Violence against property is violence

Violence to "property" IS violence to sentient beings. Do you not know that there are sentient beings living in the walls of all buildings? Or do insects not count for you? How many lives have been snuffed out because labs and fur farms were burned? Many more than were "saved", and each of those insects was an individual with an interest in their own survival, just like the non-insect animals in the labs and fur farms.

There are many other reasons why destroying "property" is violence. That is only one of them.


-Colin Wright




-----


More comments about nonviolence and veganism:


The number of non-Vegans in India and China has absolutely no bearing on the issue. There are people in India and China who are non-violently advocating Veganism as well, and what we need are more of them, and less of people following the same, tired, archaic mindset that Steve Best follows.

Peaceful Vegans are leaders, Steve Best is a follower.
----


Colin Wright People who accept Steve Best's idea of how we should make Vegans have those things working against them. I don't. The way I make Vegans is faster and more effective than he understands. He's stuck in the one-dimensional mindset that advocating violence and other kinds of pointless and counter-productive "activism" is morally justifiable.


---

“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: Grumpy Old Vegan

Other important posts:

• Abolitionist veganism - articles, arguments and refutations of objections

Happy new vegan year - free of violence, suffering and discrimination

Happy new year to all of you!!!! May you have a wonderful 2014!


I wish that this year will be a year where everyone decides to not be a part of any discrimination and violence. That we stand up against all discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, color, age, species, etc! [more info: note 0]  <3




I wish that we decide to use our time to fight against and alleviate the poverty, starvation, violence and discrimination in this world; that we help the orphans of this world, support foster homes, and consider to adopt people, and animals from animal shelters if we have the opportunity. A year were we don’t support the slavery and injustices of the cocoa industry [see note 1], and other slave work that is so common in the production of commodities in the Third world.




A year where we don’t exacerbate the poverty, starvation, injustices, environmental destruction involved in/exacerbated by the production and consumption of animal foods, which involves breeding up, using, unnecessarily harming and killing animals for food; and giving them feed that could have been used to feed starving people; while taking their land, driving them out of their homes and growing feed and raising “cattle” on land that could have been used to feed the indigenous population [2]. The feed that feeds the animals only in USA could be used to feed 800 million people. At the same time several million people die of starvation and 870 million suffering from chronic undernourishment [4]. And we have no nutritional need for this (see below).




More than 56 billion land animals and more than 1000 billion marine animals are harmed and killed all around the world. 1 billion is 1000 million. These animals are harmed and killed for meat, fish, milk and eggs. Is this enormous amount of suffering and killing necessary?


Even extremly conservative health organizations, including American Dietic Association, claim that we can live a life of optimal health on a well planned vegan diet. Thus we have a choice when we stand in the food store: Either we can choose to get all our nutrition from meat (including fish), milk, eggs and other animal foods, or we can choose to get our nutrition by consuming vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts and other plant foods, i.e. a vegan diet.




We don’t need to consume animal foods for our survival. The production of animal foods inevitably involves that animals are harmed and/or killed. And the pleasure of meat, milk and eggs, or that it is more practical/socially accepted to consume these/peer pressure are no valid justifications for this unnecessary harm and death. Even a more “humane breeding and slaughter”/”ecological eggs”/”ecological milk” involves unnecessary suffering and death, and thus that is not a solution if we claim that animals have a moral value, and we think that their interest of not suffering and their interest of being a live are more important than our trivial reasons for consuming animal foods. Professor of law Gary Francione and Anna Charlton answers this and 29 other common excuses to consume animal foods in the book Eat like you Care [5].




We can live in a world without news articles describing suffering people and suffering nonhuman animals, and in a world without people and animals suffering in silence. But this requires that we stop using people and nonhuman animals as commodities, and stop paying for a production that involves their suffering. If we want to change the world, we have to start with ourselves. If you want to change the world, and start living according to your own moral values, you can easily do this (if you haven't already): opt out of all unnecessary suffering, discrimination and violence towards animals by going vegan; and opt out of all other discrimination and all violence.


