Visar inlägg med etikett animal welfare. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett animal welfare. Visa alla inlägg

söndag 18 maj 2014

Nonviolent vegan protest against animal exploitation of Mc Donalds and other restaurants/stores?

How about a nonviolent protest against all animal exploitation inside or outside of any non-vegan food store or food restaurant? Not a single issue campaign-protest, but a protest that shows that all animal exploitation for food, clothing and other purposes is wrong. No a campaign that e.g. focuses on fur, and confuses people to think that there is a moral distinction between fur and other animal use.

I don't agree with everything that this author writes, but he has many good points: http://www.veganpublishers.com/wayne-hsiung-the-evolution-of-veganism-is-empowered-activism-the-next-stage/


Based on what I read in that article and other thoughts, I wrote this:
We could stand with signs depicting images of certain animals, and saying e.g.: ‘This animal wanted to live but was killed to be used for meat. We have no nutritional need for meat and other animal foods, and it all involves unnecessary suffering and death. Go vegan!”

 Another sign: “This animal wanted to live and be with her family. This animal was used for dairy and got slaughter when she was 5 years old. Each year they forcefully made her pregnant, and when her baby was born she was ripped away from her within a week. She mourned immensely, just like any mother would by losing her baby. Her male babies was slaughtered when they younger than 6 months for veal, or 18 months year old to become meat.” In parallel we could hand out Abolitionist vegan fliers to people passing by.

The benefits of these campaigns are many:
-Raising awareness, making people opt out of animal exploitation and go vegan (including choosing not to buy their animal foods-product at the store/restaurant).
-Creating media coverage and visibility among the public. Especially if you manage to get a movement of many vegans that do this outside of many different stores in parallel.
-Getting and inspiring vegans to do vegan education wherever they are. Creating a movement of vegans how arrange vegan stalls and protests outside of stores/restaurants, etc., serving products of animal exploitation.
-Getting vegans to come in contact with us and learn more about Abolitionist veganism.
-Showing vegans involved in SIC’s, that you can do demonstrations and protests, create awareness and make people go vegan without engaging in SIC’s.
-Educating vegans about the difference between a SIC-protest and an Abolitionist vegan protest.
Some things that “Direction Action everywhere” do are a bit misguided, but we could learn from the good they are doing. They are very effective and reaching many through what they are doing, e.g. their protest against all animal food, including attacking them for serving “humane animal foods”, directed towards ‘Chipotle’.
-" strong, confident, and inspirational social movement that can resist social erosion and corporate influence to create real and permanent change. In short, we need to start being assertive"


Of course we can also arrange vegan stalls; but protests are also good and seem to in many instances get some more coverage and reaching some more people. E.g. there were not that many people who noticed the stall I had on a street with lots of traffic in Oslo.


Pauline Wooding I totally agree with you, Anders. Excellent post. I think this is what is needed now. It will make people stop in their tracks and break out of their comfortable complacency - even if just for a few minutes. I've been thinking that this is more the way to go, with activism needing to be a bit more visible than it is. A few people simply declining to consume animal products feels passive and not making sufficient impact. I agree that it could be a protest outside any outlet that sells animal products (peaceful, of course), as they'e all as bad as each other.

---

Thank you for the chance to have this interesting discussion, Anders. 

Smara AnAnimal:
I like and agree with your points above. Not sure if “offense” is the right word though.
“According to historian Paul Goodman, the antislavery movement grew by 45950% (not a typo)
in half a decade after William Lloyd Garrison shifted the rhetoric of the movement away from reaction to assertion.”
Assertion is a better and more appropriate word, I think. From looking up the definition of “offense” it is usually connected with violence. Whether an unequivocal, peaceful, and just for all vegan message can cause offence to nonvegans is of course irrelevant.

I think that a peaceful, non-invasive, well thought of and planned, vegan-antispeciesist, non-SIC, non-obsessive, non-ridiculous, non-brainless and non-speciesist/non-sexist/non-racist etc. demonstration can have positive results--along with the ‘traditional’ (which can be very original nevertheless) vegan education of course. However, the ones I have seen so far suffer either from not being really peaceful or not vegan-antispeciesist, or from the lack of one or more ‘nons’ from the ones I mentioned here. 


