In a discussion on Facebook:
Why does everything has to be black-and-white when it comes to people and their actions?
For
example, Gary has a really good theory, but I don't agree with all of
his personal interactions on his Facebook-page. Just because you don't
like some things a person do, you don't need to take the extreme that
you have hate, dislike or have "no respect" for a person.
You
could just believe that he is doing the best he can do help the
animals, but that he gets some overwhelmed and stressed by all attacks
and responses that he gets, and sometimes fails to communicate properly
with people.
Single
issue campaigns reinforce Welfarism (I refer to my previous post). No
surprise that many people engaged in these campaigns are not vegans.
That's why some people call people engaging in single issue campaigns
for Welfarists. It is not an insult, just a description.
----
Jenny Trigg And
I have read through all the comments here, and think Colin has been
incredibly patient. If Professor Gary L Francione took this much time,
he would not have been able to reply to as many people as he has... In
other words I understand why Gary is so short sometimes with some people
who do not seem able to learn.
-------
Rhonda Anderson I
personally don't know if I like GF or not, because I do not know him on
a personal basis, but because I believe animal rights is equally as
important as any other rights, I decided to read his essays and books,
and take them into consideration. Everything I thought after reading and
understanding what was said made complete sense. Veganism IS animal
rights, and its crystal clear that if we all teach veganism rather than
unwittingly perpetuating speciesism through supporting welfare actions,
the sooner the animals will be actually be considered and treated as
equals deserving of justice.
---
Anna Adey It's
not about you. It's never personal, it's about discussing theories and
ideas to become better informed to help the animals. If you take things
personally and refute philosophies because the person saying them
bruised your ego, and you let that cloud your judgement of doing what's
right for the movement, you are a part of the problem
-------
Anna: I
have never once, nor would I, insist that everyone must accept
Francione's, or anyones viewpoints. I believe it's important to discuss
ideas within a movement and not have every debate dwindle into personal
attacks. Assuming that everyone in this
thread is vegan, I think we are all familiar with people that 'jump in'
and troll threads every time a certain buzzword is used and instead of
starting with a clean slate and actually discussing the issue at hand
respectfully, resorting to ad homs and strawmen arguments, using
often-repeated cliches such as 'you're all or nothing/black and white
thinking/to each its own/you're all in a cult/don't be divisive'
------
Anna: And
by the way, my message before about small/average/great minds was not
about you. I was referring to your complaint that Francione dare be
critical of Melanie Joy and others. He is critical of their theories,
not them personally! We should all be critical of *all* of their
theories, you can't simply trust that every one has the animals best
interests at heart.
-------
Answer to a persons post:
I
don't believe Gary loves the 'inner fighting'. Why would he love that?
Maybe he is just opposing single issue campaigns and other "Animal
welfare" groups because that he believes that they are harmful to the
animals??
He
just like most Abolitionists are many times frustrating of hearing the
same objections and excuses for Welfarism over and over again.
Especially when it turns into ad hominem-attacks or other angry verbal
attacks.
People
who are blocking other people from promoting certain views on their
pages maybe should be understanding of why an administrator blocks
people from Abolitionist Approach when it clearly says in the guidelines
that one is not allowed to promote a Welfarist agenda on that page.
Maybe they just want people to be able to learn without other people who
lack knowledge of why Welfarism is harmful comes with distorted views
of their position.
-----------
A person wrote: " I saw a post that a friend was commenting on in my newsfeed, in which Francione was bashing Vegan Outreach. I came and made a comment to Francione that I had just participated in one event and that it was nice because they were showing "Earthlings" and that a lot of people were stopping and interested. I also told Francione that he should get down from his high chair and stop criticizing everyone and that he was the worst thing that happened to the vegan movement because he is constantly causing seperation between vegans,"
I just want to point out that I am not attacking you or anyone else. Just trying to discuss this kindly.
To publicly call a person that "he is the worst thing that happened to the vegan movement" then it is both offending to the person receiving it and is against the guidelines of their page.
You shouldn't be surprised that an administrator who probably got offended would block you for writing that. If they would allow all that sort of stuff than the Abolitionist Approach-website wouldn't be a place where people can come to learn about Abolitionist veganism. This is what they want.
