Visar inlägg med etikett nonviolence. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett nonviolence. Visa alla inlägg

tisdag 24 juni 2014

Introduction to Abolitionist veganism and anti-speciesism


There are two different groups calling themselves vegans – one group that believe in the ideology of Welfarism/beliveve that it is justified to use it temporarily to abolish all animal use; and one group that believes that it always is wrong to use animals, and it is always wrong to promote speciesism and animal use in all various forms. Abolitionist or anti-speciesist vegans believe that it is wrong to promote animal use as a means to reach an end of a world without animal use – just like they believe it is wrong to promote discrimination against humans, e.g. sexism, to reach the goal of a world without discrimination towards humans.




I am an Abolitionist vegan. I don't hate others who justify speciesist methods. I don't judge their intentions and their heart. I believe they are wrong, but that doesn't mean that I love them less or care less for them.

Abolitionist vegans actively promote veganism. We believe and work for a world where animals will be respected as sentient beings and will not be used as resources. We believe that breeding animals is morally wrong, just like creating a new “species” of humans that would be subservient and to a large extent live their lives controlled by other humans, would be morally wrong. We strive for a world where all sentient beings should live their life in freedom and not be controlled by anyone else. Today we have a moral responsibility to take care of the animals [1] that are bred into existence. This we do e.g. by rescuing animals from shelters, including the animals which otherwise would be killed and exploited at kill “shelters”. We are morally opposed to organizations that are affiliated with kill shelters , and that e.g. participate in the killing of healthy feral cats with an interest of a continued existence [1b]. We aim to abolish the property status of animals, which enables all animal exploitation that takes place of “domesticated animals” [2].

We promote veganism in many different creative nonviolent forms – in everything from cooking classes – cooking plant-based foods while educating about veganism (which is not a diet [1c]), to seminars, educating friends and acquaintances, leafleting, putting up posters, vegan stalls in universities and markets, etc. There are an endless amount of opportunities. But the most important thing is to never compromise with the message.
The ideology of Welfarism is one that says it is okay to use and kill animals as long as they are treated in a "humane way". Abolitionist vegans believe that this is an immoral and speciesist notion and that the promotion of speciesism is both immoral and will never lead us any step closer to a vegan world devoid of all speciesism. In the same way like violence will never lead us closer to a peaceful world without violence, or the promotion of sexism won't lead us to a world without sexism.
Abolitionist vegans don’t promote Animal welfare reform, which also could be called Animal exploitation reform. Animal exploitation reforms are reforming industry, usually to increase the profit of the businesses that earn money of exploiting animals, e.g. farmers, slaughter houses [2]. We believe it is immoral. It is morally problematic to advocate a reform of animal exploitation, since you by doing this are legitimizing animal exploitation. You are merely telling industry to exploit animals in another for them more profitable way, at the same time as you are sending the message to the public that this reform provides a moral way of using/exploiting animals. Further reading [3]

 

We don’t promote campaigns with an implicit or explicit speciesist and welfarist, racist, sexist or discrimination of others-message. We don’t promote campaigns that send the confusing message to the public that there is a difference between one animal use compared to another animal use, or exploitation of one species compared to another species.  Thus we don’t e.g. promote anti-fur campaigns, which confuse the public into believe that/perpetuate the existent belief of non-vegans that exploiting animal for fur is unacceptable  (which of course is correct)., but that there are other forms of animal use that are morally acceptable – e.g. using the skin of animals (leather). We call these campaigns single issue campaigns. Further reading of why anti-speciesist vegans are opposed to single issue campaigns [3]

We don’t promote “Meatless Monday”, which is a speciesist campaign focusing on meat, but endorsing the consumption of dairy products, eggs, use of down, and other animal use. We don’t make veganism into a diet, or into an environmental cause [3b]. Veganism is about the nonhuman animals, their right to not be exploited and to not be treated as property/resources.

