"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
Visar inlägg med etikett English. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett English. Visa alla inlägg
söndag 29 juni 2014
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
lördag 21 juni 2014
Det är fel att döda djur oavsett om det sker på s.k. "humant"/"smärtfritt" sätt.
Mord är FEL oavsett om det utförs på ett smärtfritt sätt.
Slaveri är FEL oavsett om slavarna får gott med mat, oberoende av slavägarnas särintressen och slavfinansiärernas djupt rotade “intressen”.
Att fängsla oskyldiga är FEL oavsett storleken på fängelsecellen.
Att stjäla det som naturligt och med rätta tillhör till någon annan är FEL oberoende av hur mycket vi än intalar oss själva att vi endast stjäler deras “överflöd” eller att vi “inte bryr oss”.
Våldtäkt är FEL oavsett hur lite man blir slagen vid samma tillfälle.
Att kidnappa någon är FEL oavsett hur “varsamt” bäbisen tas bort.
Trakasserier är FEL oavsett om det orsakar någon fysisk smärta eller inte.
Att manipulera någon är FEL oavsett om den som manipulerar känner sig gott till mods över det.
Varför påstås det då att det finns ett “rätt” sätt att göra det som är FEL när det gäller andra djur än människor? Varför accepteras och tolereras någonsin orättfärdigheter, och varför rättfärdigas dessa, när det handlar om de mest försvarslösa, sårbara och oskyldiga?
FEL är A-L-L-T-I-D FEL för A-L-L-A per definition!
Rättvisa är inte bara för förövaren.
Rättvisa är först och främst för de oskydliga och förtryckta.
Gör det som är rätt: Var vegan.
ALLTING annat än veganism är KOLOSSALT FEL.
Jag rekommenderar: http://sv.vegankit.com/ ochhttps://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/
Slaveri är FEL oavsett om slavarna får gott med mat, oberoende av slavägarnas särintressen och slavfinansiärernas djupt rotade “intressen”.
Att fängsla oskyldiga är FEL oavsett storleken på fängelsecellen.
Att stjäla det som naturligt och med rätta tillhör till någon annan är FEL oberoende av hur mycket vi än intalar oss själva att vi endast stjäler deras “överflöd” eller att vi “inte bryr oss”.
Våldtäkt är FEL oavsett hur lite man blir slagen vid samma tillfälle.
Att kidnappa någon är FEL oavsett hur “varsamt” bäbisen tas bort.
Trakasserier är FEL oavsett om det orsakar någon fysisk smärta eller inte.
Att manipulera någon är FEL oavsett om den som manipulerar känner sig gott till mods över det.
Varför påstås det då att det finns ett “rätt” sätt att göra det som är FEL när det gäller andra djur än människor? Varför accepteras och tolereras någonsin orättfärdigheter, och varför rättfärdigas dessa, när det handlar om de mest försvarslösa, sårbara och oskyldiga?
FEL är A-L-L-T-I-D FEL för A-L-L-A per definition!
Rättvisa är inte bara för förövaren.
Rättvisa är först och främst för de oskydliga och förtryckta.
Gör det som är rätt: Var vegan.
ALLTING annat än veganism är KOLOSSALT FEL.
Jag rekommenderar: http://sv.vegankit.com/ ochhttps://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/
lördag 3 maj 2014
But vegans use electricity, which destroy the environment and exploit people. Thus, I can eat animals.
Reply to: "But vegans use electricity, which destroy the environment and exploit people. Thus, I can eat animals."
I believe that the only way you can justify electronics given the environmental pollution and often exploitation involved to produce it,is using it in the following ways (not an all-covering list):
1/ Necessary in order for fighting exploitation towards humans and nonhumans.
2/ Necessary for your survival, e.g. you need it for your work.
3/ Staying in touch with people - necessary to accomplish 1/ and 2/.
4/ Studying and practising nonduality. I believe necessary in order for people to act from awareness instead of their separate self in all situations, and reaching a world without exploitation and harm: http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/home
Every electronical device has a limited life span. How many electronical devices have stopped working earlier than they needed to just because it was used for lots of entertainment and for other activities that we don't need; and how can we justify that people get exploited, just so that we can watch entertainment. We can't. Just like we can't justify attending circuses, zoos or paying for trafficking in order to get "entertained". I truly believe that this is something everyone need to consider in our culture which relies so much on entertainment, without considering what was required in order to produce the entertainment.
Exploitation involved in manufacturing a computer, many mobile phones, etc.: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/slavery-involved-in-producing.html
The exploitation involved in electronics is still of course not justified, it would just be used since it is needed to stop all exploitation in the world. The worse alternative morally would be just to ignore the violence and to not use internet effectively to stop all exploitation. In a world with no exploitation we wouldn’t need any electricity.
I believe we should strive to be able to live in a self-sustained community where we plant using vegan permaculture, minimize electricity use and get electricity from solar panels and heating from burning wood we cut down ourselves: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
This is a sustainable way of living where we still can interact with the world and stop all exploitation involved in the world.
That being said: There is an enormous difference between using electricity in order to stop exploitation compared to using an animal in order to gain pleasure or convenience. If we choose to kill an animal for food despite that we are able to get our nutrition from plant foods, we are engaging in violence compared to the violence involved in dog fighting and bullfightig. While they may psychologically be different, there is no moral difference in gaining pleasure by watching a dog fight compared to gaining pleasure by eating a steak, drinking a glass of milk, eating an egg, buying leather or attending a circus show with animals.
Reply to more excuses: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/arguments-for-veganism-and-counter.html
I believe that the only way you can justify electronics given the environmental pollution and often exploitation involved to produce it,is using it in the following ways (not an all-covering list):
1/ Necessary in order for fighting exploitation towards humans and nonhumans.
2/ Necessary for your survival, e.g. you need it for your work.
3/ Staying in touch with people - necessary to accomplish 1/ and 2/.
4/ Studying and practising nonduality. I believe necessary in order for people to act from awareness instead of their separate self in all situations, and reaching a world without exploitation and harm: http://non-duality.rupertspira.com/home
Every electronical device has a limited life span. How many electronical devices have stopped working earlier than they needed to just because it was used for lots of entertainment and for other activities that we don't need; and how can we justify that people get exploited, just so that we can watch entertainment. We can't. Just like we can't justify attending circuses, zoos or paying for trafficking in order to get "entertained". I truly believe that this is something everyone need to consider in our culture which relies so much on entertainment, without considering what was required in order to produce the entertainment.
Exploitation involved in manufacturing a computer, many mobile phones, etc.: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/03/slavery-involved-in-producing.html
The exploitation involved in electronics is still of course not justified, it would just be used since it is needed to stop all exploitation in the world. The worse alternative morally would be just to ignore the violence and to not use internet effectively to stop all exploitation. In a world with no exploitation we wouldn’t need any electricity.
