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.
Visar inlägg med etikett breeding. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett breeding. Visa alla inlägg
lördag 7 juni 2014
torsdag 15 maj 2014
PeTA kills healthy and adoptable animals
PETA transfers healthy and adoptable animals to a shelter that kills 82% of the animals: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552518/Animal-house-horrors-Investigation-reveals-PETA-killed-nearly-2-000-shelter-animals-2013-alone.html
rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/
(I am not support CCF just because they are mentioned in these articles. Facts are facts. I don't agree with all statements made in the article.)
That of course is morally acceptable. An "animal rights"-organization would take care of the animals with their budget, not send them to a shelter to be killed.
That would be like a human rights organization sending healthy and adoptable children to be killed because that there are millions of children on the street that are suffering and starving.
------
Just because that the facts were gathered by an immoral organization doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
In this video posted in 2010, Newkirk admits that PETA kills healthy/adoptable animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aStxlShqH5c
------
A person wrote:
" I provided the financials for you to do the math and let us know how they can support and care for 4 million dogs and cats each year. I'll help you out by saying it costs a minimum of $100.00 per animal to spay/neuter and vaccinate. Then we need shelter, food, employees and money for whatever other medical the animals will need each and every year and then we need money to do it all over again for the next 4 million. Let us know when you have the budget for us to look at."
Say we have an organization for homeless people. Supposedly they should exist to care for the homeless. But this organization selectively kills a great amount of homeless people.
Then some supporters of this organization come and say: There are tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets. What do you propose they should do? How can they take care of all these homeless people with their budget?
I didn’t say they should take care of all homeless people. I only said that they shouldn’t exploit, harm and kill the homeless people that they are supposed to help. Killing is never right. They have the budget to rescue each animal that they now kill (except for some exceptions that are terminally ill and want to die). This is what they should do.
Now PeTA are only promoting speciesism and the notion that animals don’t have any interest in a continued existence and can be used for our purposes. I don’t demand that PeTA should help every single animal. I demand that they should opt out of all animal exploitation, opt out of promoting “happy exploitation” and cooperating with industry to promote “animal welfare reform” =”animal exploitation reform”; and to cooperate with Whole Foods to promote “happy meat” and other “happy exploitation”.
More to learn: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/
-------
More moral problems with PeTA:
I absolutely agree with GF that the animal welfare groups are hindering progress. They often endorse humane meat (which as you said we all agree is wrong), and have huge conflicts of interest. You don't really have to look too hard to find them. This website details all these conflicts of interest, I hope you have a read. http://www.humanemyth.org/magicalthinking.htm
Let me give you a few example:
1) HSUS director sends pigs "raised like children" to slaughter. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1413.htm
2) Letter from 17 Animal Advocacy Organizations Endorsing Whole Foods' "Animal Compassionate" Standards http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1009.htm
3) Peta have sexist campaigns, and kill shelter animals after a year: http://rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/
rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/
(I am not support CCF just because they are mentioned in these articles. Facts are facts. I don't agree with all statements made in the article.)
That of course is morally acceptable. An "animal rights"-organization would take care of the animals with their budget, not send them to a shelter to be killed.
That would be like a human rights organization sending healthy and adoptable children to be killed because that there are millions of children on the street that are suffering and starving.
------
Just because that the facts were gathered by an immoral organization doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
In this video posted in 2010, Newkirk admits that PETA kills healthy/adoptable animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aStxlShqH5c
------
A person wrote:
" I provided the financials for you to do the math and let us know how they can support and care for 4 million dogs and cats each year. I'll help you out by saying it costs a minimum of $100.00 per animal to spay/neuter and vaccinate. Then we need shelter, food, employees and money for whatever other medical the animals will need each and every year and then we need money to do it all over again for the next 4 million. Let us know when you have the budget for us to look at."
Say we have an organization for homeless people. Supposedly they should exist to care for the homeless. But this organization selectively kills a great amount of homeless people.
Then some supporters of this organization come and say: There are tens of thousands of homeless people on the streets. What do you propose they should do? How can they take care of all these homeless people with their budget?
I didn’t say they should take care of all homeless people. I only said that they shouldn’t exploit, harm and kill the homeless people that they are supposed to help. Killing is never right. They have the budget to rescue each animal that they now kill (except for some exceptions that are terminally ill and want to die). This is what they should do.
