söndag 29 juni 2014

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.

Installing sprinkler systems for chickens?

Bob Linden wrote:
THE WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO is being organized for the purpose of creating a nucleus for VEGAN activism and advocacy, and for advancing the abolition of the use of animals for all purposes.
It is in complete opposition to recent trends in so-called "welfare reform" (where no one fares well) which are proving to be so detrimental to animals, including the contrivances of "humane meat, dairy, fish, eggs", "humane slaughter", "family farms", and all animal-derived "products" labeled "sustainable", "grass-fed", "pasture-raised", "local", "organic", "free-range", "cage-free", and "higher welfare" - and the promotion of the trivial such as flexitarianism, Meatless Mondays, baby steps, doing "something" now - and the release of undercover video unaccompanied by a vegan message.
It is to offer an alternative to a movement comprised of organizations that partner with animal-exploitation industry, including those who betrayed billions of chickens in support of amendments to the Egg Products Inspection Act.
Welcome to an event free from the deceptive propaganda of HSUS and its groupie groups that are ready to sell you "enriched" "furnished" cages, praise for pig killers, and "meat"- eating and "vegetarianism" instead of VEGAN activism at the upcoming trade show in LA in July.
It would be antithetical to the philosophical perspectives of the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO to feature speakers from organizations who admittedly routinely engage in "welfare reform" activism, as United Poultry Concerns openly states. It saddens me that Karen Davis thinks that I am refusing to schedule her because I "hate" her. Really, how can I hate someone who cares so deeply about chickens as I do, who so dramatically and empathetically articulates their suffering, and who rescues and provides them sanctuary. I don't consider her anything like the cold, calculating, deceptive, diabolical operatives of the Humane Society of the United States or Mercy For Animals, for example. I'm sure that her intentions are good. The problem is that when Karen deviates from the path for veganism to "welfarist" detours, it's bad for animals. UPC support for the heinous HSUS anti-vegan bigger-cages scam, Prop 2 in California, with its cynically-absurd title, "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", was instrumental in what is now becoming catastrophic for massive numbers of chickens. She was quoted in the NY Times back then saying that Prop 2 would provide "comfort" for chickens. A recent NY Times piece was speaking about how great chickens now have it in California (even though nothing has gone into effect). Our actions and our statements are so dangerous when they become marketing ammunition for animal-abuse profiteers. My understanding is that Karen now regrets support for Prop 2, and I wish she would be more vocal about that. Unfortunately, the "animal rights seal of approval" that the recent egg bill stamped on "enriched" or "furnished" cages, will equate to Prop 2 = "enriched" cages, a formula for disaster brought by "welfarist" activism, even without UPC support of that egg bill. And even at the time UPC was opposing the egg bill, it still invited an HSUS shill to address a conference that it was organizing. Most recently, a UPC public relations person again talked of the UPC goal to make chickens as "comfortable" as possible in chicken exploitation industry, which is a misleading unattainable exaggeration.
Some may assume that the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO may be endorsing the campaigns of its speakers, and I could not, in good conscience, for a variety of reasons, lead people to allocate resources of time or money toward installation of sprinkler systems in hen houses, as UPC so campaigns - perhaps not even fully considering the consequences to be suffered by birds ranging from compromised insulation to drowning, etc., should the systems actually be employed - as we activists save the burning barn for the ranchers. These days, newly-installed sprinkler systems will immediately be understood as "humane" and compassionate treatment of chickens, which turns us into chicken-"meat" salesmen again, as Prop 2 did, as the egg bill transformed animal advocates into egg salesmen. That same egg bill should and must be recognized as one of the most massive betrayals of animals ever, with supposed "protectors" reversing long-held positions against intolerably cruel and torturous concentration-camp conditions of "enriched" or "furnished" battery cage warehouses for chickens, and then campaigning FOR them in an incomprehensible new blood-brother partnership between chicken-massacring United Egg Producers and the pig farmer - led Humane Society of the United States, inexplicably joined by ("Animal Rights Conference" Organizer) FARM, Mercy for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion Over Killing, the ASPCA, and the (Hope Bohanec - influenced) In Defense of Animals (which now opposes). While the egg bill did not pass in Congress, it has permanently damned chickens to a future of deplorable conditions, of horrendous imprisonment, mutilation, and death which can now be stamped "humane", and become the Prop 2 standard in California, unfortunately thanks to misguided UPC past policy, and to those other groups that are about to gather at their fundraising trade show in LA.
I would suggest one possible strategy for UPC to win the hearts and minds of "anti-humane" vegans. There you have communications director Hope Bohanec, one of the biggest voices FOR Prop 2 (now against it), and one of the biggest voices FOR the egg bill (now against it), born again, writing a book against "humane meat", telling me it's everything I've been saying all along, and wanting to come on my radio program to talk about it. But she refuses to mention the groups by name who fed her the propaganda she vomited. It would not make a very compelling interview to hear something like... "So who told you that the 'enriched' cages previously considered too cruel for chickens are now good for hens, Ms. Bohanec?" "Animal Protection Group X, Bob" ..."and who told you that hens can engage in natural behaviors when crammed into such 'furnished' battery cages, even though they feel no sunlight or earth beneath their feet?" ..."Animal Rights Group Y, Bob"..."and who decided on the deceptive ploy to suggest advertising that the egg bill bans BARREN BATTERY CAGES, knowing that the public would believe that the CAGES would be banned, when in actuality, it was just that the cages not be BARREN, remedied by a stick or some wood shavings?" ..."Animal Welfare Group Z, Bob"... I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that UPC has its lines down right yet for what we're doing, but is welcome to register and attend and work to create vegan strategies that wont lead to so many such future regrets.
"Welfarist-reform" activism brings us empty promises today that only lead to broken promises in the future, giving the public rationalizations for not going vegan, when only vegan will do.
The animals need a vegan world now. The planet needs a vegan world now. The children need a vegan world now. In the face of the relentless massacre of innocent harmless billions, of climate change, of poverty, world hunger, and disease - how can we delay? Where is the sense of urgency? It is to be at the WORLD VEGAN SUMMIT & EXPO!