We don’t promote campaigns that focus on the treatment of animals, such as anti-fur-campaigns, but that focus on all animal use. Because the moral problem is that we use animals regardless of how we treat them and regardless of how we murder them. We are against all exploitation and no human have any right to recommend others to exploit animals in other ways, or to ever be unclear or start a campaign that can be interpreted in this way

We believe that animals are sentient beings, and they are not our resources, and all our actions are aimed at shifting the paradigm from the speciesist view of viewing animals as our resources, towards viewing and treating them as sentient beings. Just like we wouldn’t shave someone’s hair and use this as an accessory without that person’s consent, we don’t take the wool of a rescued sheep to use it for our purposes. We don’t coerce animals into doing things, nor use other forms of violence – not in action and not in words. We don’t use violent methods as some popular well-meaning but confused dog trainer (e.g. Cesar Milan) do [4]. We don’t coerce/force animals into doing things, e.g. breaking a horse to use for riding. We don’t train or use animals for our use/purposes, e.g. teaching a dog to do dance tricks, or riding a horse for our entertainment/exercise/trying to fill our emotional spiritual needs/desires. Our relationship to "domesticated" animals is not one of control/enforcing our will, but acting in the animals best interests and giving her/him as much freedom and autonomy within the constraints of what is best for the animals well being –e.g. the animal is domesticated and can’t survive by her own in the wild, so we don’t release the animals in the wild.

Abolitionist vegans reject all violence and discrimination towards human and nonhuman animals. We are totally opposed to all explicit or implicit sexist, racist and other discrimination of others-campaigns that are common among Animal Welfare organizations [6]. We believe in nonviolence both in action and speech, being nonjudgmental towards people’s intentions, while being very clear and judgmental when it comes to people’s actions.

Learn more about Abolitionist veganism: [7]

Footnotes



1 c. See this excellent poster and other good posts on this page: https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/photos/a.1481329078758310.1073741827.1481322565425628/1617803015110915/?type=1&theater

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


3b. https://www.facebook.com/ThoughtsPicturesPoems/photos/pb.1481322565425628.-2207520000.1403637399./1549317488626135/?type=3&theater
 
4. Not about Abolitionist veganism, but about how harmful violent/forceful/fearful/coercive methods are to animals: http://yodogcast.tumblr.com/post/55504306960/the-damage-of-the-dog-whisperer-a-scientific-critique

5.http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/06/the-moral-problem-with-teaching-dog-to.html


7. Check the articles in the other footnotes. Also read: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/ and articles of that website.

söndag 4 maj 2014

Vegans thoughts about Ahimsa milk

They are completely distorting the beautiful concept of Ahimsa – nonviolence and compassion to all living beings. It is not Ahimsa to use animals.  It is not Ahimsa to destroy and rip apart families. It is not Ahimsa to breed animals and to perpetatue domestcation/animal slavery. As long as animals are property under law and we breed animals into existence, they will have no real rights: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps

-----

Paula C: I couldn't even read it all before I started feeling sick... just another example of humans trying to feel justified for using animals.. ok so the calf gets to stay with mummy for longer, BUT the kid napping of her calf still happens, she is still artificially inseminated (raped) she and her calf are still slaves, it's still exploitation and far from being kind.

---

I have discussed this issue with many, and the only dairy farms (including family farms) that I ever have encountered by people saying that you can consume dairy without exploiting animals can be put in one or several of the following categories:

1. They kill the male calves or the "milk cow".
2. They forecfully separate the "milk cow" from her children at some point in time.
3. They have to kill the bull they use to regularly impregnate the "milk cows" because that he gets to aggressive.

fredag 2 maj 2014

Why we shouldn't wish violence and death upon those consuming animal foods

Someone wrote this: "WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THIS TO YOU (""For every animal you don't want me to eat I wanna eat two""), just smile, a BIG smile, and say, "Sounds good....your suicide mission, is apparent, as that will shorten your life, by quite a few years.... it will be helping the vegan movement out, because we need to rid this planet, of those that think like you"....and then say NAMASTE!!!."

