Vegan reply to: But unless you live in a forest you can't call yourself a vegan

"Sometimes non vegans, and even vegans, will chastise you for promoting veganism. They will tell you that because you are using a computer or live in a house and animals probably were harmed in order to make those things that you have no right to criticize somebody for exploiting animals directly for food, clothing, entertainment etc. They will say unless you live in a forest and completely remove yourself from society you have no business advocating against someone else's behavior.

Not only is this argument illogical. It is also bigoted. It's simply speciesism.

Nobody would ever say we should not try to stop murderers because sometimes humans are accidentally killed in traffic. Nobody would ever say we should stop trying to eliminate modern day slavery because we live in a country built by slave labor- or even because we have things in our house (electronics, clothes) that were made by slaves.

Nobody would ever tell a feminist, an LGBTQ advocate or a civil rights advocate that they must live in a forest because otherwise they will be participating in a society that objectifies women, LGBTQ folks and non whites.

Nobody would say those things because human rights and the value of human life are a given in our society. Nonhuman rights and the value of nonhuman life are not. So when these people, especially so called vegans, say this nonsense to you just remember it's evidence of *their* prejudice and *their* unquestioned belief in human superiority. Nothing more."

- Chris Palmieri

All discrimination is morally wrong - discrimination against women, against homosexuals, against animals, etc.

What is important in this world is: “all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.”

A person's sexual orientation isn't related to ethics and writing negatively about homosexuality has caused lots of suffering and violence and lots of discrimination and still do.

"Speciesism 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."

I recommend this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/is-hetereosexism-different/#.UaYwUZxc18E
Please read it and share your thoughts.

------

Speciesism is morally objectionable *because* it's like racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination in that all discrimination involves devaluing the interests of others for morally irrelevant reasons--be the particular reason race, sex, sexual orientation/preference, or species. So to say that you regard using species to devalue the interests of sentient beings as bad but you have no view about the use of race, sex, or sexual orientation/preference to devalue the interests of others makes no sense. In order for your objection to speciesism to be coherent, you must oppose the use of all morally irrelevant criteria to devalue the interests of others.

Karma, discrimination, violence against humans and animals

Chad,
There is a truth. Hatred, injustices, wars, violence, discrimination is morally wrong. Discrimination, such as racism, hetrosexism, sexim, ageism, speciecism, and any other kind of discrimination is morally wrong.

We can never justify injustices and other violence by claiming some distorted concept of 'karma'. I don't believe 'as we sow, so shall we reap' means that all injustices and violence that occurs to a person is caused by a person's previous actions.

Discrimination and using violence against another individual based on the criteria of species is morally wrong: “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 any case, we are morally responsible to stand up and fight against all violence.
As I wrote earlier: 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
and this article about Ahimsa: http://faithinmemphis.com/2011/04/16/francione-jainisms-greatest-gift-ahimsa/

06.07.2013:
That’s why I think it is importance that we e.g. use our Facebook-page to spread vegan messages, and also posts that oppose to other violence and discrimination as well. It our responsibility to inform our friends and acquaintances, and every conversation is an opportunity that we should take. We are complicit if we remain silent about the violence and discrimination in this world. Only education will change this world, and make the world less and less violent.

Why it is wrong to participate in PETA's sexist so-called "animal rights"-campaigns

 My reply to a comment at the Abolitionist Approach Facebook-website.
Niranjan Amarnath justified PETA's sexist campaigns and wrote: ” Everyone woman has the right to do what she wants, we men don't have the right to tell a woman what to do & what she should be wearing! “

My reply:
Every individual has the right to do what she/he wants, as long as it doesn’t hurt any other individual. Participating in a campaign that is commodifying women, and trivializing animal rights, is hurting women and hurting animals. Thus it is an unethical action. That people view other beings as commodities and treat them as commodities is the root of the violence in this world. If everyone treated all other individuals as individuals, i.e. with love, compassion and nonviolence, we would have world peace.

Also read this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-state-of-the-movement/#.UVsfN1ev_gM

Pornography and sexism is morally wrong and hurts women

Good quote by Gary Francione:
A question I received from another academic:

"You argue that pornography is bad and should be abolished. Surely, then, you support censorship?"