I believe we should strive to be able to live in a self-sustained community where we plant using vegan permaculture, minimize electricity use and get electricity from solar panels and heating from burning wood we cut down ourselves: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html
This is a sustainable way of living where we still can interact with the world and stop all exploitation involved in the world.
That being said: There is an enormous difference between using electricity in order to stop exploitation compared to using an animal in order to gain pleasure or convenience. If we choose to kill an animal for food despite that we are able to get our nutrition from plant foods, we are engaging in violence compared to the violence involved in dog fighting and bullfightig. While they may psychologically be different, there is no moral difference in gaining pleasure by watching a dog fight compared to gaining pleasure by eating a steak, drinking a glass of milk, eating an egg, buying leather or attending a circus show with animals.
Reply to more excuses: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/arguments-for-veganism-and-counter.html
lördag 19 april 2014
Why Abolitionist vegans oppose the promotion of welfare reforms
A more correct analogy would be:
The slave welfare movement goes to the slave owners and say that we have done research that proves that slaves perform better if they are not hyper confined. Thus we can increase the efficiency and our profit by making laws that give the slaves more space.
Lets make a deal:
You make a statement that you will implement these laws within 10 years. Create a new label which is called "Compassionate slavery". We will market this and call it a victory and get more donations. You will get publicity and an increased sell of your slave labor products.
Yes, I would object to this. Because I think it is an immoral sell-out of a sentient beings interest. We have no right to promote other persons exploitation. Not as the end goal and not as a means to reach an end. I don't believe in the utilitarian philosophy, which would allow the murder of one person if you can maximize everyone's happiness and minimize everyone's suffering by doing this.
Furthermore, it is a complete myth that promoting "happy exploitation"/reforms leading to "happier exploited animals" will lead to a vegan world. I see regularly the completely opposite effect when an animal organization applauds the industry for exploiting animals through "free range" instead of cage hens, etc. Whole Foods cooperate with sell out-"animal organizations" because they know it leads them to an increased profit.
We are not objecting industry making reforms. We are objecting that the animal welfare movement applauds and paints exploitation as morally acceptable.
The slave welfare movement goes to the slave owners and say that we have done research that proves that slaves perform better if they are not hyper confined. Thus we can increase the efficiency and our profit by making laws that give the slaves more space.
Lets make a deal:
You make a statement that you will implement these laws within 10 years. Create a new label which is called "Compassionate slavery". We will market this and call it a victory and get more donations. You will get publicity and an increased sell of your slave labor products.
Yes, I would object to this. Because I think it is an immoral sell-out of a sentient beings interest. We have no right to promote other persons exploitation. Not as the end goal and not as a means to reach an end. I don't believe in the utilitarian philosophy, which would allow the murder of one person if you can maximize everyone's happiness and minimize everyone's suffering by doing this.
Furthermore, it is a complete myth that promoting "happy exploitation"/reforms leading to "happier exploited animals" will lead to a vegan world. I see regularly the completely opposite effect when an animal organization applauds the industry for exploiting animals through "free range" instead of cage hens, etc. Whole Foods cooperate with sell out-"animal organizations" because they know it leads them to an increased profit.
We are not objecting industry making reforms. We are objecting that the animal welfare movement applauds and paints exploitation as morally acceptable.
This is a good website where you can learn more: www.abolitionistapproach.com
-------------
In a sexist society advocating for "humane rape" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards woman.
In a speciesist society advocating for eggs from "free range hens" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards animals.
I regularly see how nonvegans are made to feel proud, happy and satisfied over themselves for e.g. consuming eggs from "free range hens", when an animal organization is applauding the industry of implementing an animal welfare reform.
This is why I say that promoting an animal welfare reform sends either the explicit or the implicit message that animal exploitation is morally desirable.
Just like promoting "humane rape" sends the moral message that rape is morally acceptable.
As I said - it is my daily experience that nonvegans interpret the campaigns of Animal Welfare-organizations in this way.
And because I am not an utilitarian I wouldn't advocate a capaign that sends an implicit moral message of either exploitation against women, nor exploitation against animals.
I don't find it justified to exploit one animal or to promote the exploitation of one animal in order to save 10 animals or 1 million animals. Neither do I think that this ever would be the outcome of exploiting another sentient being.
And I don't think that promoting speciesism will lead more people to go vegan.
-----
Would you advocate animal welfare reforms if that could save 1 million animals:
The same answer that I would give as an answer to the following question:
"A murderer says to you. If you murder this person I will not kill 1 million people. If you refuse to murder this person, I will kill 1 million people."
I would say: No!
I am not a utilitarian. I don't justify exploitation or the promotion of exploitation.
There is a good reason why Whole Foods supposedly are implementing "animal welfare reforms". To promote "happy meat", etc., increases the sales. This is obviously not to the advantage of the animals. Good article for anyone following this debate who hasn't already read it: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that the promotion of animal welfare reform doesn't create a reduction of animal exploitation. I believe that it leads to consumers that are more comfortable with promoting animal exploitation and that thus it will lead to an overall increase in the exploitation of animals.
I agree with this: "Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.
Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/
-------------
In a sexist society advocating for "humane rape" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards woman.
In a speciesist society advocating for eggs from "free range hens" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards animals.
I regularly see how nonvegans are made to feel proud, happy and satisfied over themselves for e.g. consuming eggs from "free range hens", when an animal organization is applauding the industry of implementing an animal welfare reform.
This is why I say that promoting an animal welfare reform sends either the explicit or the implicit message that animal exploitation is morally desirable.
Just like promoting "humane rape" sends the moral message that rape is morally acceptable.
As I said - it is my daily experience that nonvegans interpret the campaigns of Animal Welfare-organizations in this way.
And because I am not an utilitarian I wouldn't advocate a capaign that sends an implicit moral message of either exploitation against women, nor exploitation against animals.
I don't find it justified to exploit one animal or to promote the exploitation of one animal in order to save 10 animals or 1 million animals. Neither do I think that this ever would be the outcome of exploiting another sentient being.
And I don't think that promoting speciesism will lead more people to go vegan.
-----
Would you advocate animal welfare reforms if that could save 1 million animals:
The same answer that I would give as an answer to the following question:
"A murderer says to you. If you murder this person I will not kill 1 million people. If you refuse to murder this person, I will kill 1 million people."
I would say: No!
I am not a utilitarian. I don't justify exploitation or the promotion of exploitation.
