Is it ethical and vegan to use transportation system/travel?

Speaking of the transportation system a person wrote this:
"At its foundation, the transportation system is a necessary evil. It was derived for convenience and in its current condition is an infrastructure monster. The costs of utilizing and maintaining such a system are high for not only animals but to our planet and our own species.

In principle, this hypothetical situation reminds me of a retort provided by Robert Grillo when asked about the ethical implication of eating a rescued chicken's eggs: 'is it ever benign to eat from a body that is suffering?' There are many parallels to be drawn between these two cases, I feel. There is an inherent malignancy in both situations: the unfortunate chicken whose body is riddled with pain and discomfort from being bred to grow so large so fast; and the transportation system which stands as one of many statues to the human desire for convenience, expediency and selfishness.

I believe that the more pressing question is for how long should we hold a reflective vigil for the sadness found in the situation where our selfish needs trump the lives of others. We must not forget the costs of our decisions; and with such mindfulness, perhaps humility will one day be the operative factor in our decision making rather than convenience.

In other words, no- I do not feel that it is moral to consume an animal who was killed as a result of our transportation system. Not only for the reason that I provide above, but also because of the current social outlook on veganism in general. There are already far too many excuses, justification and illogical forms of reasoning buttressing nonveganism. I would not want to throw this marginal case into the mix to misconstrue the obvious moral consistency of veganism.""
--End of quote.

I don't make it to a vegan issue, but it is certainly an ethical issue - to only travel when there is a necessity, e.g. in order to earn a livelihood. I started biking to work - it is about 40 kilometers (Unfortunately my knees started aching - I need to figure out why)..


And to a live a lifestyle of the most nonharm the vision we should all strive to create vegan self-sustained communities where we grow our food using vegan permaculture: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vision-for-nonviolent-vegan.html

I believe that also this take is valid: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/road-kill-abandoned-eggs-and-dumpster-diving/
And this take: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/is-vegan-food-or-clothing-that-was.html

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 shouldn't hate and do namecalling against non-vegans

I'm troubled by vegans calling people 'fur hags' and similar names. Why? Because it instantly says that fur is somehow morally 'worse' than wearing leather, silk, wool etc (and often these terms are also misogynistic). Morally, it's no different to purposely *using* animals in ANY way. I find it strange that I rarely see these same people attacking vegetarians as 'cow-abusers'. Personally, I find 'non-vegan' covers all the bases and leads to less confusion. It's not *how* animals are used, it's the fact *that* they are used which we need to end.

Well said! And if we want people to stop exploiting animals - hating them will not help our cause.

The reason why people aren't vegan is either out of ignorance our that they are not able to care and love enough - i.e. that they prioritize their palate pleasure/social pressure/convenience over making ethical decisions and not exploiting others. Expressing hatred and violence towards non-vegans, will only increase their lack of care of other sentient beings. It doesn't help the cause. It will entrench the hatred that some vegans has for non-vegans, which in turn will make them less effective vegan educators. You can't educate anyone that you hate in an effective way. Some more thoughts: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/about-gary-yourofsky-and-wishing.html

------------
Another comment by Jonathan: 
 Please do read the thread - it will save me correcting any potential mis-representations on here. That said, it's worth noting that the thread was actually about name-calling and how I don't find it useful to call the people we-want-to-make-vegan, names - after all, where does it stop? Also, these names tend to be misogynistic in nature which is surely also to be avoided. It also concerned how calling someone 'fur hag' suggests that fur is worse than any other animal product. I presume a woman in a fur coat and leather boots would still be a fur hag? If not, what would you call a woman in fur AND leather? 

On that point, do you have names for leather wearers? It's just I've never heard any. Is that because leather isn't deemed to be as bad as fur? 

*That was the point of the thread - NOT the effectiveness (or not) of demos* 

I guess calling leather-wearers names would offend 90% of the population - again, not helpful when we *need* them to go vegan.

*If* the aim is to make people vegans (that is the aim, right?), I don't believe going around calling people names is a great way to do it. After all, we teach children that name-calling is wrong, but suddenly it's OK in Animal Rights? I just don't see how any positivity comes from alienating the very people we *need* to go vegan.