My reply:
Actually, it is terrible. First of all it is violence towards nonhuman animals. That sounds like and is a terrible idea to exploit other animals for animal foods and other purposes.

Secondly, It is violence to the environment and everyone depend on it...
Thirdly, violence to oneself.
It is a terrible idea to wish that someone will kill themselves. Violence is part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

And to end this wishing of violence with 'Namaste'?

Why not use a nonviolent approach? We will not make people caring by wishing them violence and death. I recommend this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/how-first-world-choices-and-consumerism.html

torsdag 1 maj 2014

About Gary Yourofsky, and wishing violence on others

My reply to a person:To criticize a person for wishing others to be raped is not "bashing". It is just criticizing one aspect of a person's behaviour. I am glad for the good things Gary are doing.
I don't believe in making people into infallible heroes. We must be able to critcize the actions of one another.

Gary Yourofsky has expressed: "“Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled.” "

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/is-vegan-superstar-gary-yourofsky-an-animal-savior-or-a-mad-militant-1.463267

The reason why people aren't vegan is either out of ignorance or 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. They don't care enough to stop making choices that exploit other sentient beings. 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.

If you believe in that violence is wrong, how does it then make sense to wish that others will be raped? How could that be moral? How is it healthy to wish evil to befall on others?

You wrote: "He feels that some people are also just purely incapable of feeling empathy for another being and that an eye for an eye would be the only way of making them see the suffering."

No, it wouldn't.
Non-vegans are perfectly able to understand that animals are suffering alot. But you also need to care enough in order to decide not to exploit them. And vegans raping you or hating you doesn't help this at ALL!!! And it is immoral to exploit others and wish others to be exploited.

-----

Colin Wright "Nonvegans PAY to get animals raped and killed. How are the WORDS of an activist worse than the ACT of rape by nonvegans themselves?"

It's not about one being worse rhan another at all. That has no bearing on the issue! It's about not hurting yourself with anger and hatred. It's about not turning away peple who would otherwise come to be swayed by a message of peace for all sentient beings. It's about forgivness and being a beacon of hope to the sick, the disnefranchised and the fearful masses of non-Vegans who desparately need our help because once they understand what they are doing is wrong they will stop doing it.

Which ones of them will become Vegan are not even at issue. You can't know who and when which person will become Vegan or change their ways at all. The majority will and if you don't believe that then you might as well not live another day! Which is why we need to stop turning away people by ridiculing and threatening them and start spreading the message of PEACE to everyone we can!

tisdag 13 augusti 2013

Violence against humans and animals, wars, human right conflicts, veganism, nonviolence

Connection between our violence towards nonhuman animals, and the violence in human relations:
Domestication of animals and each non-vegan choice is violence, it is slavery, and it also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. Learn more in this book: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

I would also like to share these words about nonviolence:
"A commitment to nonviolence begins with not putting violence in and on your body. Go vegan." -- Gary L. Francione

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.”
― Gary L. Francione

"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." Gandhi

“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.”

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.""
“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione

söndag 11 augusti 2013

Veganism and quotes about nonviolence

"A commitment to nonviolence begins with not putting violence in and on your body. Go vegan." -- Gary L. Francione

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.”
― Gary L. Francione

"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." Gandhi
“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.”
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.""