Suffering of backyard chickens laying eggs

"The ancestor of the modern laying hen would lay at most a dozen eggs, once per year. Over the course of many years of selective breeding, the domesticated laying hen has been turned into a creature who will lay up to 300 eggs a year during her peak laying period. This high number has only been achieved through cruel genetic and behavioral manipulations. Normally, hens are instinctively driven to lay a number of eggs (totaling about 12) called a "clutch". After this number is achieved, the hen will stop laying eggs in anticipation of the hatchlings. This behavior holds true whether the eggs are fertilized or not. Egg farmers take advantage of this fact by removing any eggs that the hens lay. This forces them to continue to try to form their clutch of eggs in vain desperation. Sadly, they will be driven to madness as they attempt to form their clutch because their eggs are constantly stolen. Needless to say, this puts a tremendous psychological and physical strain on these birds. An animal that might otherwise live the better part of a decade is all but used up within a couple of years.

A hen in a backyard setting, given proper nesting materials will also attempt to form a clutch. If you chose to steal the eggs rather than leave them be, she will desperately attempt to form her clutch until she stops laying eggs or simply drops dead. By doing so, you are perpetuating the same cruel fate that she endured on the farm. The calcium needed to form just one egg can bind up ten percent of the calcium from her bones. Extended egg laying without proper mineral replenishment will lead to soft or fractured bones. When left alone, hens will actually eat their unfertilized eggs. This replenishes them with much needed minerals lost during the egg formation process." - Andy Williams

lördag 28 juni 2014

Working for laws against rape and torture while promoting animal exploitation?

A friend wrote: “”The other thing to think about is this: if my child were in a foreign prison where torture was standard of course I would work day and night to get her out. If others did not care if she ever got out but were working on laws to prevent her from being raped and tortured while in there I would not waste one precious moment of my time fighting against those working for better conditions while she was in there. How would she feel about me if she were being raped and tortured and found out I worked in opposition to those trying to pass laws against these things? To see it from the victims's eyes is key. Spend time working for freedom. Don't waste time working against others”

Here are my thoughts:
What if you knew that the efforts of those that claimed to work for better conditions, would reduce the chances of your child to ever get out? What if they made the public feel more comfortable of the situation, because that they in fact were sending the message that it is okay for your child to be exploited and confined in the prison, but that it should be done in “another way” that also will increase the profit of the industry.

What if those persons claimed to work for justice, but in fact were teaching the public that “happy exploitation” is all fine, and it is moral to partake of products that come from persons that are exploited and imprisoned? After all, as long as they “are treated well” - everything is all fine?

What if “working against others” is actually an effort in working against the promotion of Welfarism and speciesism?
What if “working against others” is working against the big Animal organizations cooperating with industry to legitimize and reform animal exploitaiton, so that the industry can make more profit; and non-vegans can become more comfortable in exploiting nonhumans?
What if the efforts of those supporting Welfarism is in fact a major block for freedom for the nonhuman animals?

More reading: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html

Vegan outreach - sharing about veganism is important and can be easy

Today (read last week, when I started writing this) I have had a great day. I was out with Buddy And Ahimsa (companion dogs) for about 5 hours. We were exploring a new part of the forest. They had a lot of fun exploring, and playing in the forest, puddles and rivers. I was reading some in a very important and enlightening book called Presence: The Art of Peace and Happiness by Rupert Spira (see non-duality.rupertspira.com/ ). I was putting up some Lost Animals-posters - http://www.lost-animals.net/ - on trees and electricity poles.