My reply:

"I do not support censorship as governments have a bad track record of censoring the wrong things. Moreover, censorship will never change anyone's thinking; it just makes whatever is censored more difficult to get. Having said this, I did, some years ago, support the efforts of people like the late Andrea Dworkin, and others, to make illegal certain sorts of violent pornography (rape porn, torture porn, etc.). I still believe that the world would be *way* better off without that garbage.

My present view is that we need to educate men about why they should not consume pornography. My argument is straightforward and analogous to my position about animal exploitation: If we regard animals as having moral value (as most of us claim we do), then we cannot justify consuming them. Period. Similarly, if we think, as many of us claim to think, that women really are equal to men and that patriarchy is both unjust and unjustifiable, then we cannot justify consuming pornography. Period. Pornography is a primary propaganda tool used by patriarchy to perpetuate the objectification of women and reinforce their second-class citizenship. So if we mean what we say about equality and justice for women, pornography is no longer something we *can* choose to consume. It is no longer a morally defensible option.

Two further points:

First, I anticipate that you will reply and say that I am focused only on pornography depicting women and I am, therefore, using a double standard. That would be wrong. Although I think that all pornography is problematic in that commodifies others, I regard porn depicting women as more problematic and qualitatively so. In a patriarchal society, porn depicting men simply *cannot*, as a matter of social structure, have the same meaning or effect. This situation is similar (although not identical) to racism. In a racist society, racist views held by a minority are not the same as racist views held by the majority in terms of meaning or effect.

Second, I get a great deal of mail--often hostile and angry--from people who claim that participation in the "sex industry," including the production of pornography, can "empower" women. Frankly, I don't think that the "sex industry" does anything to "empower" anyone and I think we need to focus on how patriarchy harms and destroys women, and not on how patriarchy can "benefit" them. I also think that we must recognize that in a patriarchal society, *all* women are commodified to a greater or lesser degree and are offered choices that require that they self-commodify. That is a very great tragedy and a serious injustice."

------

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Ervin Phillips: I would suggest that in a patriarchal society, particularly one that is also racist and classist, the notion of "consent" is far from the simple idea that you seem to think it is. Let me ask you: do you think a poor woman of color in Newark or Detroit who engages in prostitution is "consenting" in any meaningful sense? I sure as hell don't.

 

----

 

 

Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Linda McKenzie: My view is that is somewhat similar to asking about where I draw the line on sentience. There may be unclear cases but let's worry about the cases where there is no doubt about sentience. In the porn context, in discussing these issues with men, I have never had a man ask, "well, does this mean that I shouldn't read D.H. Lawrence?" There's soooooooooooooooo much that is clearly porn, let's worry about where porn ends and where literature begins later, especially since we are *not* talking about government censorship but only about voluntary behavior. I am not sure what you mean by "erotica," but one of my concerns is that in a patriarchal society, almost everything we find arousing is linked to hierarchy and that concerns me.

Yesterday at 6:16pm · Like · 5

Sarah K. Woodcock Gary, I agree with your views on pornography. After all, if we reject the commodification of sentient beings, we can't directly participate in their blatant objectification and say we are being morally consistent. Being vegan and being a feminist both necessitate rejecting the products of exploitive systems neither of which deserve our funding.

Nicole Monaghan I agree with your views on pornography. I am friends with a "sex worker" who does not comprehend the reality of internalized sexism and coercion. It's very sad that self-proclaimed feminists uphold to the belief that selling oneself for sex is empowering. I think a lot this confusion stems from current Women's Studies programs in universities, which have entire courses on "sex work" and how we should make the practices safer, etc, rather than abolishing the industries. I think more campaigns need to exist to help young women and men understand how they've internalized sexism, and how it harms them. It's unbelievable how we can get through our entire lives without realizing harmful social forces.

 

 

 

Why PETA's sexism-campaigns for 'animal rights' are morally wrong

Well written about why sexist campaign, such as PETA's, ALWAYS are bad:
First, these campaigns commodify a traditionally disempowered group (women) as a supposed means to the end of helping another disempowered group (nonhumans). But what sense does it make to say that we should treat one group instrumentally in order to help another group? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Indeed, by encouraging the public to see women as objects, PETA merely ensures that people will continue to see nonhumans as objects. As long as we continue to treat women like meat, we will continue to treat nonhumans as meat.

