My non-vegan past of exploiting animals

In my past, before I started to live as a vegan, I could eat a piece of meat and thus ignore the suffering, exploitation of death of the nonhuman victims.

I could drink a glass of milk, and thus ignore/be unaware of that I destroyed a family of cows, that I tore a calf away from her mother, and that the male calves and milk cows (when their productive declined) eventually ended up on the slaughter house.
In my past I could kill a mosquito and thus ignore/be unaware of that I killed a living sentient being.

I could catch a fish in the ocean, ignore/be unaware of the enormous suffering that I was causing, and that I was taking the life of a sentient being with an interest of living.

I could eat an egg and not caring/be unaware of that chickens were exploited, bred to be our resources, their families were destroyed, their male chicks were killed, and they ended up on the slaughter house when their productivity declined.
In my past I could wear leather and ignore/be unaware of that this leather came from a sentient cow, that was exploited to become my shoes and my wallet. I could wear wool and ignore/be unaware of that the sheep used for wool was exploited for this purpose and eventually killed.

I could visit a zoo and not caring/be unaware of that this was a prison of sentient beings, with an interest of freedom, being exploited for entertainment, and that many of the animals in the zoo were killed to be replaced by other animals – all for the sake of our entertainment.
In my past I could attend a circus ignoring/be unaware of that these animals were exploited for my entertainment, that their lives were control and freedom ignored.

I could buy a dog from a breeder, disregarding the interests of the animals, and paying for her to be ripped away from her precious mother and family; and paying for that animals should be breed up to a live that would be unnatural to them, where the are to a large extent controlled/limited by their owner (e.g. what to eat, when and where to go out, etc.).
In my past I could justify vivisection and claim that our lives are more valuable than theirs, exploiting and shortening the lives of other animals so that humans should find cures to live longer.

I could use and exploit animals in various other ways, treating them as my resources/property and ignoring their interests, instead of respecting them as sentient beings and respecting their interests.
Then I woke up. I became aware. I decided that I don’t want to be a part of exploiting, harming and killing sentient beings. I realized that I have to leave behind my egoistic and self-centered ego that could justify exploiting animals for convenience, pleasure, tradition or justifying it with other various excuses; and I decided to live a life of nonviolence and justice. I decided to stop victimizing and bullying other animals. I rejected speciesism and chose to be vegan.
Now I realize how many lives I have murdered, how many families that I have destroyed, how many animals that I have exploited and harmed. I am truly and sincerely sorry and regretful for all of the harm that I have caused others.

Zoos - it is wrong to use animals for 'education' or 'entertainment'

I want your feedback and help to improve this text that I wrote to comment on a thread in an event promoting an aquarium:

Animals are sentient beings. They have the right not to be exploited, not to be killed, not to get their family torn away from them, and it is morally wrong for anyone of us to disregard their interests.

Breeding up an animal for entertainment or "education" is neglecting their fundamental interests, such as their interest of freedom. It is also neglecting their fundamental interest of not being bred up to be property under the law [1], which gives the owner of the animal the opportunity and often the right to kill and exploit him/her for any reason. This is also frequently done in aquariums, zoos, and other institutions of animal use where "domesticated animals" are killed for any reason, including being exploited to become food for another imprisoned and exploited animal. Many animals are killed in zoos when the owners of the zoo decides that the animal should be replaced by another animal for "education" or "entertainment".

If we care about animals, we don't use them as property, and we don't exploit them for entertainment, education, pleasure, convenience, tradition, or any other reason.
This includes that we eat and thrive on a healthy plantbased diet without any animal foods, don't use animals as clothes, for entertainment, for companionsip, or any other purpose. For more information I refer to www.vegankit.com and https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems

1. http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/

Only veganism help animals.

Some people get frustrated when I point out that veganism is the only way to help animals. There will always be someone who says they *could* kill an animal. It's not my right to give you that permission to go ahead then if you can. It's not my right to say that others should be given more straw, one more hour of daylight or a dirty cramped barn instead of a cage when the freedom they crave is not the result. They are still used, abused, exploited and murdered. It's not my right to say that one death is more preferable over another, how do I know that when I haven't gone through it?


It's not my right, speaking only through arrogance and ego, that I deem one animal more worthy due to perceived intellect, only measured with my own.