I don't agree with all of the personal interactions on that page. I think it sometimes can be to rough and that people should express themselves in another way. I am not condoning anyone's behaviour. I am just trying to give a broader perspective, instead of a perspective that sorts of say: "That this is the worst person in the world." It is much better to realize that no person is perfect, and that Gary is likely doing his best out of his own limitations.
I am not defending anyone. I would have been very offended if someone said that to me, misrepresenting my position and claiming that I am "causing separation between vegans" just because that I am publicly opposing single issue campaigns, "Animal welfare reform" and other Welfarism.
I am just saying that you can't judge someone for blocking other people for expressing things that you don't want to hear, when you are blocking people who are expressing things that you don't want to hear. Who does that make sense?
----
A person said: " He can't take a criticism that's why "
I think that it is true on a personal level that his personal interaction is not always the best with people who criticize him.
And this is also true for very many vegans regardless of whether they are Abolitionists or Welfarists.
But when it comes to handling the arguments against the Abolitionist Approach-theory, he does a good job answering the objections - see e.g. this book (ask your library): http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/the-animal-rights-debate-abolition-or-regulation/
And also see the podcast-section of his website.
Visar inlägg med etikett vegans. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett vegans. Visa alla inlägg
torsdag 15 maj 2014
fredag 9 maj 2014
Are people comfortable with consuming animal foods?
People are not *very* comfortable. I have many conversations with nonvegans and they are not very comfortable. Some people may be comfortable. A colleague of mine said yesterday when we talked about veganism, that she rather not think about the issue (consuming animal foods and the suffering and death involved in the production of animal foods).
“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.”
http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
Maybe it increased because people felt more comfortable buying it?
Maybe that is why Whole Foods and other supermarkets invest a lot of money in promoting “humane” marketing schemes?
“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.”
http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
Maybe it increased because people felt more comfortable buying it?
Maybe that is why Whole Foods and other supermarkets invest a lot of money in promoting “humane” marketing schemes?
onsdag 7 maj 2014
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"
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.
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.
måndag 5 maj 2014
Why vegans shouldn't promote Animal welfare reform
There are many people that like to promote "Animal welfare" reforms. It is such a normalized part of our society and few people question whether this could be harmful. Few people question what you are actually promoting by promoting laws that will "reform" any exploitation.
Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.
When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.
This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimize animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.
The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit.
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occur when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.
So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reforms, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation because of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and sow vegan seeds and make people understand that you have to go vegan in order to opt out of animal exploitation. This grassroots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety
Further reading: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps
Animal are commodities in our society. When we make laws related to them it is a 'property law'. We make laws that will protect 'property' By making laws related to the 'property' we legitimize that animals are property in our society. The laws are not made in order to protect persons. The laws are made in order to protect the owner from 'property damage'.
When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.
This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimize animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.
The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit.
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occur when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.
So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reforms, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation because of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
or
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and sow vegan seeds and make people understand that you have to go vegan in order to opt out of animal exploitation. This grassroots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety
Further reading: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=rutgersnewarklwps
Why vegans don't eat fish
Did you know this about the fish:
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves".
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Not that it should matter whether an animal is 'good-natured', curious, sensitive, have "a personality" as we define it, etc. in order for him/her not to be exploited.
More to learn
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/07/14/do-fish-feel-pain/
---
If you don't want to harm a sentient being with a desire not to be harmed.
If you don't want to kill a sentient being with a desire to live.
If you don't want to exploit a sentient being with an interest of living. Then, go vegan.
Is it right to disregard the fundamental rights of other sentient beings to satisfy our most trivial interest of pleasure or convenience?
If you answer 'No'. Then the only rational choice is to go vegan.
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves".
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Not that it should matter whether an animal is 'good-natured', curious, sensitive, have "a personality" as we define it, etc. in order for him/her not to be exploited.
More to learn
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/07/14/do-fish-feel-pain/
---
If you don't want to harm a sentient being with a desire not to be harmed.
If you don't want to kill a sentient being with a desire to live.