There is a good reason why Whole Foods supposedly are implementing "animal welfare reforms". To promote "happy meat", etc., increases the sales. This is obviously not to the advantage of the animals. Good article for anyone following this debate who hasn't already read it: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that the promotion of animal welfare reform doesn't create a reduction of animal exploitation. I believe that it leads to consumers that are more comfortable with promoting animal exploitation and that thus it will lead to an overall increase in the exploitation of animals.
I agree with this: "Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.
Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/
PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens
söndag 13 april 2014
Reply to non-vegan claim that a 'vegan diet doesn't kill less animals'.
It does kill less animals. And the consumer of a vegan diet is not paying the farmer to breed up and kill animals. The consumer of a vegan diet wants to be able to buy food that doesn't involve pesticides and other procedures that kill animals and the planet. The consumer of a diet of animal foods is either intentionally killing animals or paying someone to intentionally kill animals. There is a big difference.
A vegan should avoid eating food where the farmer is using pesticides to grow the food, and thus intentionally killing bugs. He/she should opt for growing or buying food from vegan permaculture if possible. If he/she has this choice.
Pesticides killing animals and the planet are used because we are living in a nonvegan world. The person who accepts the exploitation of animals for food is responsible for this. Vegans try to avoid this, but won't commit suicide if this is impossible.
All monocultures are unethical. We should as a moral imperative go over to vegan permaculture, which is sustainable and healthy for the planet.
I recommend this article re. the claim that a vegan diet doesn't kill less animals: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vegetariansim3a--less-grains-for-animals2c-less-animals-kille/4679802
Furthermore I recommend this resources which touch on monocultures and other important environmental issues, etc.:
How violence and domestication of animals, leads to violence against humans:
Animal Oppression and Human Violence, by David A. Nibert, Professor of Sociology at Wittenberg University.
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=10179
The Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Dirt the Movie: http://www.thedirtmovie.org/
Planet in Peril: http://edition.cnn.com/services/opk/planet.peril/for.html
Flow: How did a handful of corporations steal our water:
http://crmpublication.blogspot.no/2010/02/documentary-flow-how-did-handful-of.html
State of the Planet – The Complete Series .. David Attenborough
A vegan should avoid eating food where the farmer is using pesticides to grow the food, and thus intentionally killing bugs. He/she should opt for growing or buying food from vegan permaculture if possible. If he/she has this choice.
Pesticides killing animals and the planet are used because we are living in a nonvegan world. The person who accepts the exploitation of animals for food is responsible for this. Vegans try to avoid this, but won't commit suicide if this is impossible.
All monocultures are unethical. We should as a moral imperative go over to vegan permaculture, which is sustainable and healthy for the planet.
I recommend this article re. the claim that a vegan diet doesn't kill less animals: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/vegetariansim3a--less-grains-for-animals2c-less-animals-kille/4679802
Furthermore I recommend this resources which touch on monocultures and other important environmental issues, etc.:
How violence and domestication of animals, leads to violence against humans:
Animal Oppression and Human Violence, by David A. Nibert, Professor of Sociology at Wittenberg University.
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=10179
The Home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
Dirt the Movie: http://www.thedirtmovie.org/
Planet in Peril: http://edition.cnn.com/services/opk/planet.peril/for.html
Flow: How did a handful of corporations steal our water:
http://crmpublication.blogspot.no/2010/02/documentary-flow-how-did-handful-of.html
State of the Planet – The Complete Series .. David Attenborough
måndag 17 mars 2014
Why all farming of animals involves unnecessary suffering and death
First of all even if you think that there may
be such a thing as a moral and responsible "property owner", the mere
status of animals being property will necessarily lead to that many animals are
subjected to completely unnecessary suffering. Thus if you
think that animals have a moral value, you can't justify animals being property
under the law:
"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests.
The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...
Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.
Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?
"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests.
The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...
Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.
Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?
------------------------
Follow up answer to a person I am discussing with:
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.
2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.
And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.
3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.
2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.
And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.
3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.
söndag 16 mars 2014
Critique of NIck Cooneys methodology and conclusions
Comments from this thread:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldpeacediet/permalink/10152379307369180/?stream_ref=2
"Carolyn, for the purposes of animal advocacy, I disagree. I'm not familiar with Nick Cooney's research (will look at it, thank you) but how can it ever be right to persuade people to do something that's wrong? In fact, it's speciesist. In relation to a human moral issue, we would never do this. When we know that something is wrong, we are clear about that. For example, we say that rape is wrong. We don't say that people should continue to rape but to cut out the beatings with the rape, in the hope that they'll eventually stop raping. Even that analogy is not a good one, because that does at least involve inflicting less harm. Vegetarianism inflicts as much or more harm than meat-eating, given that dairy cows live longer than beef cows and therefore suffer more prior to being slaughtered; vegetarians often compensate by eating more eggs and dairy; and that more chickens die in the process of producing eggs than cows, pigs etc. die in producing an equivalent amount of meat. There is a very good reason for vegans to "be very uncomfortable" about this, and that's because they know it's morally wrong to explicitly promote something that's morally wrong. I think vegans ought to listen to these feelings of discomfort and not dismiss their pangs of conscience.
I think if we make it clear to people that, although veganism is the goal, there is no expectation that they will necessarily transition to veganism immediately, but that there is a way to do this whereby they can choose the pace of change (as described above), then there is no reason to promote vegetarianism as a "step" to veganism. That doesn't mean that cutting out meat first, then eggs, then dairy can't be one valid way of making the transition, so that the person is effectively "vegetarian" for a period, but that doesn't mean that we ought to explicitly promote vegetarianism as a morally coherent position and engage in the meaningless and contradictory exercise of persuading people to go vegetarian. We should always be clear that veganism is the goal, regardless of how someone chooses to get there, or how long they take.
The reason I, for example, remained vegetarian for so long before becoming vegan was because I had been wrongly led to believe that I was doing all that was necessary for animals by being vegetarian. If we don't give people a clear message and a clear goal regarding veganism, then they can remain stuck at consuming happy meat or eggs and dairy for years. Many of us have been in this position and seen it happen with others.
Why are some of us so afraid to use the word, "vegan"? The more we use it, the more it gets into the lexicon, the more normalised the concept of veganism will become. This has already happened, to an extent, with more and more frequent use of the word, "vegan" in films and other mainstream media. There's no need for us to be timid about it."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldpeacediet/permalink/10152379307369180/?stream_ref=2
"Carolyn, for the purposes of animal advocacy, I disagree. I'm not familiar with Nick Cooney's research (will look at it, thank you) but how can it ever be right to persuade people to do something that's wrong? In fact, it's speciesist. In relation to a human moral issue, we would never do this. When we know that something is wrong, we are clear about that. For example, we say that rape is wrong. We don't say that people should continue to rape but to cut out the beatings with the rape, in the hope that they'll eventually stop raping. Even that analogy is not a good one, because that does at least involve inflicting less harm. Vegetarianism inflicts as much or more harm than meat-eating, given that dairy cows live longer than beef cows and therefore suffer more prior to being slaughtered; vegetarians often compensate by eating more eggs and dairy; and that more chickens die in the process of producing eggs than cows, pigs etc. die in producing an equivalent amount of meat. There is a very good reason for vegans to "be very uncomfortable" about this, and that's because they know it's morally wrong to explicitly promote something that's morally wrong. I think vegans ought to listen to these feelings of discomfort and not dismiss their pangs of conscience.