----
Another post by Smara:
 I think the demo in the picture of the link you gave looks wrong for many reasons.
1. It looks hostile, like “we won’t let you pass until you squeeze between us, because we dislike you so much and want to make your life difficult”.
2. No one
will sit in front of those people the way they have arranged themselves to be able to read the signs and see the pictures.
3. They imply that the problem is Chipotle and not the public who consumes the animals and their products.
4. It is a SIC about farmed animals, and if I see well it is mostly about the use of their flesh.
5. They don’t allow dialogue with the public, and they don’t seem to have anything for them to give them to take home.
6. They don’t give a vegan and anti-speciesist message about that all nonhuman animal use is wrong.
7. They are unoriginal and uninspiring.



Learn more: 

fredag 21 juni 2013

Problems with 'Animal welfare'-movement that says you can exploit animals


I don't understand what you are saying. It is our moral responsibility to address everyone that is enslaving, hurting and killing animals; just like it is our moral responsibility to address everyone that is enslaving, hurting and killing humans.

 

The 'Welfarism'-paradigm is a huge hurdle and obstacle for non-vegans to go vegans. Most people believe in 'Welfarism' and continue to eat all kind of animal products, despite that they don't like the treatment of the animals that they eat. The more we can weaken the 'Welfarism'-paradigm, the easier it will be for people to understand the necessity of veganism.

 

All non-vegans are participating in animal exploitation and contributing to perpetuating the property-status of animals, and thus enabling all animal abuse, including the murder of animals for food. I recommend these books and the podcasts on the same website: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/

lördag 8 juni 2013

Animal welfare reform and 'Will the Farm Bill Nullify Laws Against Animal Cruelty? '

My comment to an article:






This bill changes nothing for the animals though. They have the status of property, and whatever law reform that is made it is only in order to increase the production efficiency. The laws are not made to increase the animal welfare for the animals, other than if this increases the production efficiency.

The only thing that will change and is changing things for the nonhuman animals is people going vegan, cutting down the demand, and eventually causing an abolition of all animal slavery and exploitation when the vast majority of the population is vegan.
All of this ‘welfare laws’ do nothing to protect the animals, which are “property” and can be legally tortured and killed at the whim of their owners, and caused by the demand of the consumers of animal products. They only encourage “happy exploitation”, they encourage people to eat with a “happy consciousness”.

More information here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/#.UbMkYZz_FLM'

"As long as we think the issue is the treatment of animals, we will seek to make that treatment more “humane.” But because animals are property, that goal is unreachable as a practical matter. The treatment of animals will always constitute torture under the most “humane” circumstances. And the “treatment” (or welfarist) approach ignores that it is morally wrong to kill animals even if we treat them “humanely,” which we cannot do anyway. Welfare “reforms” not only fail to provide any significant protection for animals; such reforms actually make matters worse because they encourage the public to feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to continue to consume animals and animal products. The problem is use, not treatment. The goal is to abolish animal use, not to regulate treatment. The means to the goal? Go vegan and educate others about veganism."

------

"The bill would eliminate the minimal protections which exist for current and future factory farm animals on a national level."
I don't believe so.
Which 'protections' for animals do you think would be eliminated?
I don't see that there are any 'minimal protections', so I doubt that any protection could be eliminated.

And many people are comforted in their consumption of animal products, that they think that animals are 'protected by the law', when the fact is that the animals are not protected.
 Anyone in this world can buy, abuse and kill an animal in their home or at their farm.
Animals can't be protected as long as they are property; just like when human slavery was accepted in the society, slaves never had any real protection. [Good article covering this: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/clarifying-the-meaning-of-a-right/#.UbMxsZz_FLN ]
--------

I don't think it would make their conditions crueler, since I don't think that farmers, who want to earn money, would introduce a practice which they become increasingly aware of doesn't give them the most profit. It may happen in some instances. But otherwise, in these instances, even if there is a law, the same farmers can torture the animals in other legal ways, and can abuse them without anyone knowing that this takes place. Animals can’t get any real protection because of their property status.
And if we animal advocates are going to protest this legislation, it will have the side effect that the public gets more comfortable of their animal exploitation. We are implicitly sending the message that regulated animal exploitation is morally okay.
And you wrote about "battery cages". This was also one of this claimed victories, which wasn't a victory: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/replacing-one-cage-with-another/#.UbM4gpz_FLM
This is an interesting debate: 'Commentary #22: A Discussion on Abolition vs. Regulation with Robert Garner': http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/category/podcast/
Now I will soon go out on a long walk in the sun with my family. Have a wonderful day! :)

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

It is not at all given that the total amount of animal cruelty would increase if the bill went through.
It is not "active indifference" to recognize that promoting animal welfare regulation reform sends the implicit message to the consumer that regulated animal exploitation is morally acceptable; and to recognize that animals having the status of property are not protected by laws. This in turn makes it harder for people to recognize the necessity of veganism, since it reinforces the deep belief of our society that "happy exploitation" is morally acceptable.