If you don't want to exploit a sentient being with an interest of living. Then, go vegan.
Is it right to disregard the fundamental rights of other sentient beings to satisfy our most trivial interest of pleasure or convenience?
If you answer 'No'. Then the only rational choice is to go vegan.
lördag 3 maj 2014
No moral difference between killing dolphins and other animals
Unconditional love. Fishermen and the rest of nonvegan population exploit and kill animals for food (despite that we can survive and thrive on a plant only-diet), and dolphins die as bycatch. Dolphins help people anyways.
No reason to target any specific nationality, since people from all nationalities are equally guilty for all animal exploitation - including killing sentient beings in our oceans and killing dolphins as bycatch. No moral difference between exploiting different species.
Good quote: "My friends, please listen: You're not making any sense when you post statuses, or get upset, about people abusing cats and dogs when you are not vegan. They don't have to abuse dogs and cats, and you don't have to harm other animals for food.
The quicker you acknowledge and do something about this disconnect the quicker you can end your own harm of other animals."
From John Tallent
Comment to this article: https://www.thedodo.com/man-lost-at-sea-for-25-hours-s-529686265.html
No reason to target any specific nationality, since people from all nationalities are equally guilty for all animal exploitation - including killing sentient beings in our oceans and killing dolphins as bycatch. No moral difference between exploiting different species.
Good quote: "My friends, please listen: You're not making any sense when you post statuses, or get upset, about people abusing cats and dogs when you are not vegan. They don't have to abuse dogs and cats, and you don't have to harm other animals for food.
The quicker you acknowledge and do something about this disconnect the quicker you can end your own harm of other animals."
From John Tallent
Comment to this article: https://www.thedodo.com/man-lost-at-sea-for-25-hours-s-529686265.html
lördag 3 augusti 2013
Reply to Vegans are hypocritical because they are using computers and animals were exploited in the production of computers
Some claim that ' Vegans are hypocritical because they are using computers and animals were exploited in the production of computers'
Reply:
And you are against human exploitation, and in your daily interaction you use products whose production involves exploitation of humans. Just because that it is impossible in the society we live in to avoid using a product who was produced through the exploitation of humans, doesn't make it morally justified to exploit humans. Just because that we can't avoid using products that involved the exploitation of animals, doesn't make it morally justified to inflict unnecessary harm and death on sentient animals.
Please consider this:
We all agree that “unnecessary” animal suffering and death are morally wrong. If that means anything at all, it must mean that we cannot justify animal suffering and death by reasons of pleasure or convenience. But what is our best justification for imposing suffering and death on the 56 billion animals (excluding fish) we eat annually?
Pleasure. Convenience.
So the only justification we have is that which we agree cannot suffice. This is moral schizophrenia.
If you are not a vegan, you are participating directly in animal exploitation. Being a vegan is easy, better for your health, and the most powerful way that you, as an individual, can say “no” to animal exploitation.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/unnecessary-suffering-and-death/#.Uf1Zx237bBA
tisdag 25 juni 2013
Does vegans love or hate people consuming meat, diary and other animal products?
Some person claimed that we shouldn't feel sad if a person exploiting animals on a regularly basis die. All non-vegans are exploiting animals on a regularly basis for palatable pleasure/convenience.
Despite that I for a long time have tried to live a moral life, it took me almost 28 years to realize that it is wrong to kill animals for food, and that veganism is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle. If I would have encountered arguments like this, I think I would have become a vegan much quicker: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights
I think that the death of a sentient being always is sad, including the death of humans. I think that we can love someone despite the violence that that person is causing to others, and causing to himself or herself. I would e.g. mourn if someone died of my non-vegan family or friends. I don’t think it attracts our non-vegan friends to claim we shouldn't feel sad if they would die. I really hope it isn’t true that we wouldn’t be sad.
For me veganism has led me to feel more love and empathy to animals, including humans, on this planet. Of course I am deeply saddened by the exploitation my non-vegan friends are inflicting upon the animals, and their inability to demonstrate love and empathy toward the animals that they choose to exploit for animal products, but I can still love them.