When we approached our cabin there was another dog (and human person :) nearby. The other person asked if they wanted to play, and I said, yes. So I let the dogs of their leashes. I try to have them off their leashes as much as possible and they are totally free when we are in the forest, but some people are unfortunately afraid of rottweilers. So they enjoyed their time with the other dog and were very sensitive and respectful. The other dog seemed to be a bit cautious and was talking using some calming signals after playing for a bit, so Ahimsa and Buddy just stood close to him. It was great to see that they got along so well. It is much harder when dogs are on a leash, and you meet another dog, and the other dog owner doesn’t want them to greet the other dog. Then the dogs can get nervous and insecure and start barking. Ahimsa, Buddy and the other dog had a very nice time :)
I and the other human person had a great conversation. We talked and after a while I led the discussion into veganism. She wondered if I was the one that had put up the flier about veganism that she had seen on a tree while walking in the forest :) I explained why it is wrong to exploit animals.

She shared some about her plans to use bees for honey. I asked her if she believes that bees are sentient beings. She said of course, and told about some amazing things she had read about them. I asked her if she thinks they have an interest of keeping their honey; and explained some more after she answered. She wondered for how long that I had been a vegan, and if it had happened at once or in different steps. I told her that I became a vegan when I realized that it is wrong to exploit animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. I said that I first stopped consuming meat and fish, and when I realized that animals are harmed and exploited for honey, dairy, eggs, and other purposes, I also stopped with this. She was interested in hearing what I was saying. I gave her a flier, and contact information.

For more tips on vegan education, see the above Lost Animals-link and: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vegan-education-planting-seeds-to-grow.html

fredag 27 juni 2014

Vegan reply to 'But I eat meat because we are predators'/it is natural

A person wrote:
"Soooo, we should defy nature and become herbivores just so other animals don't die by our hand, but by the hands (paws/hooves/claws/etc.) of other natural predators? "

Whether or not we can eat meat or not is irrelevant in a moral perspective. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it is right. We also have the capability to rape, and to commit other atrocities.

What matters is that animals have an interest in not being exploited for food, clothes, and other purposes. They don't want to be harmed, they don't want to be killed by us, and have no interest of getting their families destroyed. Using animals as resources/products/property always involves exploiting them and disrespecting their interests. We can thrive and be healthy on a plant only diet without animal products, we have plant alternatives for clothing, and we don't need to use animals for other purposes. So opt out of all animal exploitation. Act as you care about animals - and be vegan. Learn more at www.vegankit.com

Men om alla blir veganer/slutar med djuruppfödning så kommer vissa djuarter att dö ut?

Svar på ursäkten för att inte bli vegan: ”Men det är fel att alla blir veganer, eftersom att det kommer att leda till att vissa djurarter kommer att dö ut.”

Den första frågan är: Anser du att det är fel att utsätta djur för lidande och död om inte det krävs för din överlevnad? Mer att läsa om det här och om varför vi baserat på denna premiss har en moralisk skyldighet att bli veganer: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/12/lat-inte-djuren-lida-bli-vegan.html

Om svaret är ja, så är det inte vettigt att säga att man ska utsätta djur för lidande och död för att bevara en art, som f.ö. människan har skapat genom att domesticera [1] och utnyttja djur.

Säg hypotetiskt att alla hundar skulle dö ut om vi alla slutade med hundkamper i vårt samhälle - alltså ponera ett samhälle där alla hundar användes för hundkamper. Skulle du då försvara hundkamper för att bevara denna art, som skulle upphöra om man slutade att föda upp djur för hundkamper. Nej, det skulle du inte om du menar att djur har ett moraliskt värde. På samma sätt är det inte etiskt att försvara att utsätta djur för fullständigt onödigt lidande och våld och att ta livet av ett djur med ett intresse av att fortsätta leva, vilket förekommer i produktionen av kött, mjölk, ägg, läder, dun, päls, osv., för att en art inte ska dö ut.

Säg att en hypotetisk ”människoart”, som kommit till av att vi utnyttjat och domesticerat människor i tiotusentals år, skulle dö ut om vi slutade försvara att utnyttja, skada och döda människor av denna art för mat, kläder, osv.: Skulle vi då försvara att människor utnyttjade, skadades och dödades för att bevara denna art? Nej, det skulle vi inte. Vi skulle inte det eftersom vi anser att varje människa har ett moraliskt värde.

På samma sätt kan vi inte försvara att man utnyttjar, våldför sig på, skadar och dödar ickemänskliga djur för att nå ett visst mål, eftersom att varje djur har ett moraliskt värde, och vi har inte rätt att använda en individ med ett moralisk värde exklusivt som ett ”medel för att nå ett mål”. Ingen har rätt att utnyttja dig, våldföra sig på dig, skada dig och döda dig, en förhoppningsvis fredlig person som bokstavligen inte skulle skada en myra (och inte heller något annat djur) [vilket f.ö. förutsätter att du är vegan, annars deltar du dagligen i att helt i onödan våldföra dig på, skada och döda djur ]. Detsamma gäller de ickemänskliga djuren.

