wrong

Hello Alfred,

“Domestic animals are neither a real or full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them.”

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication/#.UVa_ClcWngM

All domestication is wrong. However, it is a good deed to save, adopt and foster an animal, from an animal shelter. We need to take care of them, since they are bred and raised in a way that they can’t survive in the wild.

Animals all deserve to live in freedom. Their purpose is not to be used by us. Their purpose is not to end up on our plate. Using animals,e.g. animal foods, disconnect us from our natural compassion and wisdom, and sense of being part of a benevolent universe.
I recommend this lecture: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/

Both domestication and eating animal products are two deeds that are hurting and using another sentient being, which is not ethical.

Grisar är medvetna, kärleksfulla djur, inte mat.

Solidaritet med grisen. Ja!! Människan har den empatiska och kärleksfulla förmågan att bry sig om alla arter - hund, katt, gris, får. En bäbis skulle aldrig få för sig att skada en gris. Vår empatiska förmåga till grisar tappar vi när våra föräldrar uppfostrar oss att det är okej döda och äta grisar, och när vi deltar i detta genom våra matval.

Det finns ingen gris som är glad av att bli dödad.
Det finns inget humant sätt att ta någon annan individs liv. Det finns ingen gris som är lycklig av att bli brutalt slaktad.

Det är INGEN skillnad på en gris, en hund, en människa i det att: Alla har ett medvetande, alla kan lida, alla vill leva, alla älskar sin familj, man vill leva i frihet- inte i fångenskap, ett liv utan lidande.
Varför bryr vi oss om hundar, men äter grisar???

Vi vet att djur inte mår bra av att bli skilda från sina föräldrar.
Vi vet att djur inte mår bra av att bli dödade.
Vi vet att djur inte vill bli dödade.
En gris syfte är inte att bli någons mat. En gris syfte är inte att leva i fångenskap.
Om vi tar detta på allvar, ' Alla djur vi har hand om SKA HA DET BRA!', så måste vi som en konsekvens av detta bli veganer. Det är ett enkelt val, ett val av kärlek och empati, en tydlig deklaration att man är emot allt djurförtryck och inte själv deltar i detta genom sina val av kläder, mat, hygienprodukter, rengöringsprodukter eller andra val. [Rekommenderar www.vegankit.com ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

--Version 2:
Hejsan,
Grisen värderar sitt liv lika mycket som vi värderar vårt liv. Grisen är en medvetande varelse, precis som en hund eller katt. Grisen vill leva.
Det är väldigt enkelt att bli vegan. Det är ingen uppoffring.
Människan har den empatiska och kärleksfulla förmågan att bry sig om alla arter - hund, katt, gris, får. En bäbis skulle aldrig få för sig att skada en gris. Vår empatiska förmåga till grisar tappar vi när våra föräldrar uppfostrar oss att det är okej döda och äta grisar, och när vi deltar i detta genom våra matval. Vi är offer för vår tragiska kultur och vi lider oerhört eftersom vi orsakar andra oskyldiga individer så mycket lidande. Vi tappar vårt syfte, och vår frid, vi tappar vår inre intelligens, eftersom att vi tar djurens syfte och liv ifrån dem.
Det finns ingen gris som är glad av att bli dödad.
Det finns inget humant sätt att ta någon annan individs liv. Det finns ingen gris som är lycklig av att bli brutalt slaktad.
Det är INGEN skillnad på en gris, en hund, en människa i det att: Alla har ett medvetande, alla kan lida, alla vill leva, alla älskar sin familj, man vill leva i frihet- inte i fångenskap, ett liv utan lidande.
Varför bryr vi oss om hundar, men äter grisar???
Vi vet att djur inte mår bra av att bli skilda från sina föräldrar.
Vi vet att djur inte mår bra av att bli dödade.
Vi vet att djur inte vill bli dödade.
En gris syfte är inte att bli någons mat. En gris syfte är inte att leva i fångenskap.
Om vi tar detta på allvar, ' Alla djur vi har hand om SKA HA DET BRA!', så måste vi som en konsekvens av detta bli veganer.
 Det är ett enkelt val, ett val av kärlek och empati, en tydlig deklaration att man är emot allt djurförtryck och inte själv deltar i detta genom sina val av kläder, mat, hygienprodukter, rengöringsprodukter eller andra val. [Rekommenderar www.vegankit.com , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo och boken World Peace Diet av Will Tuttle ]