It is imperative that we object to the instrumental treatment of any group. Devaluing and commodifying one group for the supposed benefit of another is immoral and self-defeating.
Second, by coupling sexual imagery with images of violence toward nonhumans, these campaigns attempt to eroticize animal exploitation. We live in a culture in which violence, and particularly violence against women, is eroticized in a variety of ways. Perpetuating this, and extending it to the exploitation of nonhumans, is deeply troubling.

Third, these campaigns have everything to do with promoting PETA and nothing to do with the exploitation of nonhuman animals. PETA started its naked fur campaign in the early 1990s. The fur industry is stronger than ever. There has been a dramatic increase in the past decade in the number of stores carrying fur and the number of designers using fur combined with a significant drop in the average age of fur buyers. A 2004 Gallup poll “found that 63 percent of respondents pronounced the buying and wearing of clothing made with animal fur ‘morally acceptable.’” Although good results for nonhumans would not justify sexism, sexism has not produced any good results for nonhumans.
Read more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-state-of-the-movement/#.UVsfN1ev_gM


-------More about PETA, written 09.04.2013:
PETA supports "happy exploitation", which hurts and kills animals:
"PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;

PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;

PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;

PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;

PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”"
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UWRbA8pEDFc

PETA has sexist campaigns, which hurts women:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/why-petas-sexism-campaigns-for-animal.html

PETA admits that it kills "unadoptable" and "elderly" animals at their "shelter"; and it is never justifiable to kill another individual and to use violence.

------------Quote from Gary Francione's Abolitionist Approach-page:

A portion of an email I received this morning from someone in the U.S.:

"I am not clear as to why you object to animal campaigns using naked women as the women who participate do so voluntarily. So what's the harm? If a woman chooses to participate, that's feminism in my books!"

My reply:

"You have raised an important issue. I have four comments.

First, as a purely practical matter, I do not think that those campaigns do any good whatsoever. That is, I would rather doubt that anyone has had a revolution of the heart and gone vegan in response to one of these sexist campaigns.

Second, the problem of animal exploitation is the problem of commodification. That is, we treat nonhuman animals a things, as existing only as resources, only as means to our ends. That is what we seek to change. But how can we do that as long as we are perpetuating the commodification of women by focusing on their appearance or their ability to provide sexual services as the primary aspect of who they are as persons?

To put this another way, as long as we are thinking of women primarily as sexual objects, we are going to continue to think about animals as objects to use. We need to reject the commodification of *any* persons, human or nonhuman. It makes no sense to say that we reject the commodification of animals but we embrace the commodification of women. It makes no sense to expect progress in eradicating the commodification of animals as long as we are perpetuating the commodification women and making that commodification a part of our campaigns.

Third, choice in a patriarchal society is a tricky concept. Can women freely choose to participate in their own commodification by reinforcing the idea that the primary value of women is their appearance and "sexiness"? Yes, of course they can. Is a choice to reinforce such notions an expression of feminism? That's a different question and I think that the answer is "no."

Although I believe that women should be free to self-commodify, I do not regard the choice per se as facilitating feminism. That is, although I think that a woman should be free to work in a strip club if that is what she wants to do, I do not think that working in a strip club does anything to promote gender equality and to eradicate the pernicious idea that the primary value of women is as providers of sexual services. The fact that women choose to participate in activities that perpetuate their commodification does not mean it is not exploitation.

Fourth, a serious social movement does not employ sexism. For example, Martin Luther King significantly advanced the cause of justice through intellect, tenacity, dignity and courage and without ever "going naked" to win civil rights or engaging in any of the exploitative antics that have become common in the animal movement. And I suggest that he would have made much, much less progress had he done so. If Gandhi used sexism rather than justice and nonviolence, the British would still be in India."

Quote Gary Francione:

An email I got:

"I was at AR 2013 and heard you say that we should not use sexism to promote animal rights. But if helps animals, what's wrong with it?"

My reply: "We are never going to turn people vegan by supposedly promoting animal rights messages through sexism. That may entertain some people and get media coverage for the groups that promote it but I have never known it to effect any change. And that sort of approach continues the objectification of women, which is inherently wrong and perpetuates tremendous harm. Please think about what I am saying here."