Human rights and animal rights, against violence and discrimination

This article will illustrate some ways that I help human rights.

I steadily encounter human right organizations that want to help humans by efforts that are harming and killing animals, in order to provide e.g. food and clothing.

How do they think that we can get a more peaceful and just world by inflicting completely unnecessary suffering, violence and death to sentient beings with an interest of not suffering and an interest of a continued existence? It is unnecessary, since they can provide nutritious foods for an optimal health from non-animal sources [1], and they can provide clothes created from non-animal sources.

Violence anywhere, hurts everyone, everywhere. A violent means, apart from being immoral, doesn’t work to reach a nonviolent ends.

As long as there as people think that violence can be justified for completely frivolous reasons, such as the violence in the production of animal foods, people will think that other forms of violence also are justified, that are much less frivolous.

A human rights-organization sees a need, e.g. a freezing child that is starving. They feed her/him animal foods and put on clothes from sheep wool. In this process animals are harmed, killed and exploited for completely frivolous reasons, frivolous since the starving and freezing child could have been fed by foods from non-animal sources, and clothed from non-animal sources. In the process of helping the kid, animals are exploited, people are taught to believe that violence is justified for frivolous reasons and that it can be used to help people; poverty and starvation is exacerbated because of all plants, water and energy required to feed the animal who is killed for frivolous reasons. People start wars, and use violence, for what they believe are justified reasons; because they have been taught that violence is a justified means (reinforced by having violence on their plates 3 times per day (violence that was used to produce animal foods), and using violence as their clothes everyday (violence that was used to kill and domesticate the animals used for fur, leather, down, etc.)) to reach a peaceful ends; and in this process poverty and starvation is exacerbated, which again human rights activists try to alleviate through being violent towards animals.  And thus this is all a vicious circle.

As long as human rights activists exploit nonhuman animals to reach their goals, we won’t have any end of all violence and injustice inflicted towards humans. And the same goes the other way around. As long as “animal rights” activists justify violence and harm against humans, including sexism, to promote animal rights, the exploitation of nonhuman animals will continue. It is all a vicious circle that only can be broken by opposing all violence and discrimination towards both human and nonhuman animals.

Here is one example of how feeding starving People animal foods exacerbate starvation, injustices and poverty:
“Currently, the continent as a whole has the arable land capacity to feed its entire population with plant protein, but it does not have even close to the land capacity to feed all of its farm animals. The European Union found that only 20 percent of what Europe’s farm animals eat comes from the continent, while the remainder must be imported. Because most of these imports use up the land in developing countries, this animal-based method of feeding Europe contributes directly to the depletion of the resources of developing nations, thus contributing to their continued impoverishment. What it essentially boils down” (..)

“even if you are only concerned about human rights issues, you ought to be concerned about animal exploitation as well because it is directly connected to a significant human rights issue. As we discussed earlier, the amount of resources required to produce animal foods is multiples of what is required to produce plant foods. Although there are certainly political issues that hamper the distribution of food, it is also the case that animal agriculture and a diet of animal foods is increasingly a threat to world hunger, our water supply, our topsoil, etc.”

-Quote from Eat like you Care ; www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

Note 1: See the end of http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/varfor-vegan-for-att-det-ar-omoraliskt.html

More references:
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

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
http://www.imeche.org/.../reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf...
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
http://www.ncifap.org/issues/environment/

Fler resurser:
https://www.facebook.com/DjurensRattigheterAvskaffaDjurslaveriet/posts/554732297952812Richard Oppenlander, Your role in Global depletion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drS5hHdelR8

Vegan because it is wrong to harm and kill animals when we don't need it for health

 Veganism rests on:
"Although there is a great deal of disagreement about moral issues, no one disagrees with the notion that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on a human or an animal. We need a good reason to inflict suffering or death on a human or animal. We might disagree about whether necessity exists in any given situation and what constitutes a good reason, but we would all agree that enjoyment or pleasure cannot constitute necessity or serve as a good reason. This is part of our conventional moral wisdom.

Consider an example from the human context. If a person said that she believed that it was morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children but that beating children for pleasure was morally acceptable, we would understandably be confused. If enjoyment can suffice as a good reason to beat children, then there’s no bad reason to beat children. The principle that it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on children would be meaningless."

This is something that almost everyone agrees with.
If you believe in this, and want to live according to your beliefs, you will understand it is a moral obligation to go vegan: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/what-michael-vick-taught-us/#.UfDiaW34V5s

Health:
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

B-12: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/courses-resources/article/b12-breakthrough-missing-nutrient-found-in-plants/
Vegans who eat an adequate diet, and possible get their B-12 from e.g. supplemented soy milk/grow their own vegetables in soil with B-12, eat a diet that they thrive on and are healthy on.