Compassionate Easter, without causing suffering and death by eatings eggs and milk

Please let this be an Easter treating everyone with love and compassion, regardless of species! A dog, a horse, a pig, a cow, a chicken - they all have their lives, purpose and right to live and not to become used and abused in order for anyone to get "meat", animal products, etc.

 If you research the egg-industry, you will see their is so much suffering and death involved in the egg industry. Male-chickens are killed at birth (ground up alive), because that the egg-industry can make no profit on them. Female hens are used all life, their eggs (that belong to them, and that they can eat to replenish their nutrition) are taken away from them, and when the farmer can’t make enough profit on the hen, the hen is killed. The hens and chickens have their own purpose – it is not to be used and not to become someone’s food, or to be someone’s property. We should treat others, as we ourselves want to be treated. When it comes to being conscious, to feeling pain, to show love, empathy, to love one’s family, to everything essential – there is no difference between a hen, a dog, a cat, a human.

 "If you celebrate Easter, think about what you are celebrating: the idea that love conquers everything, even death. So don’t celebrate the triumph of love over death by participating in death. That makes no sense whatsoever. Celebrate love every day: go vegan.”

 Gary L. Francione [ www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach ]

 If we care about animals, and regard them as having a moral value: Only stopping using them and stealing their lives and products, is respecting them, their life and purpose.
 I highly recommend this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgGnP0pWzM

Ett liv som gris, en gris syfte är INTE att bli fläsk.

Ja, fruktansvärt!
Det är symptom på en sjukdom i samhället. Sjukdomen är att se och behandla djur som egendom. Denna stora sjukdom fick sitt utbrott när människan började domesticera djur mellan 8000-10000 år sen.

Så länge som djurs ses som egendom, alltså så länge som personer använder sig av djur, så kommer det som du såg på videon att fortsätta [Man kan lära sig mer här: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo.

Genom alla icke-veganska val - inklusive att äta och bära döda djur och djurprodukter - så orsakar man djur onödigt lidande och död. Man stjäl djurens syfte. Man tar deras liv. Man tar det som tillhör dem - t.ex. deras mjölk, deras barn, deras liv.
Lösningen är att sluta använda och utnyttja djur och bli vegan.
Grisar är intelligenta djur. De vill leva. De vill inte bli dödade. Att döda de är att våldföra sig på dem och förtrycka dem. Deras syfte är inte att bli "fläsk". De har sitt eget syfte här i världen. När vi förstör deras syfte, så förstör vi också för oss själva.
Jag rekommenderar denna föreläsning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

Single issue-campaigns, such as anti-fur campaigns, vs campaigns against all animal exploitation

Quote Sarah Woodcook:

Matt Johnson, I am 100% opposed to single issue campaigns as well. When people ask why, I share the following with them in the hopes they will commit to "striking at the root" with creative nonviolent vegan education:

<Here is some information on single issue campaigns and why they are terrible for animals:

1) With limited people, time, energy, and resources, every unit spent on a single issue campaign is a unit not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And *only* creative nonviolent vegan education will fundamentally change the way people think about animals. One hour spent on a single issue campaign is one hour not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And when we make a vegan, we have a new advocate. This is a much better long-term strategy.

2) Single issue campaigns are how animal advocates are divided and conquered. We must unite behind the banner of veganism.

3) They mislead the public into thinking one type of exploitation is worse than another type of exploitation.