Och om det är fel med djuruppfödning av husdjur, vilket man kan visa att det är, hur kan man då rättfärdiga det moraliskt sett med samma argument som ovan?:

Vegansk syn på avel/uppfödning av husdjur/tamdjur, hundar, katter, osv?

Bidrag från Anders Branderud

Travsport och annan användning av djur/ha djur som egendom

Travsport och annan användning av djur/ha djur som egendom
Och många av hästarna som används för galopp, trav och annat, blir dödade, när dess ägare inte längre har något intresse och ekonomisk vinning av att använda hästen. Bara ett av hundratals moraliska problem med att försvara att djur är människans egendom, och att vi har rätt att använda djur för våra syften.

Djurskyddslagar/egendomslagar för djur förser inte djur med något skydd, utan cementerar bara att djur är och kan behandlas som egendom.

Om djur har något moraliskt värde överhuvudtaget, så kan vi inte godtyckligt välja vilka av deras intressen som vi ska respektera. Om de har ett mora
liskt värde så kan vi inte försvara att göra val som förevigar deras juridiska egendom-status överhuvudtaget; eftersom att de aldrig kommer att vara skyddade från lidande, våld och död, och även kommer att vara offer för lidande, våld och död, så länge som människor kan köpa och äga boskapsdjur och husdjur. Detta lidande kan vi undvika. Det är inte rätt och vi respekterar inte djur genom att försvara, föreviga och betala för en institution, i vilken djur är egendom; och som en nödvändig följd av detta, i vilken djur när som helst och av vilken anledning som helst kan bli skickade till veterinären för att bli avlivade. Och denna institution kommer att finnas kvar så länge vi försvarar vår domesticering av djur. [Vidare läsning om detta:http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets/#.Umi6ThCAUqt ]

Om djur har ett moraliskt värde,så är det enda valet som respekterar dem att bli vegan.

Varför veganer inte använder bin för honung?

Konsumera honung, eller använda djur som våra resurser på andra sätt?
Det är alltid bin som dör/skadas när man tar deras honung oavsett hur 'försiktig' man är. Om de sticker dig så är det deras död. Är det rätt att utsätta bin för en säker död för att vi ska få honung?
Är djur resurser? Eller är djur individer?
” Bees may travel as far as 55,000 miles and visit more than two million flowers to gather enough nectar to make just a pound of honey" (NHB)”
Har vi rätt att ta en produkt som är skapat i en process som har krävt att de spenderar enorma mängder energi, eller ta en produkt av en annan förnimmande varelse som hon behöver utan hennes samtycke? En produkt som de behöver för sin överlevnad och för att må bra, och ersätta detta med någon billig sockerlösning? Och i denna process utsätta dem för stress genom att röka dem för att kunna stjäla deras honung?? Ersätt bi med människa. Är det okej att bryta sig in i en persons hus, fylla det med rök, stjäla alla matreserver för vintern och byta ut det med en billig och näringsmässigt otillräcklig sockerlösning, och i denna process orsaka att någon/några av människorna i huset blir dödade? De flesta skulle säga ’Nej’, och det är endast speciesism som gör att vi accepterar detta betéende när det gäller bin, men inte för människor.
Det finns många moraliska problem med att ha bin. En del beskrivs här:http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm
En del personer menar att konsumtion av honung är lika rätt/fel som att konsumera mandlar, eftersom att bin utnyttjas också i produktionen av mandlar. Det är en moralisk skillnad mellan att konsumera grönsaker från monokulturer, jämfört med att direkt betala någon för att utnyttja/själv direkt delta i utnyttjande av förnimmande varelser för djurprodukter. Det är ingen moralisk skillnad mellan att konsumera kött, mejeriprodukter, ägg eller honung, eller andra djurprodukter, i det att alla dessa består av att förtrycka andra förnimmande varelser. Angående jämförelsen mellan att konsumera djurproduker, jämfört med mandlar och andra produkter från monokulturer, se mina tankar här:http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/but-vegans-eat-almonds-and-bees-are.html
Djur är förnimmande varelser och vi har ingen rätt att förtrycka dem, använda dem och utnyttja dem för mat, kläder, underhållning, husdjur, arbete, ridning, etc., eller på andra sätt som våra resurser/för våra syften. Jag skriver mer om det här:http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/introduction-to-abolitionist-veganism.html
Obs! Dömer inte någons intentioner; men tycker det är viktigt att vara tydligt med vad som är rätt och fel; och att försvara de som blir förtryckta i vårt samhälle oavsett art.

Varför finns det otrevliga veganer?