A diet of a big amount of animal products is detrimental for human health: http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/

Vegan/strict vegetarian reply: Does animal intelligence matter for their moral value?

A Note on Animal Intelligence

A question I received: "What do you think of the interest in animals who are perceived to be like humans in terms of intelligence. I am thinking about the idea that great apes or dolphins or elephants have greater moral value because they exhibit human type intelligence."

My reply:

A good question.

Let's assume we have two humans: Mary is a math whiz; John is mentally disabled and cannot do math at all. Is the difference in cognitive ability relevant?

It depends on why we are asking the question.

If we are trying to determine who we should hire as a math teacher, the difference in cognitive abilities matters. We should hire Mary.

If we are trying to determine who we should use in a painful biomedical experiment or whose organs we should take to save the lives of others or who we should enslave, the difference in cognitive abilities is completely irrelevant. We should not use either Mary or John exclusively as a resource for others. Mary and John are completely equal as far as their not being used as a resource for others is concerned. If anything, we may have special heightened obligations to those who are more vulnerable.

The same thing goes for nonhuman animals. If an animal is sentient--that is, subjectively aware and able to experience pain, suffering, distress, etc.--we should not use that animal as a human resource. Period. The degree of humanlike intelligence an animal has is completely irrelevant. And we should not accord greater weight to animals who are more "like us" in having humanlike intelligence. For purposes of being used exclusively as a human resource, a mouse has as much moral weight as an elephant.

Does animals have the right not to be killed for food?

I wrote this to a person who claimed that animals rights are conditional, just like he claimed humans rights are 'conditional', using e.g. the example of imprisonment of a human:

We recognize that humans have a moral, and thus they have the right not to be treated as a commodity. This includes the right not to be tortured, not to be used and not to be exploited. I would certainly include the right here not to be beaten by a parent as a punishment- regardless of what it is called. A child has a moral value and the same right not to be beaten by his parent for ‘discipline’, as the parent has not to be beaten by the child for ‘discipline’.

Whether our society recognizes and acts according to the moral value of an individual or not doesn’t change the inherent rights that an individual has being a being of inherent moral value. Society disregarded the rights of individuals of another ethnicity, and still to a great extent do – today e.g. the Western world sponsors the well established slavery of the carpet and the cocoa industry and many other industries with a widespread slavery. See the documentary ‘Slavery: A Global Investigation ‘. However, this doesn’t change the inherent moral value of these humans, just like the widespread disregard of animal rights in our society, doesn’t change the inherent moral value of nonhuman sentient animals.

The only reason, ideally, why we would imprison people is only as a temporary protective measure for the time of the rehabilitation of an individual. And the only reason why we ever would have to temporarily limit some individual’s right is in order to stop violence, i.e. to stop someone using violence against a person. Violence is an action which is treating an individual as a commodity and that is disregarding his/her moral value. This conditional and temporal limiting of someone’s right is done in order to stop violence, it is done out of necessity.

To compare an action that is done out of necessity, is in no way analogous with an action that is done despite the lack of necessity, as the action of abusing and killing an animal for food.
To first state that it is unethical to kill and harm another sentient being for pleasure or convenience, and to in the next second harm and kill another sentient being for the pleasure of the taste of food – is unethical and doesn’t make logically or morally sense. It is so sad that people are outraged by animal abuse and rightly call it a moral atrocity, to in the next second take a bite of a dead animal – and sponsor the moral atrocity themselves of killing another sentient being for pleasure.

Vegan answer to: 'If you love animals, then why do you eat their food?"

I posted this reply to a Facebook-poster with this claim.
I hear arguments like that all days, so I am not amused. Anyways, that argument is as illogical as all other arguments that try to justify the consumption of animal products.
If everyone ate a plant-based diet, the food would suffice for everyone, both human and nonhuman animals: http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/expert_testimonies_oppenlander.htm
A person eating animal products is in total consuming more plants, since he/she is eating animals that are eating plenty of plants (e.g. a cow eats more than 10 times more than a human). If animals do have a moral value, we are not morally justified to use them, including not to consume them.

Please consider this:
“The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.

Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.

But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.

That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.

In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.

There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products."
“
Quote: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

What do you think?

Animal cruelty in Romania, compared to e.g. China, Sweden and US

There is no difference of the animal cruelty in Romania, compared to Sweden or any other country.

Quote: "In this country alone [USA], we kill over ten billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat—even those supposedly raised “humanely”—suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting. There is no “need” for us to eat meat, dairy, or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering, and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.