4) They tout false victories. Even if -- even if -- a "victory" is achieved, it is *only* for one type of exploitation, and it oftentimes does not last. And again, with limited time, energy, and resources, we can't waste time on single issue campaigns.

5) They are often racist (think anti-dolphin slaughter campaigns and anti-dog/cat eating campaigns) and often sexist (think anti-fur campaigns whereas there are no anti-leather campaigns).

Here is some information on single issue campaigns:

Excellent podcast:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions

Excellent podcast:

http://ia600801.us.archive.org/34/items/NzVeganPodcastEpisodes/NZVeganPodcastEpisode75.mp3

Essays:

2/1/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts

2/3/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-every-campaign-a-single-issue-campaign

4/17/10
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-short-note-on-abolitionist-veganism-as-a-single-issue-campaign

3/15/11
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline

11/18/12
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/1/post/2012/11/why-i-became-an-abolitionist-vegan.html>

3 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 6

My latest comment about it:
Overall animal exploitation has never been reduced due to single-issue campaigns.
But if we create a vegan revolution, which is easy if many vegans engage in educating people they meet, it has a big effect.
We need to teach people like this: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights and World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle.

What do you think of this?:
With limited people, time, energy, and resources, every unit spent on a single issue campaign is a unit not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And *only* creative nonviolent vegan education will fundamentally change the way people think about animals. One hour spent on a single issue campaign is one hour not spent on creative nonviolent vegan education. And when we make a vegan, we have a new advocate. This is a much better long-term strategy.
Arguments why single-issue campaigns are counter-productive:http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
For a total end of all animal use - a vegan world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Gary Francione:

ON SINGLE-ISSUE CAMPAIGNS AND THE PROMOTION OF ADOPTING/FOSTERING HOMELESS ANIMALS

A question I received:

"I have seen some people claiming that whilst you criticise single-issue campaigns, your promoting adoption and fostering is a single-issue campaign. What is your view?"

My response:

Such a claim is wrong and indicative that that those making the claim do not understand what a single-issue campaign (SIC) is.

Although all welfarist campaigns can be characterized as SICs, that term is usually applied to campaigns that at least appear to seek to abolish or prohibit, and not just regulate, certain animal uses, such as the use of animals for fur, or for meat (or for certain kinds of meat), the use of wild animals in circuses, particular sorts of blood sports, such as bullfighting, the use of horses in the carriage-horse trade, hunting (or particular sorts of hunting or the hunting of particular species), etc.

I have at least four problems with SICs.

First, SICs convey the idea that some forms of exploitation are worse than other forms of exploitation. In a culture in which animal exploitation is pervasive, that necessarily means that the target of the campaign is seen as being morally more objectionable than what is not focused on, which is seen as being morally "better" or even morally acceptable.

So if most people think that eating meat and dairy and eggs is "natural" and raises no moral problem, focusing on meat necessarily conveys the idea that dairy and eggs are different and that their consumption is morally acceptable or, at least, morally distinguishable, and not as morally objectionable as consuming meat.

A campaign focused on foie gras treats that particular product as morally distinguishable from other animal products, such as fried chicken or hamburgers. It tells people that it's morally better to eat chicken and hamburgers because foie gras is morally distinguishable and morally worse. A campaign that focuses on fur implies that wool and leather are morally "better" than fur.

I reject that sort of thinking in favor of promoting the idea that veganism is the *only* rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value. I do not believe that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy/eggs or between foie gras and beef, chicken, or fish or between fur and leather or wool. It's all morally unacceptable. I think that it confuses matters seriously to promote the idea that there are moral distinctions where there are none.

I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts/#.UbbwetiAraG

Second, SICs simply cannot work as a practical matter. They are seen as arbitrary and they make no sense to people who consume animal foods. Think about it. Those who consume animal products think it’s morally acceptable to impose suffering and death on animals for the trivial reason of palate pleasure and they participate in this animal use every day, several times a day. Why would they think that hunting is wrong when they go to the supermarket and buy products made from animals who have suffered every bit as much, if not more, than animals who are hunted? Why would they think that using animals for other trivial reasons is morally unacceptable?