“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione

“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable”
― Gary L. Francione
"

I highly recommend: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

--------------
Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice- Ayaan Hirsi Ali
-----

Refusing to go vegan isn't about food (or clothing, etc.); it's about power and privilege. It's a refusal to acknowledge and relinquish power that was taken by force and privilege that was granted by virtue of being born human. Refusing to go vegan is an affirmation of one's support of the brutal systemic oppression of nonhuman animals.
The Abolitionist Vegan Society
--------
"Your worth and ability to contribute to society is not tied to your appearance. It is not tied to your gender. It is not tied to your sexuality. It is not tied to being handicapable or able-bodied. It is not tied to your mental health status. It is not tied to your species. Whoever you are and whatever your story, you are valued. You matter. Your voice counts."
-Alex Strain

-----

On the way home today, I was in traffic and was stopped for a moment next to a pig transport truck. I saw one pig's snout poking through a ventilation hole - it was super sad.
So many of the people that I know continue to pay for pigs like that one to be tortured and killed. It's truly saddening to know that most of these people are somewhat compassionate and pro-justice people. However, that compassion and justice falls short of being extended to other animals for a few moments of taste sensation.
-John Tallent

--------Commitment.. What can one person do

“When silence or verbal trickery helps to maintain an abuse that needs to be ended or suffering that needs to be soothed, there is no choice but to speak out and show the obscenity disguised by a cloak of words.” – Albert Camus

-----------

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has".
Margaret Mead



"I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything; but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."
- Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909)


--

“My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?”
― David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas



 

lördag 3 augusti 2013

Trying to be vegan, but thinking it is hard to be vegan?

Anibal,
For me it was easy to go vegan, easy to opt out of animal exploitation. One advice is to always visualize the unnecessary suffering and death that animals go through because of the consumption of meat, milk, eggs and other animal foods.
Another thing you can do is to watch movies as Earthlings to get it more visual in front of you what the animals go through, and to watch documentaries also about animals in the wild and their lives. I can send you the book Eat like you care if you want to, just send me a personal message with your e-mail.

As long as one is consuming animal foods one is participating in animal exploitation. So our moral obligation is to stop consuming animal foods at once.  If you are not willing to do it once, you can try this: http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/how-to-go-vegan/the-bldo-plan/#.Uf0fIW37bBA

Some words to consider:
“Being vegan is easy. Are there social pressures that encourage you to continue to eat, wear, and use animal products? Of course there are. But in a patriarchal, racist, homophobic, and ableist society, there are social pressures to participate and engage in sexism, racism, homophobia, and ableism. At some point, you have to decide who you are and what matters morally to you. And once you decide that you regard victimizing vulnerable nonhumans is not morally acceptable, it is easy to go and stay vegan”
― Gary L. Francione

“Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable”
― Gary L. Francione

“If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.”
― Gary L. Francione

"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork." Gandhi
“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.”
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."" 

Non-violence, no unnecessary harm and death towards animals = veganism

ADVENTURES IN RATIONAL THINKING

We all--including nonvegans--agree that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals.
We all--including nonvegans--agree that we can't justify imposing suffering and death on animals for pleasure.
We all--including nonvegans--agree that what Michael Vick did was wrong because he inflicted suffering and death on animals for pleasure.
But the best justification we have for inflicting suffering and death on the animals we eat or use for milk, eggs, etc. is palate pleasure. We don't need to eat animal foods to live healthy lives.
We cannot distinguish morally what we do when we consume animal foods from what Michael Vick did.
Therefore, if we really do take animals seriously as a moral matter, we are committed to not consuming any animal products whatsoever.
This is the idea we explore in "Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals" Quote from: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

fredag 5 juli 2013

Why violence is ineffective and immoral in social justice-campaigns, including animal advocates campaigns.

I gathered some comments about Why violence is ineffective and immoral in social justice-campaigns, including animal advocates campaigns.
First I will start With a good post about Jainism and nonviolence.
"I am Jain and accept ahinsa as my guiding principle. I am vegetarian but not vegan but I do many other things in my life to promote ahinsa. Why do you think it is is enough to be vegan? Why do you think we need to be vegans if we do other nonviolent activities? Please answer publicly on the Facebook page if you would as I know others are interested but do not use my name, please."