I think if we make it clear to people that, although veganism is the goal, there is no expectation that they will necessarily transition to veganism immediately, but that there is a way to do this whereby they can choose the pace of change (as described above), then there is no reason to promote vegetarianism as a "step" to veganism. That doesn't mean that cutting out meat first, then eggs, then dairy can't be one valid way of making the transition, so that the person is effectively "vegetarian" for a period, but that doesn't mean that we ought to explicitly promote vegetarianism as a morally coherent position and engage in the meaningless and contradictory exercise of persuading people to go vegetarian. We should always be clear that veganism is the goal, regardless of how someone chooses to get there, or how long they take.
The reason I, for example, remained vegetarian for so long before becoming vegan was because I had been wrongly led to believe that I was doing all that was necessary for animals by being vegetarian. If we don't give people a clear message and a clear goal regarding veganism, then they can remain stuck at consuming happy meat or eggs and dairy for years. Many of us have been in this position and seen it happen with others.
Why are some of us so afraid to use the word, "vegan"? The more we use it, the more it gets into the lexicon, the more normalised the concept of veganism will become. This has already happened, to an extent, with more and more frequent use of the word, "vegan" in films and other mainstream media. There's no need for us to be timid about it."
---
Carolyn,
I will have a look at Nick Cooney's work, but I can safely say that I
will never try to persuade anyone that the goal is to exploit animals by
using dairy and eggs as a vegetarian. As a vegan, that makes absolutely
no sense to me for all the reasons I've already explained. My
conscience simply wouldn't allow me to do that, and I see it as not only
immoral but completely unnecessary. This is what resonates with me:
<<Don’t fall into the welfarist trap of promoting vegetarianism. There is no difference between flesh and other animal products. Animals used for dairy are usually kept alive longer, treated as badly, if not worse, than “meat” animals, and they all end up in the same slaughterhouse anyway. Don’t promote “happy” cage-free eggs or “happy” meat or “happy” dairy. All of that involves animal exploitation. Don’t let anyone tell you that the public is too stupid or too uncaring to take veganism seriously. That’s elitist propaganda that allows large animal welfare groups to sell indulgences to the public by making people feel better about animal exploitation.
We can recognize that people will “get there at their own pace” but we should not ever concede that the “there” is anything less than veganism. Those who are not ready to go vegan will take whatever interim step they choose but at least the message that veganism is the moral baseline should be crystal clear.>> Gary L. Francione
<<Don’t fall into the welfarist trap of promoting vegetarianism. There is no difference between flesh and other animal products. Animals used for dairy are usually kept alive longer, treated as badly, if not worse, than “meat” animals, and they all end up in the same slaughterhouse anyway. Don’t promote “happy” cage-free eggs or “happy” meat or “happy” dairy. All of that involves animal exploitation. Don’t let anyone tell you that the public is too stupid or too uncaring to take veganism seriously. That’s elitist propaganda that allows large animal welfare groups to sell indulgences to the public by making people feel better about animal exploitation.
We can recognize that people will “get there at their own pace” but we should not ever concede that the “there” is anything less than veganism. Those who are not ready to go vegan will take whatever interim step they choose but at least the message that veganism is the moral baseline should be crystal clear.>> Gary L. Francione
--------
In Veganomics, Cooney suggests that we should urge people to go "meat-free" and not suggest they go vegetarian or vegan.
The idea is that people will make incremental steps towards veganism - but there's the implication at least that the dread "V" should not be used (both of them, in this case). So the puzzle remains, people have to be "let in" at some stage of the process to the "end game" of veganism, so its got to be mentioned and promoted at some point.
Don't scare people with the "V" word AT FIRST but mention it later seems to be the plan in mind. However, ~that~ later is someone else's first exposure to the arguments. How are we supposed to not scare some individuals away (accepting these premises of course) while we are letting the first group in on the vegan news?
We can cut through all the politics of persuasion and deception by promoting veganism at the start with an open acknowledgement that people "get there" incrementally, a notion most animal advocates accept already.
The idea is that people will make incremental steps towards veganism - but there's the implication at least that the dread "V" should not be used (both of them, in this case). So the puzzle remains, people have to be "let in" at some stage of the process to the "end game" of veganism, so its got to be mentioned and promoted at some point.
Don't scare people with the "V" word AT FIRST but mention it later seems to be the plan in mind. However, ~that~ later is someone else's first exposure to the arguments. How are we supposed to not scare some individuals away (accepting these premises of course) while we are letting the first group in on the vegan news?
We can cut through all the politics of persuasion and deception by promoting veganism at the start with an open acknowledgement that people "get there" incrementally, a notion most animal advocates accept already.
---
Indeed,
as a matter of common sense, it seems really absurd to say that if you
want a person to do X, you should encourage them to do Y. We wouldn't
think that this would make sense in any other social justice movement
or sphere of life, unless we were perhaps dealing with a contrarian
teenager! Not only is it deceptive, but if the aim of talking to someone
about Y is to get them to do X, then as Roger Yates
has pointed out, at some point *someone* has to talk to them about X.
Otherwise, how will they even know about the existence of X? If
so-called advocates of X think it's taboo and "counterproductive" to
talk about X, then who will tell them about X? This is really a very
convolutedly silly way of thinking.
---
Apart
from the illogic and ineffectiveness of the above as a strategy, we are
still left with the fact that if we are going to advocate vegetarianism
as a supposed "step" to veganism, without letting our interlocutor in
on the the fact that the ultimate goal is veganism, because we are too
wary of using the word, "vegan", we're choosing a utilitarian approach
which is based on believing that the ends justifies the means. I reject
that as an ethical position. As a vegan, I regard it as unethical to
promote something that's unethical, i.e. the exploitation of animals for
dairy and eggs, *no matter* what we think the outcome of that will be.
There is no right way to do something that's wrong; there is no right
way to promote something that's wrong.