Now PeTA are only promoting speciesism and the notion that animals don’t have any interest in a continued existence and can be used for our purposes. I don’t demand that PeTA should help every single animal. I demand that they should opt out of all animal exploitation, opt out of promoting “happy exploitation” and cooperating with industry to promote “animal welfare reform” =”animal exploitation reform”; and to cooperate with Whole Foods to promote “happy meat” and other “happy exploitation”.
More to learn: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism/
-------
More moral problems with PeTA:
I absolutely agree with GF that the animal welfare groups are hindering progress. They often endorse humane meat (which as you said we all agree is wrong), and have huge conflicts of interest. You don't really have to look too hard to find them. This website details all these conflicts of interest, I hope you have a read. http://www.humanemyth.org/magicalthinking.htm
Let me give you a few example:
1) HSUS director sends pigs "raised like children" to slaughter. http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1413.htm
2) Letter from 17 Animal Advocacy Organizations Endorsing Whole Foods' "Animal Compassionate" Standards http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1009.htm
3) Peta have sexist campaigns, and kill shelter animals after a year: http://rt.com/usa/peta-shelters-animals-killing-975/
Why we should rescue animals from animal shelters
Some persons say that we shouldn't adopt animals from animal shelters and claim that this legitimizes breeding.
We have 2 choices as vegans (now I am talking about each individual, since everyone isn't capable of adopting animals):
1. You choose to ignore the animals being killed at animal shelters. You look with a blind eye while they are being exploited. You look with a blind eye when the kill shelters are exploiting innocent animals. Blindly you look while they are killing the animals, while they are commiting moral atrocities.
You may even defend PeTA's killing of healhty animals. Vegans don't kill animals, but you still defend PeTA for commiting these moral atrocities.
2.You rescue an animal from an animal shelter. This animal wants to live and is happy to be rescued from the animal shelter.
These may have some negative consequences. This doesn't make the action in itself wrong. Some people who see you may think that you think it is a good idea with pets
(if you don't have the chance to talk with them). This doesn't make the action in itself wrong.
Of course number 2 is the best choices, since it considers the animal's interest of not being killed.
Legally under law this animal is your property. That of course is a moral problem. But, releasing the animal to the wild, would be a worse choice morally. Domestication is all wrong, but you are now doing
the best you can. You are choosing between 2 bad choices: 1. Releasing the animal to the wild. 2. In some ways controlling and limiting the freedom of the animal.
You choose the choice that will bring as little harm to the animal you adopted as possible.
We have 2 choices as vegans (now I am talking about each individual, since everyone isn't capable of adopting animals):
1. You choose to ignore the animals being killed at animal shelters. You look with a blind eye while they are being exploited. You look with a blind eye when the kill shelters are exploiting innocent animals. Blindly you look while they are killing the animals, while they are commiting moral atrocities.
You may even defend PeTA's killing of healhty animals. Vegans don't kill animals, but you still defend PeTA for commiting these moral atrocities.
2.You rescue an animal from an animal shelter. This animal wants to live and is happy to be rescued from the animal shelter.
These may have some negative consequences. This doesn't make the action in itself wrong. Some people who see you may think that you think it is a good idea with pets
(if you don't have the chance to talk with them). This doesn't make the action in itself wrong.
Of course number 2 is the best choices, since it considers the animal's interest of not being killed.
Legally under law this animal is your property. That of course is a moral problem. But, releasing the animal to the wild, would be a worse choice morally. Domestication is all wrong, but you are now doing
the best you can. You are choosing between 2 bad choices: 1. Releasing the animal to the wild. 2. In some ways controlling and limiting the freedom of the animal.
You choose the choice that will bring as little harm to the animal you adopted as possible.
Is advocating laws regulating the breeding of animals a good idea?
I don't believe in advocating speciesist legislation that reinforces Welfarism and the property status of animals and legitimizes animal slavery and exploitation.
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. They legitimize the exploitation of animals. The law that will be enforced is a law to protect 'commodities', not a law to safeguard persons.