There is something positively bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99% of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products."
Veganism is our moral obligation; and if we are not vegans we are paying for animal cruelty by each non-vegan choice.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-note-about-michael-vick/#.Uasrwpxc18E

---------
I think it is very hard to compare animal cruelty in different countries. A big reason to this is that we are not exposed to e.g. what goes on in the slaughter houses in Sweden. We are aware of the intensity of only a tiny amount of all the animal cruelty that takes place in different countries. All enslavement, all use, all killing of animals for food, clothes, amusement or any other reason, is animal cruelty. And usually this against animal cruelty-campaigns disregards the daily cruelty caused by all of our society's daily non-vegan choices.

Some people say that Chinese people in general are more cruel to animals compared to people in e.g. USA. This is not true. US enslaves, kills and hurts many more animals per person compared to China. There are more individuals killed in China, but the China population is 4 times the population of US.: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/there-is-not-more-animal-cruelty-in.html

By focusing on incidents of animal cruelty, an erroneous picture is created. Billions of people are opposed to animal cruelty in this world, yet they daily support it by their daily meals and other choices that they partake in.

Animal cruelty will never end until our society stop killing and hurting animals at our daily meals by consuming animal products: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/why-does-many-people-abuse-humans-dogs.html

Humans are not meant to eat meat, and animals are not meant to be killed by humans

"as in sheep cattle chickens as they are ment to be eaten .."

Why do you believe that we have the right to enslave, hurt, eat and inflict unnecessary suffering upon another being, based on the irrelevant criteria of 'species'?
Why do you think they are meant to be eaten?

Humans kill and eat animals not for survival, but for convenience, taste or habit. We are not predators who kill animals for survival; we inflict unnecessary suffering upon beings who are consciousness just like us.

Humans having the body of an herbivore [see footnote 1], animal products being bad for us [2], and us having no nutritional need at all for animal products [3], claiming that we are at the “top of the Food chain”/that we are predators/that we are meant to eat other animals, is an erroneous statement. Just like the gorillas, cows and horses and many other animals we are herbivores. Just like cows, we can eat meat, however it is not good for our body, and not good for us spiritually [4].

Footnotes:
1.http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html; 2. http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ ;3. http://www.drmcdougall.com/ ; http://www.forksoverknives.com/
4. www.worldpeacediet.org  ; good lecture here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PkQrJZYZN4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

As we sow, so shall we reap. The connection between violence against animals and humans

Humans today don’t eat for survival. Humans today do eat for habit, “taste” or convenience.

As I quoted before:
I mean that our thinking about animals is very confused. On one hand, we claim to regard animals as members of the moral community. We claim to embrace a moral and legal obligation not to inflict “unnecessary” suffering or death on animals. We can, of course, debate the meaning of “necessity,” but whatever it means, it must rule out suffering and death imposed for reasons of human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. If it does not do so, then the exception would completely swallow the moral rule.

The problem is that 99.99% of our animal use cannot be justified by anything but human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, we kill more than 12 billion land animals every year in the United States alone for food. No one maintains that it is necessary to eat animals to lead an optimally healthy lifestyle and an increasing number of mainstream health care professionals tell us that animal foods are detrimental to our health. Animal agriculture is a disaster for the environment because it involves a most inefficient use of natural resources and creates water pollution, soil erosion, and greenhouse gasses. The only justification that we have for the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on these billions of animals is that we enjoy eating animal foods, or that it is convenient to do so, or that it is just plain habit.
http://cup.columbia.edu/static/interview-gary-francione

There is NO justification for killing another human for “taste”, habit or convenience.. There is no justification for killing a cow, cat, dog, elk or any other animal for “taste”, habit or convenience. We are all consciousness. We all have the same right to live. We sow suffering and violence to the innocent sentient non-human violence; and our culture reaps violence, suffering, wars, injustices and starvation. If we want a peaceful revolution, we must stop sowing suffering and violence at our plates, at our families plates and at our society’s plates.

Why it is wrong to participate in PETA's sexist so-called "animal rights"-campaigns

 My reply to a comment at the Abolitionist Approach Facebook-website.
Niranjan Amarnath justified PETA's sexist campaigns and wrote: ” Everyone woman has the right to do what she wants, we men don't have the right to tell a woman what to do & what she should be wearing! “

My reply:
Every individual has the right to do what she/he wants, as long as it doesn’t hurt any other individual. Participating in a campaign that is commodifying women, and trivializing animal rights, is hurting women and hurting animals. Thus it is an unethical action. That people view other beings as commodities and treat them as commodities is the root of the violence in this world. If everyone treated all other individuals as individuals, i.e. with love, compassion and nonviolence, we would have world peace.