I'm not disputing that many of us were vegetarian prior to becoming vegan. But that's no reason to think that our path must be the path for others. Many of us, like me, were vegetarian because we knew no better. I had to wait almost 30 years as a vegetarian before someone explained to me why I needed to be vegan if I cared about animals. I truly wish I had known 30 years sooner, as I really think I would have become vegan if given the right information and ethical reasoning. I believe there are many other people like me who sincerely *want* to do the right thing by animals and will do it--i.e. go vegan--if they understand clearly what that entails. This group may the the minority at this point in time, but they do exist and these are the people we need to reach. We wont reach them by, as Roger Yates has rightly described, behaving more like calculating, deceptive politicians rather than educators. Why infantilise and patronise people, thinking that they are too stupid or too morally backward to want to do the right thing? Why assume that everyone is a moral pygmy who only wants to take the soft option, the easy, most convenient way? If someone *genuinely* cares about animals, they will want nothing to do with supporting the horror of their exploitation, and they will *want* to go vegan. We seem to be forgetting that motivation is everything. Our job as vegan advocates is to make sure people understand *why* it's not morally justifiable to exploit animals. When you talk about research that claims that people are more likely to go vegan, eventually, if we talk to them about vegetarianism, and don't mention the word, "vegan", that leaves out completely the context in which discussions about veganism take place and what these discussions actually consist of. If we "ask people to go vegan" without adequately explaining *why* veganism, and not vegetarianism, or happy meat, is the moral baseline, the minimum standard of decency towards animals, given that it's completely unnecessary to our health for us to use them as food, then is it any wonder that they don't go vegan? Not everyone who's vegan is a good advocate for veganism, usually because they haven't taken the time to learn how to be one. In addition to explaining *why* someone should be vegan, a good vegan educator will explain *how* to go vegan in increments if that's what the person concerned wants to do. Those vegetarians eventually go vegan when they are fortunate enough to come across someone who does explain adequately why it's necessary to be vegan and how to go about it. Why not be that person? Why not be a vegan educator? Why make them wait years or decades, or forever, before they get that understanding? The research you cite, based on what you're saying, gives absolutely no indication of the quality of vegan education that people are getting when they are being "asked" to go vegan. If a new idea is presented without adequate education, of course people are going to gravitate to something more familiar and convenient, like vegetarianism, and most likely remain vegetarian until such a time as they get that education.
This is not to imply that I think everyone will go vegan instantly. The time frame, and the strategy for transition they adopt, is their business, not ours. Our business is to make sure they are crystal clear about why it's necessary to go *vegan* if they wish to end their exploitation of animals. That may even involve being vegetarian for a period, but again, that is not a reason for us to promote or condone vegetarianism as a morally sound practice. If it forms part of someone's transition, of course, we shouldn't criticise them for that and we can encourage them, but that's different to actually endorsing vegetarianism as a morally justifiable practice. We should never do that.
I'm not disputing that many of us were vegetarian prior to becoming vegan. But that's no reason to think that our path must be the path for others. Many of us, like me, were vegetarian because we knew no better. I had to wait almost 30 years as a vegetarian before someone explained to me why I needed to be vegan if I cared about animals. I truly wish I had known 30 years sooner, as I really think I would have become vegan if given the right information and ethical reasoning. I believe there are many other people like me who sincerely *want* to do the right thing by animals and will do it--i.e. go vegan--if they understand clearly what that entails. This group may the the minority at this point in time, but they do exist and these are the people we need to reach. We wont reach them by, as Roger Yates has rightly described, behaving more like calculating, deceptive politicians rather than educators. Why infantilise and patronise people, thinking that they are too stupid or too morally backward to want to do the right thing? Why assume that everyone is a moral pygmy who only wants to take the soft option, the easy, most convenient way? If someone *genuinely* cares about animals, they will want nothing to do with supporting the horror of their exploitation, and they will *want* to go vegan. We seem to be forgetting that motivation is everything. Our job as vegan advocates is to make sure people understand *why* it's not morally justifiable to exploit animals. When you talk about research that claims that people are more likely to go vegan, eventually, if we talk to them about vegetarianism, and don't mention the word, "vegan", that leaves out completely the context in which discussions about veganism take place and what these discussions actually consist of. If we "ask people to go vegan" without adequately explaining *why* veganism, and not vegetarianism, or happy meat, is the moral baseline, the minimum standard of decency towards animals, given that it's completely unnecessary to our health for us to use them as food, then is it any wonder that they don't go vegan? Not everyone who's vegan is a good advocate for veganism, usually because they haven't taken the time to learn how to be one. In addition to explaining *why* someone should be vegan, a good vegan educator will explain *how* to go vegan in increments if that's what the person concerned wants to do. Those vegetarians eventually go vegan when they are fortunate enough to come across someone who does explain adequately why it's necessary to be vegan and how to go about it. Why not be that person? Why not be a vegan educator? Why make them wait years or decades, or forever, before they get that understanding? The research you cite, based on what you're saying, gives absolutely no indication of the quality of vegan education that people are getting when they are being "asked" to go vegan. If a new idea is presented without adequate education, of course people are going to gravitate to something more familiar and convenient, like vegetarianism, and most likely remain vegetarian until such a time as they get that education.
This is not to imply that I think everyone will go vegan instantly. The time frame, and the strategy for transition they adopt, is their business, not ours. Our business is to make sure they are crystal clear about why it's necessary to go *vegan* if they wish to end their exploitation of animals. That may even involve being vegetarian for a period, but again, that is not a reason for us to promote or condone vegetarianism as a morally sound practice. If it forms part of someone's transition, of course, we shouldn't criticise them for that and we can encourage them, but that's different to actually endorsing vegetarianism as a morally justifiable practice. We should never do that.
---
Even
if those people who genuinely care about animals enough to want to stop
all forms of exploitation by going vegan are a small minority at this
time, these are the ones who will form the critical mass that changes
everything. These are the ones we need to reach. It doesn't matter how
many people we talk to who are indifferent. Our response to that should
not be to compromise, or rather, sell out, by talking to them about
vegetarianism or happy meat. We need to just keep talking to as many
people as we can so that we find those, who, like us, want to make a
difference and are dedicated to ending animal slavery and exploitation.
These are the people who will be immensely grateful that you talked to
them about veganism. Their only regret will be that they didn't meet you
sooner.
Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas
http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele.../2011/07/110725190044.htm
<<Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”>>
So why would we not work to get to that 10% of the population as vegans rather than promoting vegetarianism? (Or, though not relevant to this group, welfare reform or "happy" exploitation).