I notice that I/contributors to the thread have been called names on here, ah well, that's fine - we're vegan so we don't need to be converted.

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/

Ethical problems with lab-meat grown from stem cells from animals

Taking stem cells from humans, still perpetatues the notion that animals are resources, which is the problem that enables all exploitation of animals in the world. Some more moral problems: [1]

As long as animals are viewed as resources/property, they will be victims of unnecessary harm and death, including the unnecessary harm and death that they are inflicted in the production of animal foods, that people pay for when they are consuming meat, milk, eggs and other animal foods.
I recommend this article discussing this: http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2013/08/are_we_the_animal-lovers_we_th.html

1. http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/svar-fran-vegan-pa-fragan-ar-det-etiskt.html

Veganism, rights of animals, rights of women, pornography

Quote from https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
An email I received: "I am a vegan but I have to confess that I like to look at porn. I read something where you said that porn was a form of violence. But if I don't hurt anyone or do anything wrong, what's the harm and why is it violence?"

My reply: I assume you are a vegan because you have recognized that it's morally wrong to consume nonhumans. Well, pornography is nothing more than the consumption of other humans; personhood is erased or ignored and only body parts are present. Pornography commodifies others. This is especially a problem with porn involving women because it's a patriarchal society that encourages men to think about women as commodities anyway.

I still remember that when, in 1984, I made this analogy (consuming animals and consuming women) to my students, many thought it was really far out. (And some feminists, notably Marti Kheel, were already talking about these issues back then and she must have really gotten criticized for being out there!) Many still think that the analogy does not work but I disagree. Our thinking of other humans as non-persons, as things, starts, as you might guess, in our heads. And I simply cannot believe that consuming pornography does not lead to thinking of others as things and that thinking of others as things does not lead to treating them as things even if you don't actually assault them. Remember, all physical violence starts in the mind.

Please understand that I am not in favor of government censorship. Governments always do a bad job when they start trying to determine what we can read or view. My point is that if we care about equality and nonviolence, we should not consume pornography. It's a moral point, not a legal one.



----------Some comments:



Deborah Garland Mr. F., I'm pleased that you are addressing this so clearly & consistently. There is no level playing field in patriarchy ~ the game is rigged, the deck is stacked, the dice are loaded. Those sentient beings with less voice socially & economically suffer greatly. Vegan abolitionism appears to be a very effective tool for creating needful social change, so that all beings have the opportunity to live free of suffering, free of being the property of another. This is not Pollyanna, & it is possible. Thank you for standing up & sharing this patiently, politely, & clearly on your Facebook Page. I appreciate it very much! 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Caitlin Ahrens: First, women without economic dependence on men are the exception and not even they have the same sort of choice that most men have. Second, nothing is "innate" about patriarchy. We were gathers before we were hunters. We know about patriarchies and not matriarchies because men write histories. Third, poverty is a problem for everyone. But women who are poor have poverty and sex to deal with, unless they are women of color, in which case they have that too.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Here's an article about Gail Dines' work that explores why porn threatens our relationships: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

The truth about the porn industry

www.guardian.co.uk

Gail Dines, the author of an explosive new book about the sex industry, on why pornography has never been a greater threat to our relationships

33 minutes ago · Like

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Lavender Blue: Yes, I agree with the Adams quote you post. I liked "The Sexual Politics of Meat" in many respects. But as I say, the eating animals/consuming women idea was certainly not new with that book and at least several of us (female and male) were talking about this much earlier. Also, and this is not to lay the blame at Adams' door, but Feminists for Animal Rights was pretty late to the party in terms of stepping up and criticizing the sexism in the movement that was starting in the late 1980s. I am not saying that they could have stopped that trend if they had joined those of us who were taking positions against sexism right from the outset, but we may have a better chance. In any event, sexism is a feature of the "movement" these days and it is vile, reactionary nonsense not befitting a movement for social justice. But, in reality, the animal "movement" as it presently stands has nothing to do with social justice. Nothing whatsoever.