I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/why-veganism-must-be-the-baseline/#.UbcCUtiAraE

Third, many single-issue campaigns encourage speciesism. Campaigns that focus on dolphins, elephants, and nonhuman primates maintain that these animals are supposedly more "like us" in terms of their intelligence and, therefore, they have greater moral value. That sort of thinking assumes that human characteristics are the measure of moral value and that human-like interests count for more. For the purposes of determining who can be used as a replaceable resource, assuming that human and human-like characteristics count for more is speciesist.

I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/our_hypocrisy-newscientist.pdf

Fourth, some single-issue campaigns often promote other forms of human discrimination. For example, the anti-fur campaign has had decidedly sexist overtones from its inception decades ago. Campaigns against eating dogs and cats are often and usually accompanied by anti-Asian rhetoric. Campaigns against kosher and halal slaughter have expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim sentiment.

I discuss this more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-lost-opportunity/#.UbcCudiAraE

A central part of the abolitionist approach is that domestication is inherently wrong and that we should stop producing domesticated animals for human use. I do, however, maintain that we have a moral obligation to care for those domesticated animals now in existence. I maintain that we should offer homes to nonhuman refugees of *any* species. I do not limit it to dogs and cats. I am very explicit in saying that there is no "responsible" breeding of domesticated animals.

Here are some additional thoughts on domestication: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UbcDBdiAraE

I am not saying that some form of exploitation is morally better than another form of exploitation. I am not suggesting that we replace one form of exploitation with another form of exploitation. I am not, for example, claiming that we should adopt/foster animals and then train them for use in circuses.

I am saying that we have a problem that we have created: we have many domesticated animals who are in existence now and need homes now. We have no other morally acceptable choice but to care for those animals when we have the opportunity to do so. I have stressed that caring for domesticated animals is not without moral dilemmas. For example, some cats apparently cannot exist without eating meat. I maintain that feeding meats to cats is not morally justifiable but it may be excusable in some circumstances.

Finally, I always couple *any* discussion of adoption/fostering and my rejection of domestication with the other central part of the abolitionist message: veganism as the only rational response to the recognition that animals have moral value.

In sum, promoting the adoption/fostering of homeless animals is clearly not a single-issue campaign. Caring for the domesticated nonhumans of all species is a moral obligation that is central to the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

I hope that this has clarified any confusion.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University

----------

What do the animal use industries want? They want some of us to focus on animals used for food, some of us to focus on animals used for clothing, some of us to focus on animals used for entertainment, some of us to focus on animals used for testing, and some of us to be scattered elsewhere. They want us to agree to wrestle them so they can tire us and delude us into thinking they are making positive changes for animals -- changes they would make anyways for industry survival as humans go through a moral awakening. They do not, under any circumstance, want us to unite behind the banner of veganism and call for an end to animal use altogether.

We are walking the animals to the slaughterhouse door by wasting time, money, and energy on single issue campaigns. And we are at a critical point in history where we must come together on creative nonviolent vegan education.

Please.

Quote: Farmed Animal Friends

-----------

A friend wrote this about one single issue campaign:
"“The problem with this siompassionate’ towards other animals, while continuing to do exactly what they do. This is the biggest problem with SICs. People clearly think it’s more cruel to wear fur than wear animal skin with no fur, wool, silk, wear other parts of animals, eat them and what they produce, go to zoos, use products tested on animals etc. In most cases they don’t think their participation in the exploitation of other animals in a critical way at all, so by criticising people wearing fur they have one more reason to continue being as they are. It is hypocritical by construction to put the shame on some in order to feel good about oneself. It normalises all other uses of nonhuman animals which are not condemned by PETA SICs, i.e. it normalises other animal use itself. If it was a step to veganism, then if you went into that club and you talked with the owner of the club as well as with the people entering it and who liked the ‘no fur’ rule about their other uses of nonhuman animals they would understand and they would want to vegan. But the most likely scenario is that they will call you a fanatic and they will get offended for being compared to ‘fur wearers’.