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. As long as they are treated good and as long as their are laws regulating their "welfare", they can be killed when their owner think that they no longer need to take care of the animal. The focus becomes on the treatment of animals, instead of putting the focus on all use of animals. And nonvegan animal lovers think that they are helping the animals while they are consuming their dinner of animal foods, wearing their leather shoes and their wool sweater, and bringing their healthy pet to the animal shelter because of that they don't have time to take care of her. And since animals are property under the law, the animal welfare reforms don't offer any real protection – not in reality and seldom in court. You can't regulate what property owners should do with their property unless you can argue a speciesist interest of humans that necessitates property owners to treat their property in a certain way - e.g. not beating him/her in public.
More related articles:
http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html
------
A person wrote:
" We should just try to convince the back yard breeder of pit bulls that breeding is wrong and wait for him/her to be convinced that breedign is wrong while he contributes to dog fighting and dogs ending up in the shelters to be euthanized?" ??
We try to convince him and all of the rest of the speciesist nonvegan population that are equally responsible to these atrocities.
What else can you do other than education and resucing animals from animal shelters?
We don't have any legal power to arrest him or the nonvegan population for their atrocities.
--------------------------
"and adopting "property" from shelters does not legitimize the exploitation. "
No, it doesn't. You are showing that this isn't just "property" that can be disregarded on the "trash pile" by his/her property owner. You are showing that this is a sentient being with an inherent value.
PeTA on the other hand are showing by their murder of thousands animals, that these animals are just brrcks in some utilitarian game. They are promoting the classic Welfarist position that it is the "treatment" that is the problem, not animal use and killing.
--
Making a moral action may have potential side effects e.g. of what some people will perceive. When we meet people we should of course explain to them about veganism and about that it is wrong to domesticate animals.
So what should we do with all animals at the kill shelters? Just ignore them while they are being exploited? I claim that it is a moral obligation to rescue them.
Of course we should work for a non-speciesist vegan world where no animals are bred in parallel.
---------
-------------------------------------
"Banning breeding" of all pets is good. That is the same as prohibiting more animals to become slaves in animal slavery.
"Breed specific legislation" as you were talking about above is reinforcing the property status of animals. It legislates how we should treat "property". I refer to my post above (that I inserted to a blog post now): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/is-advocating-laws-regulating-breeding.html
-----
It is a total difference between rescuing slaves from being exploited and killed compared to enabling, legitimizing and legislating for a system that allows for slaves to be exploited and killed.
-----
As long as animals are property, you can't make any effective laws that prohibit their owners from killing them. It didn't work with the human slaves a couple of hundred of years ago. It will not work with the animal slaves either. Secondly, you are only legitimizing animal slavery by making reforms regulating it.
More to read (please read it): http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/
You are not going to help the animals if you don't understand the theory, because all your efforts of doing legislation will be contra-productive to what you are aiming for.
You need to shift the paradigm by education. When people are educated and a majority are non-speciesist vegans you can make legislation abolishing all animal use. Before people are educated, any legislation will only reinforce the property status of animals and will be contra-productive to what you are aiming for.
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. They legitimize the exploitation of animals. The law that will be enforced is a law to protect 'commodities', not a law to safeguard persons.
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. As long as they are treated good and as long as their are laws regulating their "welfare", they can be killed when their owner think that they no longer need to take care of the animal. The focus becomes on the treatment of animals, instead of putting the focus on all use of animals. And nonvegan animal lovers think that they are helping the animals while they are consuming their dinner of animal foods, wearing their leather shoes and their wool sweater, and bringing their healthy pet to the animal shelter because of that they don't have time to take care of her. And since animals are property under the law, the animal welfare reforms don't offer any real protection – not in reality and seldom in court. You can't regulate what property owners should do with their property unless you can argue a speciesist interest of humans that necessitates property owners to treat their property in a certain way - e.g. not beating him/her in public.
More related articles:
http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html
------
A person wrote:
" We should just try to convince the back yard breeder of pit bulls that breeding is wrong and wait for him/her to be convinced that breedign is wrong while he contributes to dog fighting and dogs ending up in the shelters to be euthanized?" ??
We try to convince him and all of the rest of the speciesist nonvegan population that are equally responsible to these atrocities.
What else can you do other than education and resucing animals from animal shelters?
We don't have any legal power to arrest him or the nonvegan population for their atrocities.