Despite that I for a long time have tried to live a moral life, it took me almost 28 years to realize that it is wrong to kill animals for food, and that veganism is a necessity for an ethical lifestyle. If I would have encountered arguments like this, I think I would have become a vegan much quicker: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights
I think that the death of a sentient being always is sad, including the death of humans. I think that we can love someone despite the violence that that person is causing to others, and causing to himself or herself. I would e.g. mourn if someone died of my non-vegan family or friends. I don’t think it attracts our non-vegan friends to claim we shouldn't feel sad if they would die. I really hope it isn’t true that we wouldn’t be sad.
For me veganism has led me to feel more love and empathy to animals, including humans, on this planet. Of course I am deeply saddened by the exploitation my non-vegan friends are inflicting upon the animals, and their inability to demonstrate love and empathy toward the animals that they choose to exploit for animal products, but I can still love them.
söndag 19 maj 2013
Brain scans show vegans display more empathy than omnivores
Brain Scans Show Vegetarians and Vegans Are More Empathic than Omnivores
They appear to have more of an empathetic response to suffering
Every now and again we discover that some of our beliefs are supported by scientific research. Recent research using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) shows that "vegetarians and vegans appear to have more of an empathetic response to both human and animal suffering ... FMRI brain scans showed that the areas of the brain associated with empathy
(such as the anterior cingulate cortex and the left inferior frontal
gyrus in this study) were more activated in vegetarians and vegans
compared to omnivores when all three groups were shown pictures of human
or animal suffering. Written questionnaires on empathy, in both this
and other studies, seem to confirm higher empathy levels in vegetarians
and vegans (Preyo and Arkiwawa, 2008; Filippi et al 2010)." (I could not
find the reference to Preyo and Arkiwawa, 2008 but the entire essay by
Filippi et al., 2010 is here.)
I've been thinking about this general topic and relationship for a long time and I agree with the conclusion of the essay
in which these results are reported, namely that "Most animal advocates
also care deeply about a broad spectrum of social justice and
humanitarian causes." I've always believed that "compassion begets compassion" and easily crosses species lines. I welcome more research in this area from both social scientists and neuroscientists
söndag 28 april 2013
Vegans are at no risk of getting a protein deficiency
Please study this:
http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ and this:
http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/dairy.htm
No risk of getting a protein deficiency.
" Proteins are made from chains of 20 different amino acids that connect together in varying sequences—similar to how all the words in a dictionary are made from the same 26 letters. Plants (and microorganisms) can synthesize all of the individual amino acids that are used to build proteins, but animals cannot. There are 8 amino acids that people cannot make and thus, these must be obtained from our diets—they are referred to as “essential.”
After we eat our foods, stomach acids and intestinal enzymes digest the proteins into individual amino acids. These components are then absorbed through the intestinal walls into the bloodstream. After entering the body’s cells, these amino acids are reassembled into proteins. Proteins function as structural materials which build the scaffoldings that maintain cell shapes, enzymes which catalyze biochemical reactions, and hormones which signal messages between cells—to name only a few of their vital roles.
Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants."
Please also read this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/the-purpose-of-cowpighorse-is-not-to.html
If we love animals, and don't want to inflict them suffering, we shouldn't eat them: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/the-purpose-of-cowpighorse-is-not-to.html
They have a right to live.
http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ and this:
http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/dairy.htm
No risk of getting a protein deficiency.
" Proteins are made from chains of 20 different amino acids that connect together in varying sequences—similar to how all the words in a dictionary are made from the same 26 letters. Plants (and microorganisms) can synthesize all of the individual amino acids that are used to build proteins, but animals cannot. There are 8 amino acids that people cannot make and thus, these must be obtained from our diets—they are referred to as “essential.”
After we eat our foods, stomach acids and intestinal enzymes digest the proteins into individual amino acids. These components are then absorbed through the intestinal walls into the bloodstream. After entering the body’s cells, these amino acids are reassembled into proteins. Proteins function as structural materials which build the scaffoldings that maintain cell shapes, enzymes which catalyze biochemical reactions, and hormones which signal messages between cells—to name only a few of their vital roles.
Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth’s largest animals: elephants, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants."