So let's once and for all do away with the straw man objection that "the world wont go vegan overnight". We don't need to get the world to go vegan overnight. We just need to build the vegan movement to the critical mass, or tipping point level of 10% and the majority of rest of society will follow as night follows day. 10% is a very achievable figure, when one considers that, according to a Harris Interactive study commissioned by Vegetarian Resource Group in 2008, the number of vegans in the US doubled from 2007 to 2009 to become 2.5% of the population http://www.vrg.org/.../how-many-adults-are-vegan-in-the-u-s/ "This means that 7.5 million people in the U.S. now eat diets that do not include any animal products". It was predicted that if this rate continued, "vegans will be 10% of the U.S. population in 2015, 40% in 2019, and in 80 % in 2050!" http://www.occupyforanimals.org/us-vegan-population...
I don't know what percentage of the US population is vegan right now. But we will never get to 10% if we keep persuading, or asking people to "go veg", "go vegetarian", consume "happy" meat or anything else other than to go vegan.
Once again, I would like to stress that while I think there is only *one thing* we should advocate--veganism--I have never said that there is only *one way* to go vegan, whether "overnight" or otherwise.
Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas
http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele.../2011/07/110725190044.htm
<<Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”>>
So why would we not work to get to that 10% of the population as vegans rather than promoting vegetarianism? (Or, though not relevant to this group, welfare reform or "happy" exploitation).
So let's once and for all do away with the straw man objection that "the world wont go vegan overnight". We don't need to get the world to go vegan overnight. We just need to build the vegan movement to the critical mass, or tipping point level of 10% and the majority of rest of society will follow as night follows day. 10% is a very achievable figure, when one considers that, according to a Harris Interactive study commissioned by Vegetarian Resource Group in 2008, the number of vegans in the US doubled from 2007 to 2009 to become 2.5% of the population http://www.vrg.org/.../how-many-adults-are-vegan-in-the-u-s/ "This means that 7.5 million people in the U.S. now eat diets that do not include any animal products". It was predicted that if this rate continued, "vegans will be 10% of the U.S. population in 2015, 40% in 2019, and in 80 % in 2050!" http://www.occupyforanimals.org/us-vegan-population...
I don't know what percentage of the US population is vegan right now. But we will never get to 10% if we keep persuading, or asking people to "go veg", "go vegetarian", consume "happy" meat or anything else other than to go vegan.
Once again, I would like to stress that while I think there is only *one thing* we should advocate--veganism--I have never said that there is only *one way* to go vegan, whether "overnight" or otherwise.
----
However,
let's imagine that the "real" tipping point is 20% or 30% rather than
10%. Whenever I talk to people about vegan advocacy and the prospect of
there being more vegans in society I ask if they believe that there are
more vegans "out there" than at present. Most answer that they do
believe that there are more people who can be convinced to become
vegans. Obviously we have no idea of the numbers but most people agree
that there are more to be "found."
Given the benefits of bringing about this increase in vegans in society, then it is hard to imagine anything other than growing the number of vegans in society will help other animals more.
Given the benefits of bringing about this increase in vegans in society, then it is hard to imagine anything other than growing the number of vegans in society will help other animals more.
---
Linda:
I read David Sztybel's criticism of the 10% idea, thanks. I guess we have to ask what the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scientists mean by "unshakeable belief". Even though, say, 10% of a population may be
lifelong conservatives, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the kind of passionate commitment to conservative ideas that would qualify as "unshakeable belief". My mother, at age 80, has voted for the same conservative political party for her entire life, yet she has almost no interest in their policies or in politics at all. So longevity of affiliation doesn't equate with unshakeable belief. I guess we'll only know what the tipping point is when we reach it! But whatever it is, we need to promote veganism to reach it.
<<The best way to respond to people who do not "care about animals" is to think that they are not ready yet, that they are thoroughly socialised speciesists, and that they are part of that percentage of the population who will need to be forced to go vegan by the weight of numbers of people already living vegan.>>
Yes, according to moral psychology, only a minority of people think independently about morality and make moral choices based on individual conscience. The majority tend to conform to moral standards based on need for social acceptance. Our task is to find those who are the moral standard-setters. It can be disappointing to find that our friends and relatives are not those.
I read David Sztybel's criticism of the 10% idea, thanks. I guess we have to ask what the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute scientists mean by "unshakeable belief". Even though, say, 10% of a population may be
lifelong conservatives, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the kind of passionate commitment to conservative ideas that would qualify as "unshakeable belief". My mother, at age 80, has voted for the same conservative political party for her entire life, yet she has almost no interest in their policies or in politics at all. So longevity of affiliation doesn't equate with unshakeable belief. I guess we'll only know what the tipping point is when we reach it! But whatever it is, we need to promote veganism to reach it.
<<The best way to respond to people who do not "care about animals" is to think that they are not ready yet, that they are thoroughly socialised speciesists, and that they are part of that percentage of the population who will need to be forced to go vegan by the weight of numbers of people already living vegan.>>
Yes, according to moral psychology, only a minority of people think independently about morality and make moral choices based on individual conscience. The majority tend to conform to moral standards based on need for social acceptance. Our task is to find those who are the moral standard-setters. It can be disappointing to find that our friends and relatives are not those.
-------
I've
already said that I would never, ever, promote vegetarianism under any
circumstances because that would be endorsing animal exploitation which
is clearly unethical; just as unethical as endorsing rape, torture and
murder for humans, as all of these are involved in vegetarianism. Any
other stance would be speciesist.
I will not *ever* endorse and promote animal exploitation and the notion that a) there is any moral difference between vegetarianism and meat-eating is absurd and b) I think it's ridiculous to say that persuading people to go vegetarian is more likely to result in them going vegan than educating them to go vegan. Frankly, I don't believe that there is any sound empirical evidence that supports that.
Is that clear enough for you?
I will not *ever* endorse and promote animal exploitation and the notion that a) there is any moral difference between vegetarianism and meat-eating is absurd and b) I think it's ridiculous to say that persuading people to go vegetarian is more likely to result in them going vegan than educating them to go vegan. Frankly, I don't believe that there is any sound empirical evidence that supports that.
Is that clear enough for you?
----
In
Change of Heart, Nick Cooney suggests that animal advocates should
portray "vegetarian men" as "very masculine" in order to undermine
existing stereotypes.
This is a "key recommendation" that results from Cooney's review of general psychological research data.
He also suggests that advocates should associate "vegetarian eating" with the existing values of society as much as possible. This is a version of what social movement scholars call "frame alignment" which essentially suggests that it is far easier to sell a message to others if it is framed within already existing and widely-supported norms and values.
Apart from the fact that this throws dirt in the face of Donald Watson's idea of ripening up people to new ideas, there are several problems with this whole notion. For example, major prevailing societal values are sexist and racist. Should we endorse those and act accordingly?