Here are some thoughts that I agree with:

"
If we stop promoting welfare reform and just promote veganism, then the reforms will not happen and animals will be deprived of the benefits that they can receive now as we move towards veganism. What is your reply?"

My reply:

"... If you are interested in these issues, perhaps you should read some of that work and you can start with the essays and materials available on my website: www.abolitionistapproach.com. There are no "donate" buttons on the site so you might be confused at first and think it's not an animal site but do read on!

Second, you are assuming that animal welfare reforms provide significant welfare benefits. They don't for the most part. And most are phased in over a period of years anyway.

Third, most of these "reforms" actually increase production efficiency--they lower the costs of producing animal products--and would be adopted eventually by industry anyway in the ordinary course.

Fourth, you assume that welfare reforms will lead us toward veganism. Wrong. Welfare reforms make people more comfortable about continuing to consume animals. Consider the "happy" exploitation movement that is fast becoming the new "animal movement."

Fourth, if we had a significant vegan movement that promoted veganism as a moral baseline and did not promote welfare reforms, single-issue campaigns, "happy" exploitation, etc., industry would, as a matter of economic necessity, respond with welfare reforms and all sorts of measures that were designed to make the public continue to consume animal products.

That is, if we had a clear, strong, unequivocal vegan movement, industry would respond by making welfare reforms that would probably be more significant than than the welfare reforms now promoted by these large animal groups.

The most important difference would be that we would have a movement that stood for a clear and coherent moral message: if animals matter morally, we cannot eat, wear, or use them. Period.

That is, we would have an animal rights movement and not the pathetic partnership between "animal people" and institutional exploiters we have now.

To the extent that there are benefits from welfare reforms, they would not be lost; they would actually be increased as a reaction to a strong vegan movement that was no longer in complicity with industry and that actively, but nonviolently, promoted a vision of animal personhood.

Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University"

tisdag 7 maj 2013

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...


 

fredag 26 april 2013

PETA's and 'animal welfare-organizations undercover investigations are problematic

PETA does not advocate veganism as a moral baseline and also their undercovercover investigations are problematic:
"Using the Land-o-Lakes investigation as an example, we see that PETA’s blog report on the investigation emphasizes how important it is for Land-o-Lakes to “buy milk only from farms that meet our 12-point animal welfare plan, which would prevent much of the suffering we documented at this farm.” PETA’s 12-point animal welfare plan reads like an industry consultant’s quality control recommendations and refers to industry’s own standards and literature (e.g. Elanco Body Scoring Chart for Dairy Cattle and the American Veterinary Medical Association’s AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia). [1]
Does PETA suggest that people go vegan? No. The blog report states “For those of you who can’t stomach the thought of eating butter after watching that video, take a minute to tell Land-o-Lakes to implement our 12-point animal welfare plan. Then check out one of the many vegan butter alternatives that are widely available.”"

http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/petas-undercover-investigations-another-example-of-the-welfarist-business-cycle/

Learn more about the correct abolitionist approach here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
PETA's approach is counterproductive and supports 'happy exploitaiton'.

------
When animal organizations do undercover investigations, claim to have uncovered "animal cruelty," and celebrate when individual employees plead "GUILTY!," they imply to the public (99% of which consumes animal products), that there is animal use that is "cruel" and animal use that is not "cruel." They imply to the public that justice has been served when justice will never be served for animals until they are no longer exploited and killed.

Simply put, we must shift the paradigm from the idea there are individual acts of "animal cruelty" in the animal use industries that exploit and kill 110 billion animals per year to the idea the animal use industries themselves must end by removing the demand for animal products by creating vegans. The animal use industries are a monstrous conglomeration of billions of individual acts of "animal cruelty." And the problem is not the supply; the problem is the demand.
http://www.farmedanimalfriends.org/blog.html

söndag 21 april 2013

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

tisdag 26 mars 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
  • 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??
  • 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.
  • Mary E Drayer This doesn't have anything to do with CCF or the meat industry.
  • Luis David Rojas We'll all go vegan one day... when it's too late.
  • 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

------
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

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.
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