Solution:

Vision for nonviolent vegan permaculture-community promoting veganism and human rights

More articles opposing all discrimination:

“That’s Racist Against White People!” A Discussion on Power and Privilege


0. See first paragraphs: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-thoughts-on-the-abolitionist-approach/#.UsNBH7SwUX0
1. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dark-side-chocolate/
2. References found in the end of this article: http://bloganders.blogspot.se/2013/11/human-rights-and-animal-rights-against.html
3. http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
4. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
5. www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

Human rights and animal rights, against violence and discrimination

This article will illustrate some ways that I help human rights.

I steadily encounter human right organizations that want to help humans by efforts that are harming and killing animals, in order to provide e.g. food and clothing.

How do they think that we can get a more peaceful and just world by inflicting completely unnecessary suffering, violence and death to sentient beings with an interest of not suffering and an interest of a continued existence? It is unnecessary, since they can provide nutritious foods for an optimal health from non-animal sources [1], and they can provide clothes created from non-animal sources.

Violence anywhere, hurts everyone, everywhere. A violent means, apart from being immoral, doesn’t work to reach a nonviolent ends.

As long as there as people think that violence can be justified for completely frivolous reasons, such as the violence in the production of animal foods, people will think that other forms of violence also are justified, that are much less frivolous.

A human rights-organization sees a need, e.g. a freezing child that is starving. They feed her/him animal foods and put on clothes from sheep wool. In this process animals are harmed, killed and exploited for completely frivolous reasons, frivolous since the starving and freezing child could have been fed by foods from non-animal sources, and clothed from non-animal sources. In the process of helping the kid, animals are exploited, people are taught to believe that violence is justified for frivolous reasons and that it can be used to help people; poverty and starvation is exacerbated because of all plants, water and energy required to feed the animal who is killed for frivolous reasons. People start wars, and use violence, for what they believe are justified reasons; because they have been taught that violence is a justified means (reinforced by having violence on their plates 3 times per day (violence that was used to produce animal foods), and using violence as their clothes everyday (violence that was used to kill and domesticate the animals used for fur, leather, down, etc.)) to reach a peaceful ends; and in this process poverty and starvation is exacerbated, which again human rights activists try to alleviate through being violent towards animals.  And thus this is all a vicious circle.

As long as human rights activists exploit nonhuman animals to reach their goals, we won’t have any end of all violence and injustice inflicted towards humans. And the same goes the other way around. As long as “animal rights” activists justify violence and harm against humans, including sexism, to promote animal rights, the exploitation of nonhuman animals will continue. It is all a vicious circle that only can be broken by opposing all violence and discrimination towards both human and nonhuman animals.

Here is one example of how feeding starving People animal foods exacerbate starvation, injustices and poverty:
“Currently, the continent as a whole has the arable land capacity to feed its entire population with plant protein, but it does not have even close to the land capacity to feed all of its farm animals. The European Union found that only 20 percent of what Europe’s farm animals eat comes from the continent, while the remainder must be imported. Because most of these imports use up the land in developing countries, this animal-based method of feeding Europe contributes directly to the depletion of the resources of developing nations, thus contributing to their continued impoverishment. What it essentially boils down” (..)

“even if you are only concerned about human rights issues, you ought to be concerned about animal exploitation as well because it is directly connected to a significant human rights issue. As we discussed earlier, the amount of resources required to produce animal foods is multiples of what is required to produce plant foods. Although there are certainly political issues that hamper the distribution of food, it is also the case that animal agriculture and a diet of animal foods is increasingly a threat to world hunger, our water supply, our topsoil, etc.”

-Quote from Eat like you Care ; www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com

Note 1: See the end of http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/08/varfor-vegan-for-att-det-ar-omoraliskt.html

More references:
How violence and domestication of animals, leads to violence against humans:
Animal Oppression and Human Violence, by David A. Nibert, Professor of Sociology at Wittenberg University.
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=10179

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full.pdf
http://www.imeche.org/.../reports/Global_Food_Report.pdf...
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/
http://www.ncifap.org/issues/environment/

Fler resurser:
https://www.facebook.com/DjurensRattigheterAvskaffaDjurslaveriet/posts/554732297952812Richard Oppenlander, Your role in Global depletion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drS5hHdelR8

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

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

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.