Please also read this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/the-purpose-of-cowpighorse-is-not-to.html
If we love animals, and don't want to inflict them suffering, we shouldn't eat them: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/the-purpose-of-cowpighorse-is-not-to.html
They have a right to live.
tisdag 16 april 2013
Vegans against violence; veganism is nonviolence, Ahimsa
“Veganism
is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to
other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and
nonviolence to yourself.” ~ Gary L Francione
It troubles me
when I see vegans calling violent retribution on those who harm animals.
I fail to see how it is possible to reconcile advocating violence
against one species of sentient beings (humans) while advocating
nonviolence against others. Furthermore, such comments achieve nothing
except to provide ammunition for those with an interest in opposing
veganism and what it stands for.
"Violence is the problem; it is not any part of the solution." ~ Gary L. Francione
Quote:
måndag 15 april 2013
There is not more animal cruelty in China compared to America or Europe
Many people and some animal organizations are coming with anti-Chinese message and are claiming that Chinese people are cruel.
Here is what I wrote as a response to this false statement:
"The average Chinese still only eats half the meat that his American counterpart does."
There is no less animal cruelty in America and European countries compared to China. E.g. the average American eats twice amount of dead animals as the average Chinese (i.e. because of their choices double as many animals are enslaved, confined, tortured, killed, losing their families, friends, life and purpose).
People eat their meat, drink their milk, eat their eggs, wear their fur, without having a real understanding of whom the animals are and the suffering they are causing them by their actions. Hearing about it is not the same thing as understanding. Even if they understand it to some degree, some people are so hurt, so disconnected, so enslaved by their choices, that they have a hard time to feel any love, compassion and empathy. They have lost their true self, their true love and compassion to all beings, and it takes a lot of work to rewake their love, compassion and consciousness and connectedness for all beings. It is not people who are our enemy, it is this culture which teaches that animals are commodities. People we should help to find their true self of love and compassion - and the goal to reach this is to show them love and compassion (despite that their actions are causing animals enormous pain and suffering). Most people who are now vegans, were once disconnected themselves, and animals were enslaved, abused and killed because of their daily choices.
This happens because animals are treated as property and not as individuals in our society. For each non-vegan choice this property-status is sadly perpetuated. The most effective way to end all animal abuse is to spread a consistent vegan message. Companies will continue to exploit animals as long as their is a demand.
People doing this have been brainwashed by our culture, and their daily choices since their childhood. They have lost their understanding, compassion and love for animals. They are prisoned and are suffering because of this. They don't truly understand the pain they are causing. However, if we educate them and treat them with love and compassion, eventually they can wake up.
Good quote:
"This animal slavery is more deeply entwined and ingrained into the fabric of our culture than human slavery, and it is this underlying pervasive and invisible violence of animal slavery that conditions our minds, feelings, and behavior to create a human society that mirrors the injustice and cruelty we routinely inflict on the animals we own. Historically, human slavery followed on the heels of animal slavery, and by stealing the sovereignty of animals, we historically created precisely the mindset of reductionism, domination, privilege, and disconnectedness that has led to and continues to generate slavery and injustice in our human society. How can we ever expect to create a society of freedom, equality, and harmony among humans when we routinely and heedlessly inflict the opposite on other living beings on such a large scale?"
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/
Here is what I wrote as a response to this false statement:
"The average Chinese still only eats half the meat that his American counterpart does."
There is no less animal cruelty in America and European countries compared to China. E.g. the average American eats twice amount of dead animals as the average Chinese (i.e. because of their choices double as many animals are enslaved, confined, tortured, killed, losing their families, friends, life and purpose).
People eat their meat, drink their milk, eat their eggs, wear their fur, without having a real understanding of whom the animals are and the suffering they are causing them by their actions. Hearing about it is not the same thing as understanding. Even if they understand it to some degree, some people are so hurt, so disconnected, so enslaved by their choices, that they have a hard time to feel any love, compassion and empathy. They have lost their true self, their true love and compassion to all beings, and it takes a lot of work to rewake their love, compassion and consciousness and connectedness for all beings. It is not people who are our enemy, it is this culture which teaches that animals are commodities. People we should help to find their true self of love and compassion - and the goal to reach this is to show them love and compassion (despite that their actions are causing animals enormous pain and suffering). Most people who are now vegans, were once disconnected themselves, and animals were enslaved, abused and killed because of their daily choices.