I wondered why the owner of the club would agree with this, PETA backed, campaign (i.e. how the campaigner convinced the club owner for this), but it became so obvious: it is definitely a more famous club now. Win-win for the club and PETA, but a usual they forgot some most important ones from their wins…”"

In sum, I think that single issue campaigns create moral confusion, while using one instance of animal abuse and enlighten persons about that there is no moral difference between all different uses of animals, brings moral clarity.
What do you say?

----------

Fact 1. Most SIC, Single-Issue Campaigns, are speciesist.
Fact 2. Speciesism is the reason we exploit nonhumans.

Conclusion: If you are against the exploitation of nonhumans, then you should be against most SIC.

Some example of these SIC include: ban orca shows in SeaWorld, fight against elephant poaching, or stop vivisection on nonhuman primates.

Cancer is caused by eating animal foods and can be reversed by a plant-based diet without animal products

Cancer is caused by eating animal foods and can be reversed by a plant-based diet without animal products:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DId_xJxbemQ
http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_prostatecancer.html
http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

"Going vegan is the path to real health for oneself, for the Earth, for animals, for all of us -- we are all interconnected and it's time to question the violence at the core of our culture and stop participating in it and stop making excuses for servile behavior. The only reason anyone eats animal foods is because they're following the orders given them from infancy by a culture of violence and exploitation. It's time for us to think for ourselves, and to came back to our hearts and honor the feelings of kindness for all. Thanks!"
I recommend World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle; www.worldpeacediet.org.

Animal foods disconnect us from our natural compassion and wisdom, and sense of being part of a benevolent universe.

Nicely written by Will Tuttle:

It is irresponsible to condone eating meat, dairy, and eggs. While I agree that sunshine and the dirt are beneficial, eating foods sourced from animals is not only toxic for us physically, it is even more toxic for us emotionally, spiritually, culturally, and ecologically - and these are all important aspects of our health.

If I buy animal flesh or secretions, I have to pay people to do the terrible work of stabbing, imprisoning, mutilating, and raping animals, work that brings out the worst in them. I am supporting toxic agriculture also; animals require huge amounts of land, feed, water, and petroleum to feed, slaughter, freeze/refrigerate, and are the driving force behind species extinction and global climate devastation.

The Department of Animal Services, which Mike Adams has written about, that kills millions of coyotes, bears, bobcats, raccoons, skunks, birds, beavers, and other animals, is a tool of the ranchers and animal agriculture industries.

Animal foods disconnect us from our natural compassion and wisdom, and sense of being part of a benevolent universe. They concentrate fear, terror, grief, and despair also - do we really want to eat these, and feed them to our children? They concentrate environmental toxins also, like heavy metals, PCBs, chemicals, and there are over 10,000 pharmaceutical drugs approved for use on animals - who experience mandatory vaccinations on a practically daily basis. They consume the vast amount of GMO crops also!

It is so funny to hear people bashing soy, and eating eggs, dairy products, and animal flesh-- and eating vast amounts of soy indirectly -- many times more soy than any vegan possibly could ever eat!

And organic dairy, meat, and eggs are just as cruel or even more cruel than commercial factory-farmed versions (and that's saying a LOT) because on organic operations antibiotics aren't allowed to be used, so the animals suffering from mastitis and other infections that are rampant suffer more and are mutilated, for example, by having their teats reamed out to get the milk flowing again.

Going vegan is the path to real health for oneself, for the Earth, for animals, for all of us -- we are all interconnected and it's time to question the violence at the core of our culture and stop participating in it and stop making excuses for servile behavior. The only reason anyone eats animal foods is because they're following the orders given them from infancy by a culture of violence and exploitation. It's time for us to think for ourselves, and to came back to our hearts and honor the feelings of kindness for all. Thanks!