My reply:

I *never* said being vegan was enough to satisfy what is required for ahimsa. Indeed, I have said the opposite: veganism is necessary *but not* sufficient. So I agree that to truly embrace nonviolence, you have to go beyond veganism.

Why is veganism necessary? As a Jain, you know that a fundamental principle is not to inflict suffering and death on sentient beings as part of eating. That is why Jains are vegetarian. My point is that there is no distinction between meat and other animal foods so a prohibition on eating meat that does not include dairy is incoherent and arbitrary.

If a Jain could satisfy her obligations to nonviolence by being a vegetarian who did other good works, then, on that thinking, she could eat meat and do even more good works. You would surely not accept that reasoning. You would still not eat meat because you accept that eating should not involve the suffering and death of sentient beings. My point is that the same suffering and death exists with respect to other animal foods as well (and that nonviolence requires that we not eat, wear, or use animals). Veganism is required for nonviolence. It is not enough, however, to satisfy the requirements of a nonviolent life.


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

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Lisa V Onebyone Franklin: There are many wonderful Jains who do not yet get the vegan thing. I do not question their sincerity. But I do not shrink from stating my view that it makes no sense to me to embrace Ahimsa and not be a vegan and they do not resent me for my position. So I keep educating and will do for as long as it takes.

-------
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Ixian Device: Putting aside any moral issues, here's a practical problem. How is the fox-hunt rider any different from your mom, assuming she is not a vegan? (If she is, pick a close family member or friend who is not vegan.) If it's okay to use violence against the fox hunter, it's okay to use violence against mom. If it's not okay to use violence against mom but it's okay to use violence against the fox hunt rider, then that is arbitrary and nonsensical.
-----

Jeff Perz Ixian Device, successful non-violent action may not always be possible in situations of individual self-defence, but it is always possible in social justice movements, including the movement to abolish all animal use.

---

Jeff Perz That's like saying "My mum does pursue a pastime/diet/tradition that involves what we both know egg farming involves...we know what happens to the hen and chicks. This is considered "food." Like so many grisly perversions, egg farming is still practised. I would never even have the inclination to go near a plate of eggs let alone eat them, but my mum certainly would engage in that gratuitous cruelty -- for her own palate pleasure. Every fox hunter I have spoken with detests cruelty that *they* see as gratuitous."

By eating eggs (and eating honey?, and wearing leather?), your mum is causing abhorrent suffering and death to hens and chicks, just as fox hunters cause suffering and death to foxes. As Gary Francione is arguing, if violence is justified against one, then why not the other? There is no morally significant difference between the two.


---
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Ixian Device: There is no difference between your mother and the fox hunter. She eats eggs because she likes the taste; the fox hunter hunts foxes because s/he enjoys it. There is no compulsion or necessity in either case. If violence is justified against the fox hunter, it is justified against your mother.

---
Jeff Perz Hi Ixian Device. As I suggested, violence is excusable in situations of individual self-defence, or the individual defence of others. This is *not* at all the same as defending others in the context of social justice campaigns. What's the difference? With individual self (or other) defence, sometimes there can only be two options: submit and be harmed or rebel with violence. In stark contrast, in _all_ situations within all social justice campaigns, there is always a third and more effective option: active non-violent resistance.

Following Francione's arguments, I would advise against single issue campaigns such as the anti-fox hunting campaign, but that is another issue so lets ignore that for the moment.

I'm guessing you're already very much aware of the non-violent tactics used to successfully stop fox hunts: road blocks involving chained humans, horns, citronella oil, audio recordings of dogs, etc. But you say violence is sometimes necessary against a fox hunter as a last recourse. Ok, please describe a situation like that, and I will give you an effective non-violent alternative. Violence is never the last recourse within social justice campaigns.


-----------
Jeff Perz Ixian Device, your discussion of how different people make different decisions about when to use violence is beside the point. There is *not* a spectrum with you defending your kids against an attacker at one end, gratuitous violence at the other, and killing a fox hunter somewhere in between. Why is there no such spectrum? See my previous comment.