Also read this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-state-of-the-movement/#.UVsfN1ev_gM

Gary Francione, Steven Best, Abolitionist approach, vegan education

My reply to a person in a forum who came With erroneous accusations against Gary Francione and the Abolitionist Approach. I think that accuracy and truth is important.

You are misrepresenting Gary Francione and the Abolitionist Approach.
E.g. this is supported: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/emergency-at-peaceful-prairie-sanctuary/
His books and teachings has inspired thousands of people to go vegan. Regularly there are testimonials on his Facebook-page from people going vegan.
Resuce of animals from animal shelters is regularly advocated (legal adoption, not violent illegal rescue: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veganism-and-nonviolence/).

Steven Best is completely misrepresenting the Abolitionist Approach and the approach to vegan education.

Quote:"If he's not actually on the payroll of the meat and dairy and egg industry or on the FBI - he ought to be because he's doing the job for them."

Incredible. It is not ethical to slander another person - that is violence towards another persons character. The statement is totally false.

Posting articles like this in Philadelphia Daily_ http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p3906/michael-vick.pdf ; spreading many vegan posters every week from his Facebook-page directly aimed at non-vegans;
waking the consciousness of friends and strangers he meets daily...

" his influence is diminishing"???
His message growing all the time, more and more people sharing Abolitionist Approach-posters. More and more educating their community by vegan stalls. More and more people going vegan.

In this interview Gary Francione comments on Steven Best's approach: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/Gary_Francione_Animal_Voices2.pdf

Some more comments:
Divisive?? Just showing the great divide between different approaches:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/there-is-nothing-invisible-about-the-ideology-of-animal-exploitation/
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-animal-welfare-and-the-slavery-analogy/#.UYlmX8qiG1Q

Why no single issue-protests? Why dedicate all of ones time to vegan education, and adopting animals from animal shelters:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/single-issue-campaigns-and-in-human-nonhuman-contexts/#.UYllrcqiG1Q
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/upcoming-abolitionist-approach-podcast-on-effective-animal-rights-advocacy-a-preview/#.UYlnaMqiG1Q

--
I wouldn't spread a speech that contains such a violent rhetoric against another group of vegans. I think substantiative criticism is okay, but not judging and misrepresenting people and their methods, and to paint a picture which distorts the true and complete picture.
One of several misrepresentations by Steven Best:
"To be an Abolitionist means to do no nothing constructive."
Gary Franciones books and teachings has inspired thousands of people to go vegan. Regularly there are testimonials on his Facebook-page from people going vegan.
Resuce of animals from animal shelters is regularly advocated and encouraged (legal adoption)
I have inspired many people to go vegan and to work towards becoming vegan. I know many other Abolitionist who are doing and have doing the same.
And I can go on, and on...

--
24.05.2012:
I wrote some about the misrepresentations by Steven Best in my blog post. I also updated it. Steven Best is not trying to understand the Abolitionist Approach.
Abolitionist Approach are educating people why 'happy exploitation'-campaigns by 'Animal advocate'-organizations is morally wrong and counter productive, and they critize organizations that don't hold to veganism as a moral baseline [1]. And then some people call e.g. this for 'attacks' and call this for being 'divisive'. Everything is so generalizing, he doesn't take any time at all to explain what exactly Abolitionist approach critizes and why they do so, and why he is against this.

The Abolitionist Approach are critizeing these campaigns because they are creating moral confusion in people, and they are making it harder for people to understand the necessity of going vegan, and because such campaigns are morally wrong. The campaigns are perpetuating the myth that you can exploit 'compassionately' and that some animal use is morally justifiable.

He is creating the impression that Abolitionist Approach are doing nothing and are just being counter-productive, and are serving the animal exploitation industry through their methods.
He creates an erroneous characterization and he attacks this characterization.

1. See this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-paradigm-shift-requires-clarity-about-the-moral-baseline-veganism/#.UZ9HMZxc18E

1. See this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-paradigm-shift-requires-clarity-about-the-moral-baseline-veganism/#.UZ9HMZxc18E

Rebuttal of the claim that pacificsm and the Abolitionist Approach is paralyzed:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/gandhi-pacifism-veganism-and-nonviolence.html

Why critize other organizations that do "happy exploitation"-campaigns ?:

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Jane Eagle: You may have read the essay but you missed the point: by promoting such a thing, we reinforce the idea that animal "abuse" is what happens in certain pathological situations to dogs and cats. It leaves out the hideous treatment that dogs and cats receive that is and will never be covered under anti-cruelty laws because it is perfectly legal and the treatment of all of the animals who are used for food and other purposes, which is as pathologically cruel as anything that happens to dogs and cats. Campaigns like the registry campaign are not small steps forward; they are big steps back. They seek to reinforce the notion that the animals who "count" are our "pets." It's 2013; it's way past time to get away from that 19th century welfarist idea.