Will Tuttle; www.worldpeacediet.org

Fish have been shown to be highly sentient and intelligent (with intelligence at the same level as nonhuman primates), using tools, forming complex social relationships, etc. Go vegan

Again, so glad I'm vegan - wish everyone were! - Let's let the oceans rebuild - fish have been shown to be highly sentient and intelligent (with intelligence at the same level as nonhuman primates), using tools, forming complex social relationships, etc. Of course the FDA recommends you eat plenty of seafood - it assures plenty of profits for the meat-medical-pharmaceutical complex!

Quote: Will Tuttle
Read more at www.worldpeacediet.org

Another quote about animals from Linda M.:
This reveals yet another point of confusion in Harris's thinking about animals-- how would he know if an alien he met had "richer experiences or mental capacities"? According to what criteria would he judge that? Human criteria, presumably.

But isn't that exactly what we do with animals? It's clear that animals do have richer experiences in many respects than humans do, with their often comparatively extended senses and countless abilities we don't have, such as the ability to fly, or swim underwater? And they often have higher mental capacities, in some respects, such as bees' and birds' ability to navigate. So Harris doesn't need to meet an alien to encounter someone who has "richer experiences and mental capacities" in some respects, than he does. Perhaps he should be bowing down to the entire animal kingdom. But rather than revering these abilities, as he says he would do, it's clear that he discounts these as unimportant, as people commonly do, because they are not the human-like types of cognitive ability that we privilege-- a form of speciesist prejudice.

So Harris is really saying that there is a moral hierarchy based on human-like cognitive abilities, which only we can judge to exist, rather than sentience alone--a huge error and harmful to humans and non-humans alike.

Urban homestead, being self-sufficient by planting 6000 pounds of vegetables on 4000 square-feet

I found an interesting video clip.
Here is part of the content.
It is about a family that grow everything they need on 4000 square-foot , a 10'th of an acre.

It feeds a family. Revolutionizes what you can do in a city.
Started 10 years ago. They grow almost all the food they need. They produce organic.
Sustainably. 400 variets of vegetables, fruits and edible flowers. 6000 pounds a year., Enough to feed themselves, with plenty over. They also sell to restaurants.

They make 20 000 dollars from their front-yard sell.
In the beginning he didn't believe he could do it.

He didn't want them to eat GMO-food.
A decade later he is off the grid. He calls it the path to freedom.

They do canning. The menu depends on what is in season. No micro-waves.
The electricity from solar-panels.Less than 12$ month.

They can sense that something is off with the climate. Bugs come at different times.
Their whole food traveled 100 feet.
He plans a village of home-steads. Their family, their extended family, and other people in the same village. 'Urban homestead'.

[Unfortunately they also domesticate and use animals, e.g. chickens and bees; and unfortunately their garden is not veganic.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM

Another article to read
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/my-thoughts-about-farm-of-future.html

----
More of my thoughts:

"This is good. Especially the starting up a vegan cafe! " Thanks!

 

The first of my links showed a family that sustained their self and also earned 20000 USD per year only of their produce on 1/10 of an acre (only 400m^2).

I think that we should transform all our system to small-scale farming. To create a grass-root-movement that shows that small, sustainable veganic gardens are possible.

The small veganic garden highly reduces the environmental impact and harm, including reduces the harm and death caused to the animals that are killed when harvesting with big machines, and reduces the amount of fossile fuels neeeded (e.g. harvesting by one's hands compared to harvesting machines).

I don't believe in the GMO-'farming meat from living tissue'-movement. It perpetuates viewing animals as resources, the antithesis of veganism and our goal to make everyone view animals with love and compassion. Veganism is making everyone seeing animals as individuals and this goals can't be used by advocating something that is perpetuating the animals being viewed as resources.

