A caged hen would prefer to be a free range chicken?"

A person wrote: "Indeed, advocating that slavers ought to give a slave a single beat with a rod is a totally reasonable move away from beating a slave half to death, and makes the next generation justified in abolishing all torture of slaves completely. If you can't, in your rational mind obviously, see this, then you are blinded by emotions. Don't you think a slave would prefer to be beaten only lightly rather than heavily, much like a caged hen would prefer to be a free range chicken?"

It isn't. Whole Foods, Chipotle and money others consciously market "humane animal products" because they know it will increase their sales, and thus more animals get exploited.
I think that a slave would prefer that we worked to abolish the exploitation, rather than legitimizing the animal exploitation by promoting Animal welfare reform that legitimize continued animal slavery. Doing this only confuses the public to believe that it is morally acceptable to consume animal foods and you create "conscientious omnivores" that see no reason at all to be vegan.
To promote animal exploitation as a means to eliminate animal exploitaton, is as morally wrong to promote "humane rape" or "humane racism" as a means to eliminate rasism or sexism.
More to read: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html

More to learn: Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

PETA, HSUS, Mercy for Animals, Farm sanctuary supports "happy exploitation" of animals

A portion of a comment that someone posted yesterday:

"I am saddened at the amount of infighting going on within the world of animal rights and welfare groups."

My reply:

It's *not* a matter of "infighting." It's *not* a matter of there being one "world" where substantive agreement is possible and should be pursued.

It's a matter of there being a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict.

I could explain (and have elsewhere explained) why this is the case but let's keep it really simple and just use pictures.

The next time that you are at Whole Foods and see them selling the bodies of dead animals with their "Animal Welfare Ratings"--which is the sort of thing that just about *every* large animal group has explicitly supported--if you think that disagreeing with that is a matter of "infighting," you are confused and have not yet grasped the simple idea that X and not-X cannot both be true at the same time.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583377438348681&set=a.393908680628892.94280.156275557725540&type=1

To those who support welfare reform and who claim it does not send the wrong message:

Here is a picture of Whole Foods advertising organic chicken with a Global Animal Partnership Animal Welfare Rating of 2.

And guess who is on the Board of Directors of the Global Animal Partnership that labels "happy" meat?

Answer: Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States

http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org/about-us/who-we-are/

If you doubt that this sort of thing sends a very loud, clear, and deliberate message to the public that it is morally acceptable to continue to consume animals, you are wrong.

--

 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights As to the support of this sort of thing, please see: http://bit.ly/eli95N

John Mackey
Chief Executive Officer
Whole Foods Market
500 Bowie Street
Austin, TX 78703

January 24, 2005

Dear John,

The undersigned animal welfare, animal protection and animal rights organizations would like to express their appreciation and support for the pioneering initiative being taken by Whole
Foods Market in setting Farm Animal Compassionate Standards. We hope and expect that these standards will improve the lives of millions of animals.

Animal Rights International (ARI)
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute (API)
Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)
Bay Area Vegetarians
Christian Vegetarian Association
Compassion Over Killing (COK)
Doris Day Animal League
East Bay Animal Advocates
Farm Sanctuary
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA)
Mercy for Animals
Northwest In Defense of Animals
Vegan Outreach
Viva!USA

Sincerely,

Peter Singer
President, Animal Rights International

Ag gag laws, animal rights vs animal welfare, factory farms and footage

I think that the "Ag Gag" laws are not a good idea for a number of reasons related generally to the suppression and chilling of speech. But to listen to the large animal groups, one would think that the "Ag Gag" laws are a death knell for the animal movement. That's just wrong.

We don't need more footage from factory farms. There is already more than enough. For the most part, the objection to these laws concerns the fact that large animal groups need a steady stream of "exposés" so that they can continue to promote the idea that there are "responsible" farms and "irresponsible" farms, "abusive" treatment" and "non-abusive" treatment. The animal groups get footage of some farm employees doing something hideous; they have a big campaign; the factory farm does a mea culpa or gets a wrist slapping; the animal groups declare "victory" and proclaim that the "abusive" behavior has been stopped. The public is reassured that the animal groups are ensuring that animals are being treated "humanely." It's a win-win. The animal groups get praise and, more important, donations; the public is reassured and feel better about consuming animal products.

Only the animals, who continue to be tortured in the most "humane" situations, lose.

We need to get people thinking differently about animal ethics. We need to focus people away from the issue of treatment--and away from the idea that there is "abusive" treatment and "non-abusive" treatment--and toward the idea that we cannot morally justify use. Period. We need to get people to see that the moral idea that they and just about everyone else already accept--that animal suffering and death must be "necessary" and that pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as "necessary"--leads to the conclusion that we cannot justify using animals and that our recognition that animals have moral status means that we cannot eat flesh, dairy, or eggs, even if they have a "happy" exploitation label that is praised or endorsed by one or more of the large animal groups.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University