En person skrev att en majoritet av alla veganer är otrevliga.

Jag tar inte åt mig personligen, men jag tror att generaliseringar kan vara skadliga. T.ex. någon är intresserad av veganism, och kanske är rädd att be veganer om råd för att hon får höra att de flesta veganer är otrevliga.

Man kan fråga sig om varför veganer är otrevliga mot andra veganer. Varför är vissa lakto-ovo-vegetarianer otrevliga mot andra lakto-ovo-vegetarianer; och en del feminister otrevliga mot andra feminister.

Det kan finnas många grundläggande värderingsskillnader också bland veganer, se t.ex. denna artikel: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/introduction-to-abolitionist-veganism.html
Många personer kan inte hantera grundläggande skillnader utan att bli väldigt upprörda, och även bli arga och börja döma den andra personens intentioner; och uttrycka denna ilska med otrevliga ord. Personer kan inte hantera sina upprörda känslor.
Jag menar att lösningen ligger i detta tillvägagångssätt (och se andra videos av samma person): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvROsoZM71U&list=UUxXWjjtATq3OM545gMh9PUg

torsdag 26 juni 2014

Why research of cultured meat is morally wrong

So they justify the vivisection and animal exploitation that today takes place to produce and research on cultured meat, because that they think that it will lead to less animals exploited in the future.
It is like the scenario when you murder one innocent human, in order to save 2 humans.
Or claiming that you are opposed to nonviolence, but you start a war to reach peace and a world of nonviolence.

Or promoting and legitimizing animal exploitation through Animal welfare reform because that you erroneously think it will lead to a vegan world: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html

Vegan education will lead to a vegan world. Animal exploitation and speciesism will lead to more animal exploitation and speciesism. It is simple.

The author is also wrong about the production of vegetables. We can do vegan permaculture and we don't need to exploit animals in order to get food. I wonder why they don't invest their time in doing and spreading knowledge of vegan permaculture, and instead participate in animal exploitation by promoting cultured "meat".

Delfinslakt i Japan vs. slakt av kycklingar i Sverige

Delfin är en av miljoner arter som vi förtrycker.

En japan är en av hundratals nationaliteter som deltar i förycket mot ickemänskliga djur.
Det finns redan massor av rasism mot nationaliteter/folkgrupper från Östasien.

När man så skapar en godtycklig kampanj mot en specifik folkgrupp, som mitt ibland alla folk från olika nationaliteter deltar i förtycket mot de ickemänskliga djuren, så skapar man en kampanj som både kommer att användas för rasistiska ändamål och som kommer att späda på hatet mot japaner.
Självklart är den delfinslakt som en minoritet av alla japaneser deltar i moraliskt förkastlig. Självklart är denna delfinslakt lika moraliskt förkastlig som allt annat förtryck som 99% av vår befolkningen dagligen deltar i.

Det är ingen slump att djuroganisationer väljer just delfiner. Man vet att man kan få allmänhetens stöd eftersom allmänheten gillar delfiner. Man vet också att man kan få allmänhetens stöd när det gäller en liten grupp människor i ett annat land. Det skulle inte bli samma stöd om det handlade om det förtryck som man själv dagligen deltar i och som alla i ens omgivning deltar i.

Dessa kampanjer är fullkomligt godtyckliga och väldigt, väldigt ofta är det grupper som är väldigt sårbara som blir valda för att göra kampanjer mot.

Så här deltar 99% av den ickeveganska befolkningen som dagligen deltar i att förtycka ickemänskliga djur, och kommer med moraliskt fördömande mot en minoritets i vårt samhälle. Många av dessa kommer dessutom att använda dessa kampanjer för att bedriva rasistiskt hat.

Alltså personer som dagligen deltar i att förtrycka djur av andra arter kommer och skriver under underskriftslistor till politiker i t.ex. Kina och Japan, som stödjer förtryck av djur av andra arter – ofta djur som vi gillar här i väst och anser vara (icke-veganer anser vara) mer värda än andra djur såsom hundar, katter och delfiner. Så dessa kampanjer bidrar till att stärka den moraliska förvirringen som råder, och bidrar inte ett dugg till att förändra situationen som har sin rot i speciesism.

En speciesistisk kampanj som implicit hävdar att delfiner är mer värda än andra djur (det är den uppfattningen ickeveganen har och den förstärks av dessa kampanjer), kommer aldrig upprota speciesism, lika lite som en rasistisk kampanj kommer att upprota rasism.