That is what I argued. Your reply: people won't have "overnight enlightenment." The point is that campaigns like this will ensure that the public will never become enlightened.

See a very interesting article here:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-welfarist-dream-come-true/#.UZ4lh0ryB8E




---
Another interesting comment:

Sarah K. Woodcock As Professor Francione's work exemplifies, the property status of animals inhibits them from having "the legal rights of 'persons.'" And as long as we have domestication and breeding, they will be property -- that is the *purpose* of domestication. So our task at hand is to get to the root of the problem -- speciesism -- and change hearts and minds with creative nonviolent vegan education. Change must happen first person by person, not law by law.

-----

I wouldn't spread a speech that contains such a violent rhetoric against another group of vegans. I think substantiative criticism is okay, but not judging and misrepresenting people and their methods, and to paint a picture which distorts the true and complete picture.
One of several misrepresentations by Steven Best:
"To be an Abolitionist means to do no nothing constructive."
Gary Franciones books and teachings has inspired thousands of people to go vegan. Regularly there are testimonials on his Facebook-page from people going vegan.
Resuce of animals from animal shelters is regularly advocated and encouraged (legal adoption)
I have inspired many people to go vegan and to work towards becoming vegan. I know many other Abolitionist who are doing and have doing the same.
And I can go on, and on...


 

Reply to 'Everything eats something. Something dies so that i may live'

Quote: “Everything eats something. Something dies so that i may live”

Yes, but we don’t eat humans, because we think it is unethical. Other animals are also consciousness, and the only reason our culture is comfortable with eating them is a big disconnect to them and the exclusion created by our routine non-vegan choices made since childhood. There is no essential difference between other animals and us – we are all consciousness. Just the fact that they have different bodies doesn’t in any way justify us talking their precious life, which they value as much as we value our lives.

And there is a big inherent difference with killing a being that is consciousness, compared to taking the seeds and fruits from a plants – which helps the plant to spread itself. Read more here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-i-eat-animals-because-i.html

 

I would like you all to consider this:

We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?

Pleasure. Convenience.

 

So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.

 

If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.

Quote by Gary Francione: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

 

Here are many interviews that brings clarity to the issue of animals right to live and not to be killed for trivial and unnecessary reasons, such as convenience, cultural habit or taste: http://gooseberryproductions.com/

Counter productive Animal welfare legislation-reform vs. Animal rights

My response to a person:
The notion of "Animal welfare" in legislation is very old [1] and has been used as a regulationist approach. So it is not an use of erroneous language, it is merely a use of how the term always has been defined. It is sad they have stolen the term "Animal welfare" and redefined it. But lets stick to the terminology used.

"by his band of follower who repeat everything that he says verbatim and without thinking."
This is ignoring the fact that many, many people who found Gary Franciones teachings were endorsing "Animal welfare" reform and changed their approach because of the arguments. Your judgment is simply wrong. We shouldn't judge people. I write more about this in this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/hatred-violence-and-judging-peoples.html

It maybe true for some people that they blindly believe without analyzing the arguments. However, this is not encouraged. Gary Francione encourages people to educate themselves. Many people that stick to the 'Abolitionist approach' are surely thinking for themselves.
I e.g. liked PETA and other such organizations advozating for "Animal welfare" reform for a while in the beginning of being a vegan until I understood how their work (at large, I am not talking about every single action) is counterproductive and doesn't benefit the animals.
Some more good articles that show how counterproductive "Animal welfare" reform is:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-very-new-approach-or-just-more-new-welfarism/#.UXeGqMrSlI0
http://gentleworld.org/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform/

Note 1. See. e.g. this "Animal welfare"-legislation from 1966.

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

Citat om människors och alla djurens rättigheter; Quote about humans and other animal's rights

Definitivt tillämpbart på djurens rättigheter
“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid….You refuse to do it because you want to live longer…..You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand. Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.

----Veganism, abolitionist approach

"I am a vegan because after much learning and thought about the issue, I have come to see enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing an animal as morally equivalent to enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing a child. The only difference is one is socially acceptable and the other is socially unacceptable That may sound shocking or "extreme" to some people, but it is only because we are so acculturated to devalue sentient nonhuman beings to the status of "things". What is truly extreme is the violence of intentionally killing 10 billion land animals annually in the US (about 56 billion annually globally) for unnecessary food preferences alone. Unless you consider nonviolence and justice to be "extreme", veganism is not extreme. ". ~ Dan C

Please go vegan. It's a first step to a nonviolent life. Vegans do not use animals for food, clothing, entertainment or other reasons. If you are not vegan, please start here
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/becoming-vegan/

Understand this about ethical abolitionist veganism... It is NOT a "fanatical" philosophy:

"It is no more “absolutist” or “fanatical” to be a consistent vegan as it is to be consistent in one’s rejection of rape or pedophilia. Indeed, to characterize consistent veganism as “absolutist” is itself speciesist precisely because we would not so characterize our complete rejection of fundamental forms of human exploitation." ~ Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

 

Non-violence

"Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." — Mahatma Gandhi

Religion

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

 

Animals

Hippocrates' quote: "The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body of each is different."