It shouldn't be anyone's right to do or suggest such things. It doesn't affect *me* and it doesn't affect *you* so of course it's easy to say it's OK and give your permission. *We* don't come into it.
It's not our right, but it should be the animals right. Listen to them.
Let them be free by being vegan.
www.vegankit.com
www.humanemyth.org

Quote from: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000066596384&fref=ts

Why is animal use is increasing?

Good status from a friend:
"With veganism being entirely beneficial to animals, people, and the environment, why does it seem like animal use is increasing?

In answer to that, I'd like to share what I have been learning:

When we demonstrate for single animal issues, the loud and clear message we give and reinforce is that some animal uses are OK (just not the one we are demonstrating about) and that some species of animals are more worthwhile than others.
I've also been learning that when we support welfare actions, we are totally reinforcing and giving our “OK” to the belief that using animals, as long they appear to be getting treated “humanely”, is fine.
It does not matter that neither of these outcomes are our intent; they are what is perceived regardless, and that is all that matters. Supporting these actions gives the green light to consume animals and animal products as long as they can somehow be viewed as “humane.”
It's time to promote veganism only if we want to see change. It's time to spread the unequivocal message that all animal exploitation needs to end. Welfare actions have been taking place for a couple hundred years, and like it was noted in the question, animal use seems to be increasing. Time for a new approach. Promote veganism only and require it as the moral baseline or society, in general, will continue to not take justice and equality for nonhuman animals seriously."
Written by Rhonda A.

More to read:

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Why I don't sign petitions against dog meat in China

By Jonathan Hughes:Urgh. Woke up to find an invite to sign a petition asking the Chinese Government (via Barack Obama and José Barroso) to stop the slaughter of dogs in China for meat. Suffice to say, it's not a petition I will be signing, nor endorsing. A personal point of note since I live with two cats and love them dearly… if this was about cats, I still wouldn't sign. Here's why:

1) It's speciesist. Clearly. If this needs spelling out - it's just about dogs. No mention of the way any other animals are killed (for food or any other use) – they *may* also be skinned alive and treated terribly. But this petition *only* cares about the dogs. Speciesism is everywhere and is pervasive – setting up one animal to be more worthy of saving than others deflects attention away from the countless billions of 'less worthy' species. The actual text of this petition includes the following: 'The DOG is always considered, by all civilizations, man's best friend and it never hesitated to sacrifice its life for men.'
Speciesism in a sentence, right there (and and an unhealthy dose of misogyny/sexism and turning dogs into an object/non-person with 'it'). The creation of petitions like this just furthers the idea that 'some lives matter more than others'. I do not subscribe to the view that *any* awareness of animal suffering is a good thing. Quite the contrary – this just says that dogs suffer and will do nothing for a reduction in non-human suffering…. see point 2.

2) Let's say it works – let's just pretend for one moment that this will actually work – what then? Will the Chinese dog-eaters switch to Tofu instead? Or, is it more likely that they will eat pigs, chickens, cats, sheep etc instead? How is that a win? Great for the dogs but no good for any other non-human. Net suffering remains the same – the slaughter is just moved to another species and if we see ALL sentient beings as equally morally important, how can this ever be considered a win? It simply can't. Pushing slaughter from one species to another isn't a win. It's a step nowhere.

3) It's xenophobic. Clearly. Why ask 'Race X' to stop eating 'Species Y'? How is 'Race X' any different to every other race in the world? Over a trillion animals are slaughtered every year – EVERY race is involved in this. Why single out one? Because they are 'worse'? Tell that to every fish that dies gasping for breath on board a boat deck.

4) There is no mention of veganism - no mention at all. There's no mention of reduced consumption of animal products at all - just an urge to not use dogs. Non-human suffering will not (effectively) end without veganism. More vegans = less animal suffering. How about we try and create vegans instead?

PLEASE just take a step back and *think* about what you sign.