Alla ickemänskliga djur har samma rättighet att vara fria, och de har samma rätt till att vi kämpar för deras fridom och rätt att inte bli utnyttjade. En kyckling som är förtryckt i Sverige, behöver vår hjälp lika mycket som en säl som är förtryckt i Norge, en gås i Frankrike, eller en delfin i Japan. Och de behöver inte speciesistiska kampanjer. De behöver folk som utbildar allmänheten om veganism och får allmänheten till att förstå att ALLT förtryck är moraliskt fel. Människor i väst (som dessa kampanjer riktar sig till) vet redan att det är fel att döda gulliga djur som de flesta ickeveganer upphöjer över alla andra djur, såsom katter, hundar och delfiner. Och de människor som deltar i delfinslakt tycker bara att det är rasistiskt hyckleri när människor som förtrycker andra arter säger åt dem att sluta förtrycka delfiner. Alltså – det fungerar inte i utbildningssyfte. Det förstärker endast speciesism och rasism.

Och det är fel. Allt förtryck är fel. Det är inte rätt att stödja förtryck av djur i en antirasistisk kampanj. Och det är inte rätt att stödja eller möjliggöra rasism i en anti-speciesistisk kampanj.

Att förespråka veganism är att ta ställning för ALLA djur på samma gång: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202824052376996&set=a.10200507163856231.1073741828.1071775080&type=1
Ensaksfrågeskampanjer tar ställning för en art, samtidigt som de implicit förstärker speciesismen i samhället. Alltså de tar ställning för individer av en art, på bekostnad av individer av andra arter.

Does riding horses harm/exploit them?

Vegans 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.

As has been said above a horse DOES NOT give any consent to have a human rider on her back. It is a relationship of control where you are limiting the freedom and autonomy of the horse.

It doesn’t really matter if the horse enjoys it or not. That a sentient being enjoys something doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t mean that a certain behaviour isn’t exploitation and that it isn’t harmful. I can give an example: An adult person can be in a marriage to an underage person. The adult person has certain expectations on the relationship as an adult person that the underage person isn’t ready to handle/able to handle properly, because of that the underage person isn’t fully developed mentally and biologically. This relationship will be harmful to the underage person, regardless of how much consent there is, and regardless of how much they both enjoy the relationship.

It doesn’t matter whether you rescued a horse from a certain death; or that you give an horse acres and acres of space to graze on. That’s wonderful! But it does not give you any right to get on the back of the horse that you rescued.
Other comments:

Using animals for human entertainment is not vegan. That includes riding horses. Never put a bit in their mouth. Never put a leather saddle on their back. Walk them to somewhere where they can run freely if you want to be their friend. Riding them is domination and literally can hurt their back.

Butterflies Katz

Elyse Belladonna Jason, I don't find your logic to be 'sound' at all. No, nonhuman animals cannot consent to being used by humans - that's pretty much AR 101. Furthermore, horses would never, ever let humans ride them if they were not first subjected to the long and arduous process of being 'broken.' The fact that humans breed them to be used in the first place clearly goes against vegan ethics. Why should these principles apply to some animals and not others?

you claim that you never said that the horse gave consent, yet you argue, "I disagree that interpersonal relationships between different species equates to exploitation, so long as its never forced." First, riding another sentient being is not an interpersonal relationship; it's clear subjugation of another. Second, if the horse didn't give consent, that is exploitation. 
You seem to be arguing that the horse didn't give consent, but wasn't forced. That sounds an awful lot like "She didn't say yes, but she didn't say no."http://thecurvature.com/.../rape-apologism-in-action-she.../

Doris Lin

Marie Lee Jason Lowe : "Moreover, if the ethical stance is such that we provide non-human animals the moral and ethical treatment as we allow for human animals, it would be incongruent ethics to disallow a similar type of symbiotic relationship of give and take between consensual species."
"It would be incongruent to disallow a similar type of symbiotic relationship of give and take between consensual species" - kinda indicates that you think other species (and since this topic was about horse riding, assume you are sticking to topic)- so logical conclusion would be that you are saying, the horse is a "consensual species". If wrong, please feel free to explain your comment further, particularly interested in your definition of "consensual species".

Elyse Belladonna Getting a horse fully broken typically takes at least 1-2 months, if not longer. (For what it's worth, my aunt is a riding instructor and horse trainer, she and my dad grew up with horses, and my sister rode for years while we were growing up. Anyone who's curious can just google 'how long does it take to break a horse.') Training a horse to be ridden is not comparable to training a dog not to bite, for reasons that should be obvious. It's also not comparable to rescuing animals who are victims of domestication.

Doris Lin Pat, you can coexist with a rescued horse without riding him. You ride him for your own enjoyment and entertainment. Housebreaking a dog and training a dog not to attack you are for the purposes of hygiene and coexisting with society.

Doris Lin Pat, I'm sure the horse likes to go out for runs. If that's her only chance to run around, yes, I'm sure she'd rather run around with someone on her back than stay in a barn all day. 
"you're equating somebody riding a horse to being raped?" No, I'm comparing consent in humans to consent in non-humans.