Therefore, Spencer, in respect to the masculinity point, what if the empirical evidence suggested that one way to get men to listen to us is for animal advocates to be disrespectful or even violent to women? To appeal to patriarchs, we act like patriarchs?
Would we say, well, we bow to the empirical data, or do we, like Linda, stick to what we know is right?
This is a "key recommendation" that results from Cooney's review of general psychological research data.
He also suggests that advocates should associate "vegetarian eating" with the existing values of society as much as possible. This is a version of what social movement scholars call "frame alignment" which essentially suggests that it is far easier to sell a message to others if it is framed within already existing and widely-supported norms and values.
Apart from the fact that this throws dirt in the face of Donald Watson's idea of ripening up people to new ideas, there are several problems with this whole notion. For example, major prevailing societal values are sexist and racist. Should we endorse those and act accordingly?
Therefore, Spencer, in respect to the masculinity point, what if the empirical evidence suggested that one way to get men to listen to us is for animal advocates to be disrespectful or even violent to women? To appeal to patriarchs, we act like patriarchs?
Would we say, well, we bow to the empirical data, or do we, like Linda, stick to what we know is right?
--
Pauline Wooding I
think the realities are different partly because of social convention
(although also because we perceive the world differently, which is not
to say one way is superior to the other… just different). Nonhuman
animals are objectified and considered to be of a lower order (sometimes
I think we’ve barely shifted since the time of Descartes), so aren’t
given equal consideration. They aren’t perceived to have equal interest
in their lives, so little worth is given to them. They tend to be
generalised (and perceived in groups), rather than individualised. The
key is to get the public consciousness to change. It’s going to be a
long road in doing this, but all we can do is try. And I still wouldn’t
encourage people to eat them – in whatever quantity they would. If they
are going to reduce the amount they eat, my saying it is better not to
eat any isn’t going to suddenly make them eat more.
Usama Zubair “We
can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can
justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one
important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings
exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with
respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to
nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.”
― Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights
― Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights
I
think we should first note that there are more vegetarians than vegans.
I say let the vegans advocate for veganism and leave it to the
vegetarians to push vegetarianism.
Having taught social science methodology to postgraduate level, I’m not convinced about the reliability and validity of the research Spencer relies on to ask his word-choice hypothetical. Was the research international in nature? Was it longtitudinal in nature? Was it qualitative or quantitative? What are the overall sample numbers?
However, in a way, those are side issues for me because it seems there is no possibility for control over this notion of encouraging vegetarianism over veganism. What are these “certain circumstances” repeatedly talked about? What are we supposed to imagine – a conference about animal use where all the audience are totally new to the issue? A street stall visited by and only by people who have no idea about existing claims-making about human-nonhuman relations? Where is this “presentation” supposed to be held? What is supposed to be said about veganism by the presenter and organisers at the vegetarian presentation?
I see nothing wrong with vegan advocates in their own vegan advocacy reporting that the majority of existing vegans were vegetarians first – but they should also note that many modern day vegans are critical of the “vegetarianism is a gateway” argument. Therefore, they favour a “be as vegan as possible” encouragement. Vegan advocates can thus acknowledge history and the fact that most people may approach veganism incrementally. A “be as vegan as possible” is superior to “go vegetarian/go vegetarian first” because it avoids animal advocates having to suggest a lifestyle that is based on animal use. Vegetarianism is a form of animal use, so vegans will try to avoid appearing to endorse it.
Spencer wants us to consider a hypothetical about advocate B who suggests a “go vegetarian” rather than a “go vegan” message (I prefer “live vegan” myself.) We have to suppose that “certain circumstances” results in vegetarian advocacy producing more vegans (in the end) than straightforward vegan advocacy. IF research data suggests that vegetarian advocacy in “certain circumstances” really can be shown to produce this effect, vegans are still not going to be attracted to it for the reasons discussed on this thread. I would suggest putting this hypothetical against the “be as vegan as possible” move which seems to totally avoid the problem. I think the problem with Spencer’s hypothetical is that it is presented as an isolated issue not in social context with everything else that is/will be going on.
We already know that many vegan advocates resist PeTA’s sexist campaigning, and yet many people say that was their first influence in their trip to veganism. One implication of Cooney’s key recommendation is that we appeal to prevailing patriarchal values in society. Many vegans will be resistant to this too. There is talk in the movement that we don’t question the “human politics” of animal advocates. Therefore, people with fascist attitudes may be welcomed into (or not called out once in) the animal advocacy community. What if we considered another isolated hypothetical, that research showed for sure that an adherence to ultra-right politics in some way “made the most vegans.” Would we be attracted to that?
Because the hypothetical ignores its inevitable context, it seems to say nothing about process – it just assumes that there is one that “moves” vegetarians or “meat reducers” to veganism (in the end). What is this process? The provision of information and educational resources are bound to play a role. However, as I said before, we cannot prevent those still in their alleged “veganism scares me” frame from seeing this material – it is all over the internet. All it takes is for media and countermovement forces to alert people to the fact that vegetarian advocacy is sympathetic to veganism, and the idea is to ultimately advocate for veganism and, boom!, vegetarianism is a scare word too.
Having taught social science methodology to postgraduate level, I’m not convinced about the reliability and validity of the research Spencer relies on to ask his word-choice hypothetical. Was the research international in nature? Was it longtitudinal in nature? Was it qualitative or quantitative? What are the overall sample numbers?
However, in a way, those are side issues for me because it seems there is no possibility for control over this notion of encouraging vegetarianism over veganism. What are these “certain circumstances” repeatedly talked about? What are we supposed to imagine – a conference about animal use where all the audience are totally new to the issue? A street stall visited by and only by people who have no idea about existing claims-making about human-nonhuman relations? Where is this “presentation” supposed to be held? What is supposed to be said about veganism by the presenter and organisers at the vegetarian presentation?
I see nothing wrong with vegan advocates in their own vegan advocacy reporting that the majority of existing vegans were vegetarians first – but they should also note that many modern day vegans are critical of the “vegetarianism is a gateway” argument. Therefore, they favour a “be as vegan as possible” encouragement. Vegan advocates can thus acknowledge history and the fact that most people may approach veganism incrementally. A “be as vegan as possible” is superior to “go vegetarian/go vegetarian first” because it avoids animal advocates having to suggest a lifestyle that is based on animal use. Vegetarianism is a form of animal use, so vegans will try to avoid appearing to endorse it.
Spencer wants us to consider a hypothetical about advocate B who suggests a “go vegetarian” rather than a “go vegan” message (I prefer “live vegan” myself.) We have to suppose that “certain circumstances” results in vegetarian advocacy producing more vegans (in the end) than straightforward vegan advocacy. IF research data suggests that vegetarian advocacy in “certain circumstances” really can be shown to produce this effect, vegans are still not going to be attracted to it for the reasons discussed on this thread. I would suggest putting this hypothetical against the “be as vegan as possible” move which seems to totally avoid the problem. I think the problem with Spencer’s hypothetical is that it is presented as an isolated issue not in social context with everything else that is/will be going on.