Why painlessly killing an animal for food harms an animal and is unethical

Why painlessly killing an animal for food harms an animal and is unethical.
Quote by Gary Francione:
Third, as a philosophical matter, this question assumes that if we were able to use animals without making them suffer, our painlessly killing an animal does not, in itself, amount to harming the animal. This is in marked contrast to how we think about humans. Yes, suffering is bad, but we view death, even a painless one, as a bad thing. We humans have an interest in continuing to live. Death frustrates that interest, which is separate from an interest in not suffering. We don’t want to suffer; we also don’t want to die. Animals, many say, don’t want to suffer but they don’t care about dying unless the act of killing involves suffering; it is the suffering that is a problem for the animal, not the killing. This idea, in one form or another , has been around for hundreds of years.

The moral intuition that we now all accept that animals matter morally, but less than humans, and that we can use animals when it is necessary to do so as long as we minimize suffering , was an idea that emerged in the 19th century. It assumed that it was acceptable to use animals when necessary because, unlike humans, they are not self-aware and have no interest in continuing to live; that is, they do not prefer, or desire, or want to remain alive. That idea, which most certainly makes us feel better about killing animals for food, was crazy in the 19th century. It is crazy now. To say that a ny sentient being is not harmed by death is most peculiar. Sentience is not a characteristic that has evolved to serve as an end in itself. Rather, it is a trait that allows beings to identify situations that are harmful and that threaten survival. Sentience is a means to the end of continued existence.

Sentient beings, by virtue of their being sentient, have an interest in remaining alive; that is, they prefer, want, or desire to remain alive. To say that a sentient being is not harmed by death denies that the being has the very interest that sentience serves to perpetuate. It would be analogous to saying that a being with eyes does not have an interest in continuing to see or is not harmed by being made blind. The Jains of India expressed it well long ago: “All beings are fond of life, like pleasure, hate pain, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear.” [30] The notion that animals are not self-aware is based on nothing more than a stipulation that the only way to be self-aware is to have the self-awareness of a normal adult human. That is certainly one way to be self-aware. It’s not the only way. As biologist Donald Griffin, one of the most important cognitive ethologists of the twentieth century, noted in his book, Animal Minds, if animals are conscious of anything, “the animal’s own body and its own actions must fall within the scope of its perceptual consciousness.”

We nevertheless deny animals self-awareness because we maintain that they cannot “think such thoughts as ‘It is I who am running, or climbing this tree, or chasing that moth.’” Griffin maintains that “when an animal consciously perceives the running, climbing, or moth-chasing of another animal, it must also be aware of who is doing these things. And if the animal is perceptually conscious of its own body, it is difficult to rule out similar recognition that it, itself, is doing the running, climbing, or chasing.” He concludes that “[ i]f animals are capable of perceptual awareness, denying them some level of self-awareness would seem to be an arbitrary and unjustified restriction.” from that of a normal adult human, but it would not be accurate to say that they are not self-aware or that they are indifferent to death. We see this where humans are involved. If a human is mentally disabled and is not self- aware in the same way that a normal human is, we do not think that such a human is without an interest in life or that death is not a harm to her or him. She or he may be self-aware in a different way than others but is still self-aware in a morally relevant way so that we would regard treating her or him exclusively as a resource, which is how treat nonhuman animals we use for food, as morally wrong. In sum, if a being is sentient— that is, if she is perceptually aware— then she has an interest in continuing to live, and death harms her. It is not necessary to have the autobiographical sense of self that we associate with normal adult humans in order to be self-aware. And a humanlike sense of self-awareness is not necessary to have an interest in continuing to live.

 

Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1045-1046). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Vegan reply to 'humans have killed and eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years"

And there has been human slavery for at least several thousand years, as well as animal abuse and oppression of women. How many thousands of year does it take for an unethical tradition to become ethical do you mean?

That people are eating meat, only means that sometime some humans started to eat meat, and it became a well-established tradition.

In no way, does a well-established tradition in any way create a moral justification for a behavior. My point is that a well-established tradition of an unethical behavior does not justify an unethical behavior.

There are 2 separate moral issues that you discuss:
1. Killing for survival; 2. Killing despite the complete lack of any necessity.
Regardless of whether one thinks it is morally excusable to kill human and nonhuman animals for survival e.g. if stranded on a desert island and if that is the only possible way to survive; people’s moral intuition is that is morally wrong to hurt and kill any individual despite the complete lack of necessity.