Paula Cass Wow great convo a lot to read... apologies if i am repeating anything here... OK in the past I rode horses, and owned a horse whom I claimed at the time to love... Since becoming vegan I have decided I will never ride horses or any other animal) and this is why... In order for a horse to be able to be ridden by humans they have to go through the "breaking in process" which literally means s that their spirits are broken so they are tamed to be ridden and follow orders... I have seen this process and it usually requires beatings for the young horse.. (especially a rebellious one) Also I have experienced what happens on a stud farm, the female horses are rapped.. held by someone while the stallion mounts her, if she kicks him in her protest they put pads on her hoofs to not put the stallion off... its really disturbing. Horse riding is no different morally than any other forms of using an animal for entertainment.. I would love to have a horse as a friend, to live a life of sanctuary, not to ride them or force tackle on them, as a friend to talk to and enjoy that they are free rather than they belong to me. x If i had my horse back again, I would TRULY love him this time. x

  • Melissa Viau So then, do you support bestiality where they, according to you, "communicate consent in their own way"?

  • Melissa Viau The arguments you've made about horse riding are the same arguments Peter Singer has made to justify "humane" bestiality.

  • Melissa Viau http://weotheranimals.blogspot.ca/.../vegans-shouldnt...

    There is an argument common among horseback riding enthusiasts (even among those who self-identify as vegans) that horses receive pleasure from riding, and therefore, it is morally defensible. It is, they argue (contrafactually), like playing with a cat or a dog. But this kind of argument should pos…

    Doris Lin Jason, do you believe that human children can consent to sex? Do you think that statutory rape laws minimize the abilities of children and reeks of ageist rhetoric?

    Doris Lin Jasmine Hana McKittens, I'm just trying to figure out Jason's line of reasoning. And perhaps yours. Why is it not insulting or ageist to say that children can't consent to sex but acceptable to say that sheep (who can't communicate their consent to an adult man as well as a 15-year-old child) can give consent?

  • Doris Lin Jasmine Hana McKittens, I'm just trying to figure out Jason's line of reasoning. And perhaps yours. Why is it not insulting or ageist to say that children can't consent to sex but acceptable to say that sheep (who can't communicate their consent to an adult man as well as a 15-year-old child) can give consent?
  • ---------
  • Melissa Viau " its a two way beneficial relationship"

    "But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host
    usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally *mutually satisfying* activities may develop." ~ Peter Singer

    It is argued by many that bestiality can be a two-way beneficial relationship. "Kind" exploitation does not make it just.

  • Melissa Viau Talking is not forcing beliefs. People owning and using animals because they believe they are ours to use, that's forcing beliefs.
    I can't MAKE you reject ALL animal exploitation, I can only encourage that you do. I'm not going there and putting a gun to your head. Calling a debate "force" is ridiculous. No one is making you post here.

    From: https://www.facebook.com/groups/VeganismIsEthicalStance/permalink/590952831018367/


    Anders Branderud *her/his back, not its back.

    Even if there are horses that signal to their caretakers that they want to be ridden (I don't know if there is) - it is because they once were broken into/coerced into this relationsship.

    And even if a horse after being broken in would want to be ridden - it wouldn't make it right. First of all, it wasn't right to break in the horse in the first place; and secondly, see my example above of an adult person being married to an underage person both consenting, wanting and enjoying the relationsship.


    "But if the animal enjoys it, who are we to take that away"

    Because they cannot give informed consent! It doesn't matter if they can get pleasure out of it. Pleasure does NOT equal consent.


     I have read through most of this thread and I am nauseated.

    Everyone who is claiming it is okay to ride a horse is talking about horses who have already been exploited and in human control. A wild horse is not going to want you to ride her/him. I
    t is not vegan to ride a horse.

    The dog/cat argument is not valid because dogs and cats are not wild animals and vegans do not exploit them. We adopt them to save them from death. Using any animal for human service is not vegan. If someone adopted a dog and has a mutually rewarding relationship with them, but did not break them to service, it is a different thing. Walking our canine family members on leashes is for their protection, just like the fences for rescued horses. Ultimately, I want to see the end of all breeding of animals for human use and only rescue and rehabilitation for the ones who exist.

    As for bestiality; I am completely disturbed that any self-identified "vegan" would be okay with that. Someone who is not human cannot consent to someone who is human, but it is not exactly the same as a minor consenting to someone older (which is a whole other topic that is not appropriate for this thread or group). Whether "they enjoy themselves", or not, is not the issue in consent. And if they are already in captivity you, again, have a case of someone who is already a victim and behaving like a victim.

    A victim does many things that are not in their own interest. We already know a lot about victim psychology. We know that spouses who are beaten will defend their abusers. It is not because they enjoy being beaten! We know about Stockholm syndrome, too. A horse who is being ridden, or someone who is raped, is a victim.

    And, repeatedly through this thread people used objectifying language in reference to those who are not human! It is pretty revealing of a human's attitude when they call someone "it" or use other objectifying words like "that".