Charity / way of living`/capitalism

Manchester Abolitionist Vegan Society 
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.”

~ Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Economy (Chapter 1-E)

 

Meditation, care for others

If you can’t stand beside a friendless man
your meditation is nothing.
If you can’t listen to pain and terror then
your meditation is nothing.
If you can’t befriend the insane and share from their bowl
your meditation is nothing.
If you cannot take the gun gently from the hand of the murderer
and embrace him in his horror then your meditation is nothing.
If you cannot see the beauty and life in the one without limbs then
your meditation is nothing.
If you cannot sit beside the aged in their loneliness then
your meditation is nothing.
If you can’t embrace your own pain and shout “Yes!” to Life then
your meditation is nothing.

If you can surrender all that you are, all that you have,
if you can embrace life without wanting it or wanting to change it,
if you can hear the sounds of pain and joy and know they come from the same source,
if you can sit in the fire, rain, snow, sun and in surrender open your heart
to the purity of love then
your meditation is the supreme gift of the Manu Pearl, the light of the Pure Land.

If you can meditate the Nothing knowing your meditation is nothing then
all serenity and bliss radiates like perfume from the Lotus.
Nothing and all are one in Joy.

Zhi Sheng January 2013 

PETA promotes 'happy exploitation' and kill animals at animal shelters

More about PETA:
PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;

PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;

PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;

PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;

PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”

To say that this does not constitute support for “happy” or “humane” exploitation is simply not correct.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UVHlTFcWngM

Interesting essay:
http://www.thepointmag.com/2012/philosophy/killing-animals

Animal shelters:


What some different people write
(I don't agree on killing any kind of being regardless of his/her health. We have no right to decide on the life of others, and if others want to live or not, regardless of how sick they are.)

• Sue Stricker That is an extremely disturbing fact, considering what they claim to be booooooo

  Sunday at 11:55pm via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  Danielle Bate how can it actually be that only 19 animals are adopted out though??? That ratio is just not right, 1600 euthanized and 19 adopted...so that many of them could not be adopted out??

  Sunday at 11:55pm · Like · 1
• 

  Mary E Drayer Stanko, PETA also kills healthy dogs and cats, and they have been doing so for years. In addition, they oppose lifesaving TNR programs for feral cats, instead advocating for them to be killed. I think PETA has done and continues to do some good work, but this is beyond the pale. And so is the video. It was hard to concentrate on the issue of homeless cats and dogs with porn on the other side of the screen. Porn may get attention, as Bruce says, but this kind of attention trivializes *all* animal issues and turns animal advocacy into a big joke. Not to mention how bad it makes women look.

  Yesterday at 12:05am · Like · 6
• 

  Mary E Drayer This doesn't have anything to do with CCF or the meat industry.

  Yesterday at 12:09am · Like · 1
• 

  Luis David Rojas We'll all go vegan one day... when it's too late.

  Yesterday at 12:13am · Like · 4
• 

  Goth Victorian

  Yesterday at 12:23am · Like
• 

  Mary E Drayer Stanko, that I disagree with an organization's policies or campaigns does not mean I think they are twisted and creepy. I never said that. In fact, I said they did some good work. I don't have an issue with euthanasia for truly ill and suffering animals. But PETA also kills healthy animals, including feral cats. I worked there briefly in the early 90s and learned firsthand that they kill healthy animals. It's common knowledge to anyone who has ever worked there. Last year, PETA fought against legislation in my state that would have clarified the legality of TNR programs, programs that work to reduce the homeless cat population through high-volume spay/neuter. If you want, I will send you a copy of the letter PETA sent the mayor of my city discouraging him from implementing a TNR program and

• nstead suggesting trap and remove, "even if a quick and painless end is the best that can be offered."

  Yesterday at 1:33am · Edited · Like · 5
• 

  Vanessa Garic PETA is horrible and that spokesperson is a liar!!!!

  Yesterday at 12:27am via mobile · Like
• 

  Vanessa Garic I agree Gary That this is sad on many levels!