"If you wish to make a blanket assertion that all-is-the-same then go ahead."

Far from a blanket assertion, we are making a direct comparison:

Why do you think that grinding up thousands of male chicks per day in a blender (something your mum causes to happen) is any different than dogs ripping apart ten foxes per day? Really, what is the difference? Why is violence justified in one situation but not the other? The answer is not about personal boundaries. If it were, you would be committed to saying that it is morally acceptable for someone (perhaps not you) to kill people who eat eggs.

-----------------
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Ixian Device: < My mum being an "ovo-vegetarian" is a violent act, to all chickens ~ am I going to attack my Mum for that? ~ Obviously not, she's my Mum. Would I kick a fox hunter once dismounted in the head, yes. My selective violence. > Precisely. Selective violence. It makes absolutely no sense. You see the nonviolent approach as " passive, placatory vegans, like the people who adopt a position on a moral pedestal because they believe they are utterly non-violent." And I see the pro-violence position as nothing more than juvenile chest pounding and heavy breathing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights For those interested in more info on Jainism, here's a good site that has many texts in original languages and English: http://www.jainlibrary.org/

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Here's another good site run in conjunction with Kings College, University of London: http://www.jainpedia.org/home.html

----------------------
Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Note: Please understand that although I embrace nonviolence as a fundamental principle, my philosophical work on animal rights theory requires only that people have moral concern about animals. My position argues that moral concern requires as a matter of rationality/logic that we abolish animal use. But where that moral concern comes from is irrelevant. FYI: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and-logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/#.UdbgI6yAraE

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

Jeff Perz Ixian Device, you suggest that you support violence purely for vengeance -- not necessarily to protect someone who is in danger. This is not about animals. This is about -you-. This is about getting "just one fix" of adrenaline and hate. Your hedonism. If this were about helping foxes, you would have joined those who *have* stopped and prevented fox hunts using exclusively non-violent tactics. (Again, I don't support single issue campaigns such as this, for separate reasons.) So I don't think there is much more to say. Wouldn't it be easier to verbally provoke egg eaters in pubs, so then you can violently defend yourself and get your rush?

I did ask you for an example of when you think violence is necessary within a social justice campaign. At first, I thought you were saying, if a fox hunter on horseback was threatening you (with trampling or getting kicked in the head with a hoof) then you would defend yourself with violence -- presumably without hurting the horse. That would be an instance of *individual* self-defence that I would excuse. But then I realised that is not what you are saying at all. You actually meant, if a fox hunter on horseback was threatening you (with verbal abuse or other actions that are unlikely to physically harm you) then you would go out of your way to put yourself in danger, so that you could exact your revenge. Your revenge for being insulted, or for what the fox hunter did yesterday. Or you would wait until the hunter dismounted and then kick him in the head for the pleasure of it.

If this is where you are coming from, I can only say good day and wish you well.

At the end of your comment, you reaffirm your commitment to using violence for individual self-defence. You and I are in agreement about that, but it has nothing to do with animal rights activism.

It seems you don't have an example of necessary violence that advances a social justice campaign.

tisdag 11 juni 2013

Meaning of life, to treat all humans and animals with love, compassion and nonviolence

To live a life of love, compassion and nonviolence to everyone.
To live after the principle ' “all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.” '

To fight against all discrimination and violence against all beings on this planet, all humans and all other animals:
"We do not object to speciesism in a vacuum. We reject it because it is like other forms of discrimination. What all forms of discrimination share in common is the use of an irrelevant criterion to exclude people from full membership in the moral community. Racists devalue those of different races based solely on skin color; sexists devalue women solely because of sex and gender; heterosexists deny full membership in the moral community to gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. simply on the basis of sexual orientation. Speciesists deny full membership in the moral community based solely on species.