--------------------------
"and adopting "property" from shelters does not legitimize the exploitation. "
No, it doesn't. You are showing that this isn't just "property" that can be disregarded on the "trash pile" by his/her property owner. You are showing that this is a sentient being with an inherent value.
PeTA on the other hand are showing by their murder of thousands animals, that these animals are just brrcks in some utilitarian game. They are promoting the classic Welfarist position that it is the "treatment" that is the problem, not animal use and killing.
--
Making a moral action may have potential side effects e.g. of what some people will perceive. When we meet people we should of course explain to them about veganism and about that it is wrong to domesticate animals.
So what should we do with all animals at the kill shelters? Just ignore them while they are being exploited? I claim that it is a moral obligation to rescue them.
Of course we should work for a non-speciesist vegan world where no animals are bred in parallel.
---------
-------------------------------------
"Banning breeding" of all pets is good. That is the same as prohibiting more animals to become slaves in animal slavery.
"Breed specific legislation" as you were talking about above is reinforcing the property status of animals. It legislates how we should treat "property". I refer to my post above (that I inserted to a blog post now): http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/is-advocating-laws-regulating-breeding.html
-----
It is a total difference between rescuing slaves from being exploited and killed compared to enabling, legitimizing and legislating for a system that allows for slaves to be exploited and killed.
-----
As long as animals are property, you can't make any effective laws that prohibit their owners from killing them. It didn't work with the human slaves a couple of hundred of years ago. It will not work with the animal slaves either. Secondly, you are only legitimizing animal slavery by making reforms regulating it.
More to read (please read it): http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art21/
You are not going to help the animals if you don't understand the theory, because all your efforts of doing legislation will be contra-productive to what you are aiming for.
You need to shift the paradigm by education. When people are educated and a majority are non-speciesist vegans you can make legislation abolishing all animal use. Before people are educated, any legislation will only reinforce the property status of animals and will be contra-productive to what you are aiming for.
onsdag 26 juni 2013
Slavery of 'battery chickens”. ' and "free-range" chickens
This concept of “free range hens” is a myth
actually. They can be as crammed as “battery chickens”. And there is are in
almost all cases a huge difference between a human and an animal bred up for
food in terms of the exploitation that they go through throughout their
life. There is no welfare in the animal
exploitation industry for food.
So how can we justify the fact that we kill
many billions of land animals and fish every year for food? The best
justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that
we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal
foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dog
fighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick
liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around the
summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have had lives and
deaths that are as bad, if not worse than, Vick’s dogs. What is the difference
between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods?
This was a reply to Peter's post:
Peter Edwards There are battery chickens and free range chickens. Battery chickens produce more meat and eggs for lower financial outlay, but at the cost of the welfare of the animals and the quality of the food produced. Free range hens take more upkeep and you can't cram them in, but they're meat and eggs can be sold for so much better prices.
But battery or free range, all chickens end up on the table one way or another. I'm a battery human, struggling and scrabbling, living on nothing cheek by jowl with hundreds of my kind. Some of you reading this are free range humans, with space to roam, plenty to eat and all the comforts of modern 'civilisation,' but you're no less a captive than I...the only difference is you're going to be made into a marks and spencers ready meal, and I'm going for chicken nuggets.
We're meat for the table whichever way you cut it.
And the animals are slave because that 99% of
the citizens are paying for it. Buying animal products is putting animals into
a life of slavery, exploitation, unnecessary suffering and death. We should
stop paying for slavery, we should stop being slave-owners.
We all
claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral
value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering
and death on animals and--whatever disagreement we may have about when animal
use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be
justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick
for dog fighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick
got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did.
This was a reply to Peter's post:
Peter Edwards There are battery chickens and free range chickens. Battery chickens produce more meat and eggs for lower financial outlay, but at the cost of the welfare of the animals and the quality of the food produced. Free range hens take more upkeep and you can't cram them in, but they're meat and eggs can be sold for so much better prices.
But battery or free range, all chickens end up on the table one way or another. I'm a battery human, struggling and scrabbling, living on nothing cheek by jowl with hundreds of my kind. Some of you reading this are free range humans, with space to roam, plenty to eat and all the comforts of modern 'civilisation,' but you're no less a captive than I...the only difference is you're going to be made into a marks and spencers ready meal, and I'm going for chicken nuggets.
We're meat for the table whichever way you cut it.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)