This happens because animals are treated as property and not as individuals in our society. For each non-vegan choice this property-status is sadly perpetuated. The most effective way to end all animal abuse is to spread a consistent vegan message. Companies will continue to exploit animals as long as their is a demand.
People doing this have been brainwashed by our culture, and their daily choices since their childhood. They have lost their understanding, compassion and love for animals. They are prisoned and are suffering because of this. They don't truly understand the pain they are causing. However, if we educate them and treat them with love and compassion, eventually they can wake up.
Good quote:
"This animal slavery is more deeply entwined and ingrained into the fabric of our culture than human slavery, and it is this underlying pervasive and invisible violence of animal slavery that conditions our minds, feelings, and behavior to create a human society that mirrors the injustice and cruelty we routinely inflict on the animals we own. Historically, human slavery followed on the heels of animal slavery, and by stealing the sovereignty of animals, we historically created precisely the mindset of reductionism, domination, privilege, and disconnectedness that has led to and continues to generate slavery and injustice in our human society. How can we ever expect to create a society of freedom, equality, and harmony among humans when we routinely and heedlessly inflict the opposite on other living beings on such a large scale?"
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/
Veronique Perrot HC Excellent
answer Anders!!!!! And isn't that the truth. Those who critique other
cultures usually blame them for what they do themselves.
Anders Branderud Nicole,
I know, and the Chinese population is 4 times bigger, so the average
Chinese eats half the amount of meat compared to the average American.
Anders Branderud And
the influence of Western consumption habits sadly have had a huge
impact on the dramatic increase of the meat consumption in China.
Countries are exporting animal cruelty, and then many individuals are
blaming whole eastern Asian countries for the behavior they themselves
are a part of.
Veronique Perrot HC Unfortunately.
Or when you hear Japanese now spelling the western dairy gospel: "we
need milk for calcium" as if it had always been the truth there.
"Excellent
answer Anders!!!!! And isn't that the truth. Those who critique other
cultures usually blame them for what they do themselves."
Thanks! Yes that is so true!
And then sadly some are creating anti-Chinese campaign with a violent picture, claiming that "China is sadist and cruel" [ : ( ], which are shared by thousands, and liked by tens of thousands; spreading the hatred and racism towards all Chinese persons. Those threads are always full of racist comments.
What is witnessed in those picture occurs daily in the slaughter houses of all countries - a small amount of people participate in the direct violence, and the virtual majority pays slaughter house workers to do it for them.
We vegans shouldn't spread such campaigns, but should practise Ahimsa in our actions and speech. And we should make and help people understand their disconnectedness, which we are not doing when we point out a certain people group and accuse them all of being "sadists".
Those racist campaigns just enforce people's disconnectedness and make them see others as being "cruel to animals", while they themselves are animal lovers, fighting for animal rights; but, the reality is that many people sharing those campaigns are working against animal rights by their daily non-vegan choices.
And the same disconnectedness and confusion is enforced by all other single issue-campaigns: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
Thanks! Yes that is so true!
And then sadly some are creating anti-Chinese campaign with a violent picture, claiming that "China is sadist and cruel" [ : ( ], which are shared by thousands, and liked by tens of thousands; spreading the hatred and racism towards all Chinese persons. Those threads are always full of racist comments.
What is witnessed in those picture occurs daily in the slaughter houses of all countries - a small amount of people participate in the direct violence, and the virtual majority pays slaughter house workers to do it for them.
We vegans shouldn't spread such campaigns, but should practise Ahimsa in our actions and speech. And we should make and help people understand their disconnectedness, which we are not doing when we point out a certain people group and accuse them all of being "sadists".
Those racist campaigns just enforce people's disconnectedness and make them see others as being "cruel to animals", while they themselves are animal lovers, fighting for animal rights; but, the reality is that many people sharing those campaigns are working against animal rights by their daily non-vegan choices.
And the same disconnectedness and confusion is enforced by all other single issue-campaigns: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)