  Yesterday at 12:27am via mobile · Like · 2
• 

  Adam Hevenor I don't see the controversy. I think the PETA spokesperson explained the entire situation very clearly to the "News Woman" or whatever you call her. If people are bringing in animals to PETA to be euthanized because the animals are sick/old/dying, then I think PETA should probably euthanize them, regardless of how bad this might make them look.

  Yesterday at 12:40am via mobile · Like · 2
• 

  Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights If people want to have a serious discussion about this issue, that's great. But if we're just going to hear that anyone who questions PETA is supporting the Center for Consumer Freedom or that PETA has to kill these animals because they are all in agony and require euthanasia as the only morally acceptable solution, that's not great. This RT clip also raises legitimate questions about PETA's sexism. If you don't think that there are some important moral issues here, I disagree. In any event, this has been an issue with PETA since the early 1990s. I suggest you read this essay that I wrote and that was published recently: http://www.thepointmag.com/2012/philosophy/killing-animals
  

  On Killing Animals | The Point Magazine

  www.thepointmag.com
  

  A Journal of Ideas

  Yesterday at 12:43am · Like · 10
• 

  Vanessa Garic They kill healthy animals! Mary Drayer even worked for them and explains above. They are evil in my opinion. Read Gary's link above as well.

  Yesterday at 12:43am via mobile · Like · 1
• 

  Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights I am going to close the thread. I am not going to have people lecturing us all that this is a CCF conspiracy. Once again, some "animal people" demonstrate that a serious discussion is not possible. I am shutting the thread. No more comments.

------
A comment I wrote in a thread about approaches in fighting for the animals:
No one is perfect. We all hopefully are trying our best to act in a loving and compassionate way and to educate in a good way, but it doesn't mean that all ways are equally good, some are even counter-productive.

It is nothing wrong to be clear about that all animal exploitation is wrong, and that one is participating in animal exploitation by not doing this.
I don't understand why some people in this thread are talking about bullying, since Abolitionist approach has nothing to do with bullying.
Abolitionist approach is a wonderful website encouraging many people to become vegans.
There is nothing wrong to show that there are counter-productive methods and ways, since there really are such a ways. And there are very many good arguments about this.
See e.g. this debate: Erik Marcus Debates Professor Francione on Abolition vs. Animal Welfare [ http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/audio/#.UVHxhFcWngM ]
And if we really want to know why there are concerns about single issue-campaigns, we can study this, before rejecting those whom are criticizing these campaigns and whom instead think we should dedicate all our efforts for vegan campaigns without a confusing message: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/commentary-16-responding-to-questions/#.UVHzsFcWngM
We are trying to fight the same fight for the animals but some people are sometimes/many times using methods that are not helping and that are counter-productive. There is no hate, only a willingness to help, to correct.

I would also like to recommend this wonderful and peaceful book: http://www.worldpeacediet.org/

Peace and love, Anders

-----
PeTA is murdering innocent animals. That´s a fact. Supporting PeTA you´re supporting a slaughterhouse.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=12153

This is PETA : Nathan J Winograd

www.nathanwinograd.comA supermarket dumpster full of garbage bags. When police officers looked inside, they found the animals below—animals killed by PETA. PETA described these animals as “adorable” and “perfect.” A veterinarian would describe them as “healthy” and “adoptable.”
-----------

So PETA uses a far-right-wing meat eater to argue against "ag gag" laws so that the public can rely on animal groups to expose cruelty on factory farms and ensure that the laws are upheld.

As if that makes one single bit of difference. Once again, an animal organization promotes the idea that the problem is abusive use and not all use. Once again, an animal organization makes the public feel better about consuming animal products that are "humanely" produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lt08xO5euoA
Quote Gary Francione

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

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Nia Duke: I am becoming increasing annoyed with this nonsense that anyone who is critical of PETA's kill policy is immediately accused of being in collusion with CCF, a pro-tobacco, pro-meat, right-wing lobbying group. The kill figures that CCF produces are from PETA's own reports to the Virginia authorities. So the fact that someone cites the CCF reports for those figures (although they should go directly to the reports) does not mean a damn thing.

The issue is *not* CCF. The issue is whether an animal organization that calls itself an "animal rights" organization should be killing healthy animals and engaging in a campaign to oppose no-kill and TNR.

And I am not defending Winograd. I do not even know him. Believe it or not, there were people talking about no-kill before Winograd arrived on the scene. And there are people talking about no-kill now who are not involved with Winograd. Derailing every discussion about no-kill with criticisms of Winograd is problematic in my view.