 

When it comes to animal food: Dogs thrive on a vegan diet, and many cats (not all) also do very well on a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/vegan-diet-for-dogs-and-cats-what-is.html

Type 2 diabetes is curable by a vegan starch-based diet

It is due to the rich western diet and becoming fat
It is a dietary problem by definition.
Type-2-diabets is always curable by getting rid of the western diet based on animal foods.
Substitute it by a starch-based diet with the addition of fruits and vegetables.
The pills make you sick, makes you fatter.




Learn more:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/mcdougalls_moments_diabetes.html

Peter Singer is promoting animal exploitation by endorsing non-vegan food habits

It is not at all about taking quotes out of their context. Peter Singer is clearly promoting animal exploitation by encouraging and not opposing non-vegan choices. See e.g this interview with him:

" I do want to emphasize that I don’t think eating ethically, particularly from a utilitarian point of view, is a matter of saying, “Here’s this strict law that I have to do everything possible comply with.” I think we can be ethically conscientious and recognize that sometimes there are going to be compromises. Sometimes it’s going to be very difficult, very inconvenient, to get the best choice, so we’ll settle for something else. As you were saying before with the steak, there’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that. If what they’re doing nine days out of ten is good, I’m not going to criticize them for being less than perfect on the tenth day. Sure, you’ll make mistakes, but don’t flagellate yourself if you do."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/chew-right-thing#13645525980271&action=collapse_widget&id=812441

We need to promote veganism as a clear moral baseline since all animal exploitation is wrong, and lead as an example with our lives. Be the change we want to see in others. Gary Francione is doing an excellent job and has encouraged thousands of persons to become vegans. His excellent Facebook-page: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

LiveVegan Writes:
In another group someone posted a link to a speech by Peter Singer speaking about altruism. Many large animal organisations consider Prof. Peter Singer the "father of the animal rights movement" and promote his welfare position. Please consider the following.

Prof. Peter Singer (the so-called "father of the animal rights movement") advocates the bestiality is morally acceptable in some circumstances.

Peter Singer believes the speciesist welfarist notion that the lives of nonhumans are of lesser moral value than the lives of humans.

He is a utilitarian and a "flexible vegan".

Peter Singer believes if someone (human or nonhuman) cannot plan for the future (and in the case of nonhumans does not have an intelligence that is "like us"), they are of lesser moral value, so that means that humans who have had head injuries and who have serious cognitive problems or who are in a coma are lesser. It's also a speciesist position because many nonhuman animals are forward-looking, can plan and do plan, but whether nonhumans are "like us" in their cognition or whether they have similar intelligence to us is irrelevant. All that matters is sentience.

Peter Singer also believes the practice of murdering disabled children in some cultures is ethical and believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies murdered after they are born.

These are just a few of the issues regarding Singer's work. We should seriously question whether someone with these moral inconsistencies should be taken seriously regarding nonhuman or human rights. Just a thought
-------------------------------------

Glad you found it interesting!

Regarding Peter Singer:

He makes an exception for 'great apes', dolphins, and maybe some more species.

But he has no problem of consuming chickens and other farmed animals and fish if they are killed and raised supposedly "humanely". Based on what I understand from the following quote, he would exempt most animals from the right of not being killed, because he is claiming that most animals are not 'self-aware' according to his definition of 'self-aware'. That they are not ‘self-aware’ according to his definition, includes that they ‘live in a kind of eternal present’

 

Why do you believe he doesn’t include ‘most species’ in this?

--

Quote:

Although Singer has stated this position at various places in his writings, his interview in The Vegan contains a recent, brief, and clear reiteration of his view:

 

   " I do think that there are morally relevant differences between various species, because the cognitive capacities of beings are relevant to, for example, the wrongness of killing them. I think it is worse to kill a self-aware being, that is, a being who is aware of its own existence over time, and is able to have desires for the future, than a being who may be conscious, but is not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present." (The Vegan, Autumn 2006)

 

In other words, Singer maintains that if a being is not self-aware in the way that a normal human is self-aware—that is, the being does not have what we call reflective self-consciousness—then the being is not self-aware in the morally relevant way that would give rise to that being having an interest in her life and that would make killing that being a significant moral wrong.