     Dogs and cats are not tamed wild animals. They are domesticated. It's not mere training, it's actual physical/mental differences created by years and years of artificial selection.
    No, they are not wild. They are domesticated.
    A domesticated animal w
    ho adapts to free-roaming and avoiding humans is feral, not wild. They can only become feral. They cannot grow back wolf brains in order to un-domesticate themselves and become wild animals.

    Feral dogs can never be wolves.
    Feral cats can never be their wild ancestors.
    They are physically/mentally changed by domestication.

  • Melissa Viau Release a bunch of chihuahuas into the wild and remove human intervention. They will not be "wild animals", they will be dead animals. We have an obligation to care for domesticated animals already in existence, but we should not exploit them for our purposes while they are in our care.
  • Heather Ⓥ Kolaya-Spealman Agreed. Making a horse rideable is literally called breaking them. That's for a reason. Riding horses is NOT vegan no matter how you try to twist it

  • Heather Ⓥ Kolaya-Spealman I like all the people saying horses enjoy it. No, not in the wild they don't. You have to "break" them first.

  • ............................

    Lisa Anti-Speciesist Qualls I have read through most of this thread and I am nauseated. 

    Everyone who is claiming it is okay to ride a horse is talking about horses who have already been exploited and in human control. A wild horse is not going to want you to ride her/him. It is not vegan to ride a horse. 

    The dog/cat argument is not valid because dogs and cats are not wild animals and vegans do not exploit them. We adopt them to save them from death. Using any animal for human service is not vegan. If someone adopted a dog and has a mutually rewarding relationship with them, but did not break them to service, it is a different thing. Walking our canine family members on leashes is for their protection, just like the fences for rescued horses. Ultimately, I want to see the end of all breeding of animals for human use and only rescue and rehabilitation for the ones who exist.

    As for bestiality; I am completely disturbed that any self-identified "vegan" would be okay with that. Someone who is not human cannot consent to someone who is human, but it is not exactly the same as a minor consenting to someone older (which is a whole other topic that is not appropriate for this thread or group). Whether "they enjoy themselves", or not, is not the issue in consent. And if they are already in captivity you, again, have a case of someone who is already a victim and behaving like a victim.

    A victim does many things that are not in their own interest. We already know a lot about victim psychology. We know that spouses who are beaten will defend their abusers. It is not because they enjoy being beaten! We know about Stockholm syndrome, too. A horse who is being ridden, or someone who is raped, is a victim.

    And, repeatedly through this thread people used objectifying language in reference to those who are not human! It is pretty revealing of a human's attitude when they call someone "it" or use other objectifying words like "that".

    But I was not needed, as there were many excellent arguments. I can't believe how so many vegans are not into reasonable debate. There will be rational discourse in this group, and if you can't take it, leave. (I'm speaking to anyone, in general.)

    The reason I brought this subject up AGAIN - is I had just accepted a so called ethical vegan into the group who was riding a horse in her profile photo. So I felt the topic needed to be discussed again. 

    While I do think there could be playful times where a horse might enjoy and like the bonding experience of riding with a human person, generally, I don't care for the whole "riding them" concept. And I think it is physically not healthy for their backs. It's not for the horse, it's for the amusement or pleasure of the person. I think all vegans can be more vegan and heighten their concept of what veganism means. It means not using animals for human purposes. They are not here for us. 

    While there are ways they are exploited that are far worse than riding them, does not mean when we are on facebook that we can't discuss a way we exploit them that is not generally discusses as much. Of course, horses used for racing is much worse! Isn't that obvious? That does not mean that we can't examine our perceptions of exploiting them for riding, which is less cruel than using them for carriage rides, racing, etc. - but it is still something we can examine and talk about. 

    If you put a bit in the mouth of a horse, or a leather saddle on his/her back - there is no discussion whatsoever about your practice being NOT vegan. If you ride a horse bareback with no bit in the mouth, on a very friendly basis, playing around, there could be exceptions to the rule, where it is not really exploitation or domination, but most of the time, it is. I would never consider getting on a horse's back. I love and respect them, and I think putting my weight on their back would not be good for the horse. It's about them, not me. I would walk them somewhere where they could run freely.
    Lisa Anti-Speciesist Qualls There are horses who live at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary. The people who run the sanctuary realized that riding horses was exploitation, so they never do. Never ever. No one rides them. They are allowed to be horses. They go places together on the farm. They are given every chance to overcome their abuse.

    Carol Williams This conversation is as hard to have as the one about letting cats outdoors to kill wildlife and feeding them bits of slaughtered animals. I happen to think that neither of these activities is particularly in keeping with the vegan ethic, any more than riding horses or having caged pets is. All domestic animals have been designed by humans for some human use, however benign, and none of it is their choice.