The argument that I brought up is discussing killing animals despite the complete lack of necessity. You brought up arguments that don’t refute my arguments.

I recommend you to read this article: 'Francione: We're all Michael Vick

'
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

Ethics: Love animals and eating animals - a moral oxymoron

Are you aware that there is as much suffering for the animal, caused by a glass of milk or for an egg, as there is for a steak of meat?: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/organic-milk-cheese-ice-cream-sour.html
Here are some other good, tasty recipes on the blog of my wife: http://veganviking.blogspot.com/

A vegan lifestyle is not a sacrifice, it is a joy.
As for taste, for me the desire of animal products went away when I realized that it is unethical to kill another sentient being for palatable pleasure. Dr. Neal Banard says: "You will find that your taste buds have a memory of about 3 weeks."

I don’t agree with the food chain-argument. Here is my reply to it: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/vegan-answer-to-humans-are-at-top-of.html
Can you explain to me, how would having the possibility to kill all other sentient beings on this planet justify us to inflict unnecessary suffering upon another being?

Why do you look upon omnivores as your role models, instead of herbivores – when you refer to the “food chain”-argument. We do have the anatomy of an herbivore, and we do have a moral concern for the animals. You wouldn’t for example kill a dog. You just have to be consistent and extend this same moral concern for all animals.
We do certainly have the choice to abstain from killing and eating animals for food. So when we choose to eat animal products, we act despite the lack of “necessity”. And doing so we are acting in contradiction to our moral belief which states that dog fighting and dog abuse is morally wrong, because it inflicts unnecessary suffering upon animals.

I highly recommend this book, ‘Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog by Professor Gary Francione?
‘: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/#.Ua5RpJxc18E

It really helps in ones understanding.

Ethics: Why killing animals is morally wrong

Molly,
You wrote: ” I can see how standing up for the animals will help, but i see that researching into bettering methods and conditions for animals destined for slaughter is a better way to say 'no' to animal exploitation. It seems a more practical method to help them.”

You are evading the moral question. You are recognizing that animal abuse is wrong. Animal abuse is wrong because animals have a moral value. But if animals have a moral value, they also have the right to not be used as a resource, including the right not to be killed by humans.

“If you think that any sentient nonhuman life has a moral value, then it is irrational to deny that all nonhuman life has moral value. To put it another way, if you think that dogs or cats (or whomever) have moral value, you cannot logically exclude cows, fish, pigs, and chickens from the moral community. And having moral value means that we cannot use animals as a resource. Therefore, veganism is what follows from the simple recognition that animals are not things. If animals have any moral value, we cannot use them as resources. Peirod.” [Quote: Gary Francione]

About improving conditions:
“Animals are property. There are laws that supposedly protect animal interests
in being treated “humanely,” but that term is interpreted in large part to mean that we cannot impose “unnecessary” harm on animals, and that is measured by what treatment is considered as necessary within particular industries, and according to customs of use, to exploit animals. The bottom line is that animals do not have any respect-based rights in the way that humans have, because we do not regard animals as having any moral value. They have only economic value. We value their interests economically, and we ignore their interests when it is economically beneficial for us to do so.
At this point in time, it makes no sense to focus on the law, because as long as we regard animals as things, as a moral matter, the laws will necessarily reflect that absence of moral value and continue to do nothing to protect animals. We need to change social and moral thinking about animals before the
law is going to do anything more.”
Quote: http://www.believermag.com/issues/201102/?read=interview_francione
Furthermore, the article you quoted isn't science. It is just assuming that an anemia was caused by a certain diet without any evidence. Also in this day both non-vegans and vegans get deficiencies.

Vegans don’t get deficiencies if they eat a starch-based nutritious diet with the possible addition of B12-supplement.
There are e.g. several meat eaters that get B12-deficiency: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

Ethics: Is there any justification to stand by idle when an animals life is in danger?

Stephanie,
You wrote: “ Is there any justification to stand by idly when someone's life is in danger? No! But what if you have to cause harm to prevent harm?”