 ----------------------

How come in a 2007 interview with The Vegan, Singer gave his endorsement for "a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm" ?
How come in a 2009 interview, Singer stated these arrogant, speciesist claims: "You could say it's wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say it's just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I can't accept that idea. It may be just as wrong, but millions of chickens are killed every day. I can't think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed. What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why it's so tragic when humans die." ?

Singer calls himself a vegetarian and a "flexible vegan". In his May 2006 interview in Mother Jones, he states:
"I don't eat meat. I've been a vegetarian since 1971. I've gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I'm a flexible vegan. I don't go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I'm traveling or going to other people's places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan."
Dave Gilson (3 May 2006). "Chew the Right Thing". Mother Jones. Retrieved 13 March 2009.

He hasn’t done any rebuttal in public of any of these statements. Peter Singers public statements in these interviews clearly show his position.

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

To clarify more how I reason:

1.Although Singer has stated this position at various places in his writings, his interview in The Vegan contains a recent, brief, and clear reiteration of his view:
I do think that there are morally relevant differences between various species, because the cognitive capacities of beings are relevant to, for example, the wrongness of killing them. I think it is worse to kill a self-aware being, that is, a being who is aware of its own existence over time, and is able to have desires for the future, than a being who may be conscious, but is not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present. (The Vegan, Autumn 2006)
2. Based on this he justifies the consumption of animal products from an animal with the characteristic that she/he ‘lives in a kind of eternal present.’

3.Peter Singer still doesn’t advocate veganism as a moral baseline. He still justifies the consumption of animal foods from farmed animals and fish. He has never publicly retracted his non-vegan quotes that I referred to above, and claimed that now he thinks that veganism is the moral baseline.

4.Based on this I think as I quoted in my previous comment:
it is either the case that Singer really has not changed his views about animals lacking mental continuity sufficient to give rise to nonhuman personhood, or he thinks that any mental continuity in animals is qualitatively different from humans so that their lives have a lesser moral value and they can be used as replaceable resources if they are “humanely killed.”

5. Based on Peter Singer’s position outlined in #1 and him still advocating that a non-vegan diet, including the consumption of "humanely treated" farmed animals is morally justified, I don’t think it is inaccurate to say that Peter Singer claims that most animals are ‘not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present’.
If he believed otherwise, then according to his own philosophy, he would morally object the consumption of farmed animals, milk and eggs from farmed animals, and fish. He doesn’t object the consumption of this if the animals were treated “humanely”.

-------

Peter Singers position remains the same:
"The dinner was a vegetarian/vegan meal - and delicious! There were drinks beforehand and time afterwards to chat to Peter Singer himself. I took this opportunity to ask him something that I wasn’t clear on his position on - would a world in which animals were humanely reared and humanely killed be significantly worse than a world in which everyone was vegan? Some of his writing on personhood seemed to indicate it would be - if a being has a sense of themselves through time, an inner mental life, there is something wrong about frustrating those future ambitions - even if there is no physical pain involved.

His answer somewhat surprised me - essentially, no. I brought up the personhood thing, and he asked if I really thought that cows had that capacity. As far as I can recall, there’s research to suggest they feel secondary emotions, and have best friends (my Googling has been ineffective - if anyone can find the papers I’d love to see them) - so it seems to me somewhat compelling evidence that they have fairly complex mental lives. I like to err on the side of caution though, anyway. I’d always thought that he would think the killing of a being such as a cow or pig would always be wrong in some sense because of personhood - but turns out I’m more radical than him!"
Quote: http://ohheybiology.tumblr.com/post/49802108453/peter-singer-comes-to-oxford-ethical-food-veganism