There are numerous other reasons why I won't sign a petition like this...
Find out more here:
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns/

Refuting 'Boycott veganism'-article

I wrote an article called 'Boycott veganism'.
Much of its reasoning applies to the "Animal welfare"-movement (PETA, "Mercy for Animals, et. al) and not to the Abolitionist movement, including grassroots organizations, such as http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety

The author relies on a faulty definition of veganism.
And yes modern agriculture exploits animals (both non-ecological and ecological) and harms the environment, so vegans should work towards growing their food using vegan permaculture: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html


----
Reply by Jan Vilse. I don't agree with everything:

1) "AR only begins with your diet"
-this is the same position as to say that veganism is the moral baseline. So I agree

2) "vegan choices don't have that much effect on supply"
-the author is probably right for individual choices, but sounds way too cynical for the aggregate effect.
-and it doesn't matter anyway: there's no way in hell to stop animals from being bred and exploited, apart from people not buying their products. that's just a fact. so even if small shifts in consumption will be swallowed up in production, there is a threshold after which they will make a significant impact. And whether that threshold is at a 100 more vegans or 1000 more vegans or 1000 000 more vegans, the moral obligation of veganism and vegan advocacy remains the same
-most important point: the point of veganism should be less about consumer influence and more about **the social effect** (the author acknowledges this point and examines it later on)

3) "animals aren't really saved"
-agreed. nothing new about this. we are avoiding violence, not saving animals.

4) the author talks about how even a person whose life is full of suffering has dignity and that we deny this dignity by saying it's better that person doesn't come into existence
-disagree. I do not think we have ***any obligations whatsoever*** to bring purely potential beings into existence. even without subscribing to anti-natalism, it is clear that if there are significant problems involved -- like if we bring a being into existence for the sole purpose of exploiting him/her -- we ethically should not do so

5) "animals are killed for vegan products as well"
-agreed, but heard a million times. there will be no method the author will be able to present that will avoid our participation in violence. such participation is inherent to our society.

Solution. Vegan permaculture: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html

6) "veganism is presented tacitly as about human choice, not non-human interests"
-this is not a bad point. however: the largest obstacle for animal issues is probably how far people distance their own choices from the reality of animal agriculture. so we **do** need to emphasize "human choice" because people have forgotten their moral responsibilities. However, I agree that "stop killing animals" might be a better message sometimes than "go vegan" -- but I think the former implies more lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, so it should be "don't exploit animals" or whatever

7) "veganism becomes its own thing, isolated from its original ethical reasons"
-true that. I have often maintained that questions like "are circuses vegan?" are misleading and should be framed in terms of animal rights, violence and exploitation
-however, I don't think telling people "go vegan" condemns them to isolate veganism from its larger philosophical context. It merely gives them a practical prescription for taking the first step that will allow them to explore that context.

8) "veganism has been dispersed into different versions, some of which are mere dietary veganism"
-this is true, and a serious problem. American culture seems particularly bad in this usage ("Bill Clinton is vegan")
-but on the other hand, there is also the risk that if we tell people to just "oppose animal killing" or whatever, they will each have their personal interpretations about the degree of such opposition. By contrast, 'veganism' -- even when merely dietary -- still specifies what kind of products you are not to use.
-in short, the link between AR and what concrete choices you have to make is not obvious to people. rather than reject the label 'vegan', I think we should remember to connect the ethics with the practice: to talk about "ethical veganism" or "abolitionist veganism" or whatever

9) "veganism doesn't build community because it is a really large ceiling for a bunch of people with different motivations"
-true, but: see above -- we need to connect veganism with ethics better.

10) "people talk about compassion rather than justice"
-agreed that this is a problem

11) "vegans should show their ethical conviction in social interaction as well"
-I think this is the best point of the whole article, and a difficult question.
-refusing to attend family gatherings, refusing to go to a restaurant with colleagues, or constantly speaking up or protesting in those situations, seems like a double-edged sword. Vegans are such a small minority that those actions are likely to just ostracize us even more and confirm people's stereotype of vegans as confrontational weirdos.
-at the same time, as the author suggests, maybe vegans aren't taken seriously because their own actions do not do justice to the seriousness of the animal issue.
-to me it seems some kind of compromise is needed. perhaps we need to reach a larger base of animal people before we are able to wield the tool of strong social opposition effectively.
-while at the same time presenting the lifestyle of veganism itself as easy, and vegans as easy to approach, friendly etc., we could still use other means to make it clear that we take the issue seriously: how we talk about animals, how we talk about animal use, how we refer to our own foods ("mock duck"), etc. But I dunno -- (vegan) food for thought regardless.