You agree with me that we are not allowed to kill other humans for survival.  The moral principle you quote would in fact require us to step in and save someone’s life, who someone tried to kill this individual for his/her own survival. In order to not choose a speciecist position, one must also extend this to all other animals, and not stand idle when their life is in danger and to not oneself take their lives for ‘taste’, habit, convenience, tradition or survival. This includes the 58 billion land animals killed in the world each year for food, and the more than 1000 billion marine animals killed for food each year. In order to not participate in the crime and not to stand idle when this happens one is obligated to go vegan and to help others to understand the importance of going vegan.
This shows that to look at the primates for moral guidance to determine what to eat doesn’t hold, and people consistently are applying their eating habits based on what other primates eat, would endorse cannibalism as well as killing and eating other animals both for ‘pleasure’ and survival. There are exceptions though among the primates. The gorilla, an herbivore, eats in an ethical way.

“Nonhuman animals have an interest in not being treated as human resources just as humans have an interest in not being treated as the resources of other humans.” [Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/resolution-2-for-2010-stop-vegan-bashing/#.UZ5upZxc18E   ]
“Speciecism is wrong because it’s like racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., which also involve focusing on an irrelevant criterion (race or sex or sexual orientation or whatever) to justify not according equal consideration.“
The other points you bring up is subject for another moral discussion, which is whether violence can ever be justified, e.g. using violence and killing someone as an act of ‘self defense’. I have argued that it is most of my life, but I changed my position some time after becoming a vegan.
The first part of this article has good arguments for nonviolence: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.UZ5P05xc18E

Ahimsa, nonviolence and compassison to all animals

Presenting a logical argument, and arguing for that our love, compassion and nonviolence must extend to all living beings is not being “passive aggressive”.

Standing for Ahimsa (non-violence and compassion to all living beings) requires us standing up against injustices and violence against other sentient beings, regardless if they happen to be humans, fish, cats, dogs or of any other species. Standing silent only perpetuates the status quo of injustices, violence and slavery perpetuated on a massive scale against innocent sentient beings; and makes the bystander guilty for not standing up and defending the defenseless and oppressed.
Only a spiritual awakening to the so simple fact that all beings are consciousness (fish, dogs, cats, humans and all other beings) and that all equally has the same right to live as humans, and that all should be treated with love, compassion and nonviolence, will transform our violent culture that is so filled of injustices, oppression, slavery and suffering.
I recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-religion-of-non-violence/#.UY6v48pafh4

Campaign against fur - insults and violence is morally wrong

We don’t have the right to make any moral judgment about people’s character- just because someone is heavily indoctrinated by our culture, doesn’t mean that he/she is trying to be evil or mean or to hurt someone else.

And 99% of the world's population is hurting and killing animals daily by their non-vegan choices - including the people wearing fur. There is no distinction.

But the solution is not to insult anyone or to make moral judgments about a person’s character. The solution is a message of love, compassion and nonviolence to everyone, and to educate people out of their ignorance, which is caused by our cultural indoctrination and people's daily exclusion of animals in our meals and other choices, which they have been exposed to since their childhood.
Love and compassion atttracts people and makes people more loving and compassionate. Judging words does the opposite.

Non-vegans usually do not intend to be evil to animals, they are just heavily disconnected to the animals. By their actions they become desensitized and lose their intelligence and connection with animals. It is possible to demonstrate love and compassion towards non-vegans and at the same time not compromising veganism = love, compassion and non-violence toward all living beings. E.g. this former non-vegan who slaughtered many animals was very disconnected: http://www.farmkind.org/
I write more about it here: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/veganism-love-compassion-and-non.html

I challenge you all to read the fantastic book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle, available here: www.worldpeacediet.org

Pig hunting and all other hunting and killing is morally wrong

It is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and pain on wild pigs and all other animals. People who are against pig hunting and people who are against animal abuse, understand that animals have a moral value. They are something more than "commodities".
If we have reached the understanding that animals do have a moral value and that it is morally wrong to cause other beings suffering, then we can also easily understand the importance of stop hunting, stop killing, stop abusing and stop eating and wearing dead animals. Hunting animals or killing them in any other way, or using animals in any other way, inflicts animals suffering.
Why do people take care of dogs, but kill and eat pigs? They are all consciousness, they all have their own purpose, they all value their own life as we value our own life. World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle is a great book covering this.
-----