And I don't find it just a bit odd that "animal people" are so eager to defend the killing of animals, opposition to no-kill, and opposition to TNR. Frankly, I think anyone who supports PETA's actions and policies in this regard need to think more carefully about what animal personhood means. Unlike Winograd, I am not questioning the sincerity of the people at PETA. I do, however, believe very sincerely that they are very wrong on these issues, as well as on their promotion of sexism, Whole Foods "Animal Compassion" nonsense, Temple Grandin, etc.

3 hours ago · Like · 2

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Note to the several posters whose comments I deleted: If people want to defend PETA's killing animals, that's great. Do it on a page that does not find that to be unequivocally morally wrong. And spare me the BS that PETA isn't a "shelter." It's taking animals in. Period. Call it what you want.

In any event, the idea that there is an "animal movement" with hundreds of millions of dollars that whinges on and on about "saving animals" but that lets hundreds of thousands of shelter animals be killed every year is nothing short of obscene. I do not believe in the idea that if we kill an animal, we eliminate the chance of a bad adoption. That is, to me, the antithesis of animal rights and like it or not, it's my page. So if you want to defend killing, go to a page where it's welcomed because it isn't here.

And, for the last time, I am *not* questioning the sincerity of the PETA people or anyone else. I just believe that PETA is wrong here, just as I believe they are wrong in promoting sexism/misogyny, giving awards to Whole Foods and Temple Grandin, and engaging in joint campaigns with fast food chains to supposedly make exploitation more "humane."

Let's be clear, when PETA praises McDonald’s as "'leading the way' in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry” what sort of message do you think that that says to the public? Do you have *****any***** doubt that it encourages the public to feel more comfortable about consuming animals?

These are rhetorical questions. If you have any doubt, then you have drunk the kool-aid and I won't bother to interrupt your trip.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Virginia Roulakis Faubel: Hospice? End of life euthanasia? What are you talking about? Do you buy into this nonsense that these are all terminally ill animals? If so, you are misguided, Virginia. First, there are people on this page who have worked at PETA and who attest that it's not just terminally ill animals who are killed. Second, the killing of healthy animals has been a PETA issue for a long while now. It's not a recent thing. Do some research. You'll learn about Aspen Hill, where healthy rabbits and roosters were killed in the early 1990s. This "we're only killing animals who can't be saved" line is a crock.

Linda McKenzie Gary, you say that you believe that Ingrid Newkirk and PETA are sincere in believing that the animals they take in, and those in other shelters, are better off dead and I have no reason to doubt you on that. Can anyone explain to me how *anyone* can think that not just terminally ill animals, but healthy, adoptable animals are better off dead? I've just read--can't remember where now--that the justification is that it prevents the possibility of a bad adoption. But if we took that attitude regarding humans, we might as well all commit suicide now, given that a barrel of roses is hardly likely for any of us as our future and the present isn't all that crash hot for some of either Nevertheless, most of us prefer to go on living.

So I see that a simple answer is "speciesism", but I still have trouble getting my head around it.

Linda,

I can definitely sympathise with the view that life is so full of suffering that it is better not to procreate. But despite the huge doses of suffering, nearly all living beings find life worth living enough to want to go on living and to desperately resist anything that puts an end to their lives. So the notion of sparing animals all suffering by killing them may be well intentioned but is disturbing, to say the least.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights I support TNR. Period. I have myself participated in TNR programs and I have seem how TNR works. If any of you has a problem with TNR, it's your problem. And frankly, the sycophantic way that some people defend PETA irrespective of what they do--whether it's killing 95% of the animals it takes in, opposing TNR, trivializing an important issue of social justice by constantly using sexist and misogynistic imagery, or giving awards to "happy" meat peddlers like Whole Foods or to slaughterhouse queen Temple Grandin--makes me completely disgusted.

15 hours ago · Unlike · 13

----
Quote I like: "I believe one of the key concepts is whether we think death is a harm to nonhuman animals (ie, is it better for a stray animal to be killed than risk suffering and/or homelessness).
Professor Francione's work (as opposed to Singer's work for example) is based on the idea that death is a harm to nonhuman animals. Each nonhuman animal values her/his life, and we have no right to take her/his life from her/him. With that said, due to the inherent problems of domestication, if nonhuman animals have been born (which in the case of stray cats, they have), we have a moral obligation to adopt/foster them, spay/neuter them to discontinue the perpetuation of domestication and its inherent problems, and by all means not kill them.
To me, the idea of killing homeless animals is speciesist under the guise of "caring" and irresponsible because it denies the fact that humans are the ones who domesticated them in the first place. We wouldn't dream, at least I hope we wouldn't dream, of killing homeless children who are here by no fault of their own. So, to the extent we would consider killing homeless animals, we are speciesist and irresponsible."
Quote: Sarah Woodcock
 https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach?fref=ts