All of these forms of discrimination are morally unjustifiable. We reject speciesism because it is indistinguishable from these other forms of discrimination."
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-thoughts-on-the-abolitionist-approach/#.UbT_v5z_FLM"

Fighting against all violence, and spreading love and compassion, includes to stop inflicting unnecessary suffering and death upon all sentient beings, including nonhuman animals:
http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

onsdag 29 maj 2013

Why does many people abuse humans, dogs, cats and other animals?

Why are many persons cruel to human and other non-human animals?
I often try to think that what made a person become so destroyed that he/she feels it is justified to inflict so much violence against another sentient being; and lacks the capacity to feel empathy and love when it comes to the suffering of another individual.

I also think that if this person would have been taught love and compassion from childhood, instead of violence and apathy towards other individuals suffering that this person would have been completely different.

If we hurt another being, we hurt ourselves. In order to kill someone, we have to violate this individual's love and wants, we have to crush hopes, destroy a family and friend relationships; We have to sacrifice part of our inner love and compassion; we have to say to ourselves that 'I don't care' in order to take someone's purpose and life. And this has destroyed us, destroyed our society. The reason why people inflict violence and suffering upon others is the lack of empathy and love to others. If we instead would reinforce love and empathy at each meal by living a vegan lifestyle, instead of destroying parts of our love and empathy at each meal by hurting and killing someone for 'convenience' or taste, we would surely attain world peace. As long as we sow violence and wars by our eating choices, our society and culture will be absorbed in violence and wars.

So the problem is that our society destroys a person so much. The society inflicts violence upon a person, it teaches a person to practise violence, and the person loses more of his/her innate love and compassion. We will never reverse this destructive force and a persons lack of empathy, by feeling and practising violence and hate --- in our actions, speech and thoughts. If we feel violence in our heart, it will also effect our actions, and it will make us less efficient in our vegan advoacy. To show compassion, love and nonviolence in active vegan education of those we meet is the only thing that can make a people experience a revolution of their heart and go vegan.
That another one has abused an animal, doesn't justify a violent revenge action.

So when a person is hating and destryoing for other individuals, I don't feel hate. I feel a deep sorrow for the individual that has been hurt, and I also feel sorry for the individual that has been destroyed by the choices that our society to a large extent has enforced upon that individual. Of course we are all responsible for our choices.... But I know that the person would have been totally different if we had lived in a completely vegan society with no discrimination at all - not against humans and not against nonhuman animals.

We have all been destroyed to a large extent, and more than 99% of the population still is regularly making non-vegan choices, hurting and killing animals on a regular basis. Our non-vegan friends are condemning dog abusers, but are abusing animals themselves: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-note-about-michael-vick/
I also recommend this wonderful essay on nonviolence: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/

lördag 25 maj 2013

Vegan reply to: “If we left nature alone, there would be millions more wild animals killing humans!”

You wrote: “No I don't think it's morally justified as I don't believe in killing a fellow human.”

Okay in order not to be speciecist, i.e. in order to not discriminate based on species, you have to include animals in your moral concern.

“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animals rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione

In order to not be speciecist, you have to include them in your moral concern and not to kill your fellow non-human animals for food, clothing or any other reason.

“If we left nature alone, there would be millions more wild animals killing each other and millions of animals like wild cats killing humans!”

First of all your argument is not related to the reason why people domesticate, enslave and exploit almost 60 billion land animals per year for food, and exploit more than 1000 billion marine animals per year; neither the driving force of why people are hunting. The driving force behind all this is the viewing of animal as commodities, and killing/hunting and eating for pleasure, taste, convenience, habit or tradition.

You are assuming that there would be million predators killing humans.
There is a nonviolent solution. We could live in ways to protect ourselves from wild cats and other predators. You are trying morally to justify violence to prevent other sentient beings potential violence against humans. Would you ever believe it is justified to kill another human just because you saw him/her as a potential threat?

I am opposed to violence. I recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/#.UaCzxZxc18E