People who are against this campaign and people who are against animal abuse, understand that animals have a moral value. They are something more than "commodities".
If we have reached the understanding that animals do have a moral value and that it is morally wrong to cause other beings suffering, then we can also easily understand the importance of going vegan. If one doesn't understand that it is wrong to inflict suffering e.g. on a dog or any other being, one truly has much to learn, and one truly has been heavily indoctrinated by our culture -- just like almost all vegans were before
they made the connection and became vegans. Hunting animals or killing them in any other way, or using animals in any other way, inflicts animals suffering.
Why do people take care of dogs, but kill and eat pigs? They are all consciousness, they all have their own purpose, they all value their own life as we value our own life.

I became a vegan - i.e. I stopped participating in all animal exploitation (including causing animals suffering by my food choices) - this autumn. It is the best decision that I have made. To show love, compassion and nonviolence to individuals of all beings truly transforms ones life. If we want to have true peace, we shouldn't inflict suffering to others. As we sow, so will we reap.

It think this is why everyone should become a vegan:
We should treat others as we want to be treated ourselves
All animals are conscious and they do value life as much as we do.

The following applies to all animals: humans, dogs, cats, cows, etc.:
If we don't want to be killed, we shouldn't kill other being.
If we don't want someone else to steal our family, we shouldn't steal their family.
If we want to find our purpose in this world, we shouldn't steal others purpose.
If we don't want to be exploited and abused, we shouldn't abuse anyone else.
If we don't want to become enslaved, we shouldn't keep anyone else as a slave.
If we don't want to hurt any animals, we must become vegans (i.e. stop eating, wearing and using animal products, and in other ways do actions that are hurting and killing animals).
If we love animals, we don't kill animals. We don't kill and eat anyone that we love. If we love animals, we must support their want to not be oppressed, including not to be killed.

I highly recommend this lecture: http://vimeo.com/17538152 and the book World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle (www.worldpeacediet.org )

Backyard chickens,it is wrong to own, use and exploit chickens

 Andrea Gil Yes, we consider it wrong. If you, or your son is not vegan, which means *no* animal products, then you are contributing to animal exploitation. There is no third choice.

The fact that your chickens and rooster have a more pleasant existence than those on commercial farms doesn't change the fact that you're exploiting them and are supporting a wider system of exploitation. They didn't appear out of nowhere, did they? Someone profited from breeding them and you supported that person in breeding them by buying them.

That breeder is without a doubt engaging torture and killing in order to make a profit out of his or her property, regardless of whether the business is "free range" or conventional. This includes killing virtually all male chicks at birth by suffocation or grinding them up while fully conscious and killing chickens after they are spent for the purpose of laying eggs or breeding: and possibly worse than this, depending on the facility, such as debeaking with a hot knife, crowded and filthy conditions and forced moulting through starvation in order to extract another egg-laying cycle out of exhausted birds prior to slaughter. By buying chickens, this is what you are supporting.

The eggs belong to the chickens, not you. Chickens normally eat some of their own eggs because they require the nutrition contained in them.

The bottom line is that neither you nor your son needs to eat eggs for health; in fact you would be healthier without them. So there is no moral justification for owning chickens as property and stealing their eggs other than that you or your son like the taste, and that is no moral justification at all. It doesn't matter how well you think you're treating your chickens--it's not about treatment; it's about use. You have no right to own them and exploit them and they have a right not to be owned and used as resources. They have inherent value; their value does not consist in providing you with eggs. They value their lives and want to lead them without interference from humans.

By owning and using chickens you are reinforcing in your own mind and that of others, most especially your son, the speciesist prejudice that animals are things for us to use. You are doing your son no favours by teaching him this unethical way of thinking. The benefit to him in you going vegan and teaching him why it's necessary to be vegan would far outweigh his enjoyment in eating eggs, and more importantly, means that you cease exploiting animals. Why put indulging your son's wholly unnecessary pleasure ahead of teaching him how to do the right thing?

So please consider going vegan. It's the morally right thing to do.