12) "presenting an alternative is a bad tactic, similar to colonization as an alternative to slavery"
-ultimately, veganism does not offer a clear alternative, as it is defined **negatively**. To be vegan means to **not use animal products**. You could eat cardboard rather than plants, and you would still be vegan. In our society, however, given that we don't have synthetic foods like in Star Trek, we do need to eat something. And that something is going to be plants. While plant agriculture harms animals, I do not think this alternative is at all comparable to colonizing black people. People do need to eat something, whereas people do not have a need to colonize.
-in short: I'm pretty sure no social justice movement has succeeded by telling people not to eat anything, or to participate in society at all. So the "alternative" of veganism is actually a *necessity*.

13) "consumer influence is only a tertiary consideration in social justice movements"
-I don't think this is a good point, and I doubt the historical analogues work so well here. regardless: there is a difference between eating dairy on the one hand, and buying slave-produced cotton on the other: the former is directly connected to the animal, objectifying the animal. This adds a further ethical and cultural dimension to the consumer aspect: eating and wearing animals is objectifying them in a very immediate sense. So of course we need to make that aspect of consumer choice integral to the animal rights message

---

All in all, I don't think "boycotting veganism" is the answer, but a) connecting veganism strongly with ethics b) expanding the AR ethic into how we speak, how we act, how we interact with other people etc.

To me, getting rid of the notion of veganism would just leave people with these vague notions of "opposing violence" which, I think, would quickly be reduced to vague welfarist notions where it is enough to say that you disagree with how animals are treated without actually doing anything about it in your own life.

In short, I think veganism provides the necessary link between thought and action.

Vegan Outreach sell out the animals

Some good comments about Vegan Outreach selling out the animals.
This is exactly why TAVS is vital to the animal rights movement. TAVS has never and will never sell out *any* animal interests.

Inside a “Vegan” Outreach leaflet-
"The objective is to reduce suffering, not to attain personal purity or perfection"

"Years of eating less meat and eggs will prevent more suffering than a brief stint on a vegan diet, so it’s more important to take an approach you can sustain. If you make exceptions, such as eating meat on certain occasions, you’ll still make a big difference by eating vegetarian the rest of the time." Chris P

John Griffith This is what results from adopting a utilitarian ethic in advocacy work. We hear many vegans echoing this same line. Please, please, please, educate yourself, and reject utilitarianism. Abolition requires a rights-centric approach. Only a rights-centric approach will liberate the animals.

Jamison Scala My hearts breaking reading this. Lets promote animal exploitation and make people feel good about it. <If you make exceptions, such as eating meat on certain occasions, you'll still make a big difference by eating vegetarian the rest of the time.> If you make exceptions, such as raping women on certain occasions, you'll still make a big difference by not raping them everyday. Let's give people a moral pass so they can increase the donations and fuck the animals. I wrote a post about long term vegans yesterday and the common theme was the majority of vegans wished someone would have told them about veganism 
sooner.

Chris Palmieri The problem here is that it treats the use of nonhuman animals as a morally neutral act and treats abstaining from them as a morally positive act.

They treat it the same way we might treat charitable giving. Donating money to help folks in need is considered a moral positive, while simply not donating at all is morally neutral. You didn't hurt the folks in need but you didn't help them either.

The problem is this doesn't translate to nonhuman exploitation because using animals is a direct harm to them, a morally negative act. Veganism is a neutral act. It's the least we can do. Adoption/fostering and wildlife rehabilitation/protection could be considered moral positives.

What this in effect does is normalize animal exploitation.

Why vegans don't eat fish

Did you know this about the fish:

Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves".

"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”

Not that it should matter whether an animal is 'good-natured', curious, sensitive, have "a personality" as we define it, etc. in order for him/her not to be exploited.

More to learn
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/07/14/do-fish-feel-pain/

---
If you don't want to harm a sentient being with a desire not to be harmed.
If you don't want to kill a sentient being with a desire to live.
If you don't want to exploit a sentient being with an interest of living. Then, go vegan.

Is it right to disregard the fundamental rights of other sentient beings to satisfy our most trivial interest of pleasure or convenience?

If you answer 'No'. Then the only rational choice is to go vegan.