We already know that many vegan advocates resist PeTA’s sexist campaigning, and yet many people say that was their first influence in their trip to veganism. One implication of Cooney’s key recommendation is that we appeal to prevailing patriarchal values in society. Many vegans will be resistant to this too. There is talk in the movement that we don’t question the “human politics” of animal advocates. Therefore, people with fascist attitudes may be welcomed into (or not called out once in) the animal advocacy community. What if we considered another isolated hypothetical, that research showed for sure that an adherence to ultra-right politics in some way “made the most vegans.” Would we be attracted to that?
Because the hypothetical ignores its inevitable context, it seems to say nothing about process – it just assumes that there is one that “moves” vegetarians or “meat reducers” to veganism (in the end). What is this process? The provision of information and educational resources are bound to play a role. However, as I said before, we cannot prevent those still in their alleged “veganism scares me” frame from seeing this material – it is all over the internet. All it takes is for media and countermovement forces to alert people to the fact that vegetarian advocacy is sympathetic to veganism, and the idea is to ultimately advocate for veganism and, boom!, vegetarianism is a scare word too.
------
Linda McKenzie Spencer Lo <<Linda McKenzie wrote: "The means should be consistent with the ends."
Can you explain how the means of (i) using different word choices (e.g.,"vegetarian" instead of "vegan") and/or (ii) encouraging reductionist measures are *inconsistent* with the ends of (a) reducing animal consumption as much as possible in the short term and (b) creating as many vegans as possible in the long-term? I fail to see any "inconsistency."
Spencer, regarding this question, as well as your other posts, I feel that I've already stated my position as clearly as I can and that any further posts in response to yours will just be repeating myself. Again, I find the notion that substituting the word, "vegetarian" for "vegan" as the best way to either reduce animal suffering or to lead more people to veganism to be patently absurd and so don't want to waste any more time on that.
I assume that by "reductionist measures" you mean anything less than veganism such as happy meat, vegetarianism and welfare reform, which is aimed at supposedly reducing suffering. My response to that is quite simple: If you're not vegan, you're supporting animal exploitation. Period. What we, as animal advocates, are trying to achieve (or should be) is the abolition of animal exploitation. Therefore, recommending anything that involves animal exploitation, such vegetarianism or happy meat, as a way to end animal exploitation is clearly inconsistent.
Can you explain how the means of (i) using different word choices (e.g.,"vegetarian" instead of "vegan") and/or (ii) encouraging reductionist measures are *inconsistent* with the ends of (a) reducing animal consumption as much as possible in the short term and (b) creating as many vegans as possible in the long-term? I fail to see any "inconsistency."
Spencer, regarding this question, as well as your other posts, I feel that I've already stated my position as clearly as I can and that any further posts in response to yours will just be repeating myself. Again, I find the notion that substituting the word, "vegetarian" for "vegan" as the best way to either reduce animal suffering or to lead more people to veganism to be patently absurd and so don't want to waste any more time on that.
I assume that by "reductionist measures" you mean anything less than veganism such as happy meat, vegetarianism and welfare reform, which is aimed at supposedly reducing suffering. My response to that is quite simple: If you're not vegan, you're supporting animal exploitation. Period. What we, as animal advocates, are trying to achieve (or should be) is the abolition of animal exploitation. Therefore, recommending anything that involves animal exploitation, such vegetarianism or happy meat, as a way to end animal exploitation is clearly inconsistent.
Linda McKenzie
Spencer Lo
<<Always and in every circumstance, Barbara, even when a
difference in word-choice can mean the difference between saving the
lives and other animals and not saving them?>> No-one has
presented any evidence supporting the idea that using the word,
"vegetarian" instead of "vegan" will make a difference in saving the
lives of other animals, so I'm not sure why you are dwelling on this
hypothetical. It's not "word choice" that is the critical issue, as if
swapping one word for another will make all the difference to someone
supporting speciesism and rejecting it. What's critical is whether we've
properly educated someone to understand that animals are not property
but are moral persons and that there is no justification for exploiting
them; secondly, it's plainly unethical to ever recommend that anyone go
vegetarian since this involves direct support for animal exploitation.
Thirdly, and most pertinently to this question, veganism is not just one
way among many others, including vegetarianism or consuming happy meat,
of reducing suffering.
<<One important difference is between those who maintain that veganism is merely a way of reducing suffering, and those who maintain that it is a fundamental commitment to justice, nonviolence, and a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals.
The difference between these two groups is not merely a matter of abstract theory—it has profound practical consequences.>>
<<The abolitionist approach sees veganism as the application of the principle of abolition to the life of the individual. It is our personal expression that we embrace the moral personhood of all sentient beings and we reject the status of nonhumans as chattel property. Veganism is an essential part of our commitment to nonviolence.
Veganism is not just a way of reducing suffering; it is what justice for nonhumans requires at the very least. It is not the last step in our journey to reject the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/nonhuman relationship; it is the first step. If animals have any moral significance, then we cannot eat, wear, or use them.>> Gary L. Francione
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veganism-just.../...
What abolitionists are trying to do is not just reduce suffering but to abolish the property status of animals and establish the moral personhood of animals, by advocating veganism. This is the only way that we will put an end to suffering for animals caused by human exploitation. Clearly, Spencer, you and I are not in the same group in terms of how we view the role of veganism.
<<One important difference is between those who maintain that veganism is merely a way of reducing suffering, and those who maintain that it is a fundamental commitment to justice, nonviolence, and a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals.
The difference between these two groups is not merely a matter of abstract theory—it has profound practical consequences.>>
<<The abolitionist approach sees veganism as the application of the principle of abolition to the life of the individual. It is our personal expression that we embrace the moral personhood of all sentient beings and we reject the status of nonhumans as chattel property. Veganism is an essential part of our commitment to nonviolence.
Veganism is not just a way of reducing suffering; it is what justice for nonhumans requires at the very least. It is not the last step in our journey to reject the moral schizophrenia that characterizes the human/nonhuman relationship; it is the first step. If animals have any moral significance, then we cannot eat, wear, or use them.>> Gary L. Francione
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veganism-just.../...
What abolitionists are trying to do is not just reduce suffering but to abolish the property status of animals and establish the moral personhood of animals, by advocating veganism. This is the only way that we will put an end to suffering for animals caused by human exploitation. Clearly, Spencer, you and I are not in the same group in terms of how we view the role of veganism.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)