Halal slaughter vs. ordinary slaughter

"No slaughter is "humane." The most "humane" slaughter involves terrible fear, suffering, and distress. This is not to mention all of the suffering and distress that the animal endured at *whatever* farm the animal was born and raised, and in in the transport to the slaughterhouse. And no slaughter is just. It all involves taking the life of an innocent being for the sake of palate pleasure. "Humane" treatment is, as a practical matter, impossible. And all use is morally wrong. The problem is use and not treatment." -Gary Francione

I am sure you wouldn't justify harming and killing a dog or cat for palate pleasure or convenience. There is no difference between this and the animals that are hurt for meat, dairy products, eggs, etc. You can thrive and be healthy on a vegan diet. Eat like you care. Go vegan if you want to respect all animals.

Learn more at www.vegankit.com

Why and how I went vegan

I went vegan in October 2012 when I understood that it was wrong to consume animal foods. For most of my life I have been wanting to live an ethical life, I have just been very confused about what this entails... I was religious for a long while and in the autumn of 2012 I encountered some vegans in a religious group that I was invited to discussing veganism.. The arguments resonated in me. I didn't want to be a part of exploiting animals, so I went vegan. First I ditched meat and fish. Then I understood that there was exploitation involved in dairy and eggs, so I stopped consuming them. Then I understood that there was exploitation involved in honey, so I stopped with that. I also understood why it is wrong to kill animals for leather, etc.. And within some weeks I had stopped with all animal use.

About that time I also bought a dog.. Then I came in contact with Abolitionist veganism shortly after and understood that also breeding animals is exploiting animals..

How promoting animal welfare reforms leads to increased exploitation and profit for the industry

Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.

When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.

This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Yes, obviously an implementation of sprinklers in every building may save some lives. On the other hand promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimizing animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.

The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit. One example:

"In its Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. Electric Immobilization from an Economic Standpoint, PETA argues for the gassing, or “controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)” of poultry, claiming that the electric stunning method of slaughter “lowers product quality and yield” because birds suffer broken bones and the process results in contamination dangerous to human health. The electric stunning method also “increases labor costs” in various ways. PETA argues that “CAK increases product quality and yield” because broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging are supposedly eliminated, contamination is reduced, “shelf-life of meat” is increased, and “‘more tender breast meat’” is produced. PETA also claims that “CAK lowers labor costs” by reducing the need for certain inspections, reducing accidents, and lowering employee turnover. CAK provides “other economic benefits” to the poultry industry by allowing producers to save money on energy costs, and by reducing by-product waste and the need to use water."

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peta-and-kfc-no-differences-of-opinion-about-how-animals-should-be-treated/#.U1TY5FfzISM
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occurse when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.

So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reform, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation beause of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and make vegans. This grass roots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety

An equivalent to advocating Animal welfare reform would be to share a petition in Germany during the Nazi era, which admonisted the Nazis:
‘Can you please install sprinkler systems in the concentration camps, so that they won’t be any unnecessary fire, which will take the lives of your prisoners.’ instead of actually working towards stopping the exploitation of the the people in the concentration camps.'

It would have legitimized the exploitation of the people prisoned in the concentration camps, and wasting time that could be used to actually rescue people from getting into the concentration camps and to stop that very institution..

-------
"If I was a factory farm animal" I would want people to fight for my right not to have been born in the first place. The only reason these animals are farmed (and I make no distinction between factory farming and any other type of farming - they're all equally abhorrent) is because consumers demand their flesh to eat. Persuading people that it's ok to eat animals reared under certain so-called *humane* conditions is never going to turn them vegan. They will continue to happily fork out a little bit more money for dead flesh that salves their consciences. Indefinitely. The only winners are the farmers who will rake in a lot more money with neglible extra outlay. I know of people who have gone from being vegetarian to eating meat again because they believe the *humane* propaganda. This is fact, not speculation.
Reduce the demand, and that will progressively reduce the numbers of animals in the system until eventually it stops."
Dee Weaver.

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens

PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens because that it is supposedly more "humane". I claim that promoting the gassing of chickens makes the public more comfortable about exploiting animals.
I don't want the public to exploit animals. Thus I am opposed to PETA promoting the gassing of chickens.

If the industry made a reform to change itself, which they would do without the involvment "animal rights"-organizations in order to increase their production efficiency, I wouldn't oppose this.
I am not opposing the reform I am opposing a supposedly "animal rights"-organization promoting the reform.

Obviously I would act exactly the same in an identical situation during the slavery era a couple of hundreds of years ago. I would advocate abolition and not reform.

"PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-principled-veganism-screw-the-principle/#.U1K7JVfzISM

Why all farming of animals involves unnecessary suffering and death

First of all even if you think that there may be such a thing as a moral and responsible "property owner", the mere status of animals being property will necessarily lead to that many animals are subjected to completely unnecessary suffering. Thus if you think that animals have a moral value, you can't justify animals being property under the law:

"When it comes to our moral and legal obligations to nonhuman animals, we suffer from “moral schizophrenia.” We claim to recognize that animals have morally significant interests in not suffering and that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. Although we have laws that purport to reflect these moral sentiments, the overwhelming portion of the pain, suffering, and death that we impose on animals cannot be regarded as necessary in any sense. Our moral schizophrenia is related to the status of animals as property, which means that, as a practical matter, animal suffering will be regarded as necessary whenever it benefits human property owners. If we really are to take animal interests seriously, we can no longer treat animals as human resources. This does not mean that we must give animals the rights that we accord to humans, or that we cannot choose human interests over animal interests in situations of genuine conflict. Rather, we must recognize that animals have one right--the right not to be treated as property, and we cannot create conflicts between human and animals by using animals in ways in which we would never use any humans. As long as animals are human property, the principle of equal consideration can never apply to them (just as it could not apply to slaves), and animals will necessarily remain as nothing more than things that possess no morally significant interests.
The theory presented applies to any animal that is sentient and does not require that animals have any additional cognitive characteristics.
"
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021...

Second of all,
Every sentient being has an interest in a continued existence. They appreciate their positive subjective experiences, and have an interest of experiencing more positive subjective experiences.
The question is whether your pleasure or convenience can justify taking this from a sentient being.

Third of all,
We know scientifically (and we know by many observations too) that animals are harmed when torn away from their families. This happens for ALL cows used for dairy, and it occurs when animals are slaughtered.
Can you justify this emotional suffering just to gain pleasure or convenience?

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

Follow up answer to a person I am discussing with:
Torah stipulates 8 days. There is lots of emotional suffering involved when you separate a mother from her baby after 8 days. Some people claim that there is more suffering involved, since they have made a much stronger bond after that time. Just one of the many instances when I think that Torah is proscribing people to do immoral acts.

2. I showed you that there is suffering involved in all farming regardless whether it is "kosher" or not. And it is completely unnecessary since we have no nutritional need for animal foods.

And you didn't comment on how you can justify depriving a sentient being of her interest of a continued existence.

3. The "Animals as property"-argument is valid. Human slaves couldn't get any real rights either as long as they were property. If you were willing to study the provided research by Prof. Gary Francione you would find out that this is true.

Animals suffer in the production of dairy products. Is this morally justifiable?

Feel free to discuss:
1.Do you believe it is wrong to harm and kill animals when there is no legitimate reason for you to do this? And that pleasure/convenience/tradition aren't legitimate reasons for harming animals?

2. Given that we have no nutritonal need for animal foods - can the following suffering and death that animals used for dairy products go through - be justified?:

"Female cows used for dairy get slaughtered for their flesh so continuing to consume dairy is arbitrary and means you are still directly supporting animal slaughter.

Male calves will not produce milk so they are worthless to the dairy industry so they are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and slaughtered for their flesh (veal). The dairy industry is the veal industry.

Female calves are removed from their mothers so they do not consume their mother’s milk and raised to become a cow used for dairy or slaughtered for their flesh."

More to learn here: http://www.abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/how-to-go-vegan/should-i-go-vegan-by-adopting-a-vegetarian-diet-first/#.UxtCGoWHh2g

“The very saddest sound in all my memory was burned into my awareness at age five on my uncle’s dairy farm in Wisconsin. A cow had given birth to a beautiful male calf…On the second day after birth, my uncle took the calf from the mother and placed him in the veal pen in the barn—only ten yards away, in plain view of his mother. The mother cow could see her infant, smell him, hear him, but could not touch him, comfort him, or nurse him. The heartrending bellows that she poured forth—minute after minute, hour after hour, for five long days—were excruciating to listen to. They are the most poignant and painful auditory memories I carry in my brain.” Michael Klaper, M.D.

Humans can live and thrive on a vegan diet: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html

3. Do you think any animal use can be justified? What animal use?

Please also provide your arguments.

Don’t let the animals suffer - go vegan

Do you believe it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals?
You will have a hard time finding any person who doesn’t agree with this statement. Are enjoyment, convenience, and tradition or habit good and legitimate reasons to harm animals? We oppose dog fights and bullfighting, and we oppose those who defend and participate in these activities because of that they enjoy them. We oppose people mistreating pets and don’t accept the excuse of convenience or lack of time. We understand that convenience isn’t a valid reason for killing an animal, with an interest of not being harmed and an interest of a continued existence.

We oppose these treatments of animals, but not the treatment of the more than 1000 billion of animals who are harmed and killed every year for meat (including fish), milk, eggs and other animal foods. Animals used for eggs and milk are killed at a young age when they are not productive enough for what they are used for.

Is the use of animals for food a good reason to harm and kill animals? Even extremely conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, acknowledge that we can live an optimally healthy life on a vegan diet [1]. Thus we have a choice when we are in the food store. We can choose to harm, use and kill animals in order to get nutrition through the consumption of meat, milk, eggs, honey and other animal foods; or we can buy and get our nutrition from vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other foods from the ground, i.e. a vegan diet.

And the taste of animal foods, or that it is more convenient to consume them, or that they are a natural/traditional part of human history are no legitimate reasons for harming animals; and our trivial reason of palate pleasure/convenience/social acceptance can’t justify us to take from the animals their fundamental and essential interest of continuing to live. Just like that we would never accept these excuses when applied to using animals in dog fights and bullfighting. Gary Francione and Anne Charleton give, in their book Eat like you Care, rational answers to 30 common excuses that we often use to defend our inconsistency and moral schizophrenia in our relation to the animals.

I decided to live according to my values and to stop being an active part of inflicting unnecessary harm and death on animals, one year ago; I stopped consuming and using animals and their products and became a vegan. And I recommend everyone to do the same choice – to eat and live according to your values, eat and live as animals matter morally, and eat and live without oppressing and being violent towards defenseless and vulnerable sentient beings.

Please share! Sharing is caring.

Footnotes:

1: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/humans-can-live-and-thrive-on-healthy.html ; 2.www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

Learn more here: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/ and http://www.vegankit.com/

Mc Donalds non-vegan vegetarian burger is no progress for the animals

"McDonald’s has announced a new non-vegan vegetarian wrap and some of the welfarist groups, such as Vegan Outreach, are declaring 'Progress for the animals!'."

 Please read this: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/enabling-animal-exploitation/#.UiDX_3pwncs
Some comments:
----

There is as much animal exploitation involved in Mc Donalds fish burger as there is in their lacto-vegetarian burger, as there is involved in their other non-vegan burgers.
I don't understand how anyone can think that any of these burgers is a step in the right direction.

---

The damage caused by Mc Donalds animal exploitation is about the same.

The damage caused by "Vegan" Outreach and other persons (e.g. those sharing "Vegan” Outreachs post) promoting animal exploitation-burgers, encouraging people who claim to love animals and who may actually be willing to go vegan if being presented the facts and that veganism is the moral baseline, to exploit animals by eating animal exploitation burgers is tremendous.

 

Gary once provided a brilliant analogy. He said just because a hunter becomes vegan after shooting an animal doesn't mean we should promote hunting as a means to produce the desired ends (veganism). Just because the interim for some people is vegetarianism does not mean we should promote it. It's foolish to promote a wrong in the hope that a right will eventuate.

 

 

 

--

Rune Kjær Rasmussen When I heard about calves being killed and their mothers mourning I became vegan instantly. That was the connection that made me quit being a lacto-vegetarian which was something I did not think much about being, and something that does not help anything anyways. I actually think a lot of people would go vegan when they hear what is going on. When they hear about the insanity of it all and suddenly feel the wrongness of it all.

I think the point of the article is that vegetarianism is a morally incoherent position regardless of who is promoting it. Selling more hamburgers is no different than selling a burger filled with dairy.

---

Rune Kjær Rasmussen I think it is indeed so black and white. The only reason McDonald's will offer a "vegetarian" meal is because they can see a demand for it. They want to make money. It is a business.

Rune Kjær Rasmussen To say it is progress for the animals is like saying gentler rapists is a progress for rapist victims. Pure nonsense to make consumers feel good about continuing to exploit and the animal killing business make more money. As so often before. Sadly many vegans contribute to this and applaud such marketing stunts as progress too.