Animal Rights Community Online :: View topic - Should we march with vegetarians?

Animal Rights Community Online
Our mission is to Preserve, Promote and Advance respect for animals by discussing animal rights strategy and philosophy as well as encouraging the removal of animal usage from our diets and consumption. This by encouraging a pure vegetarian diet and a vegan lifestyle.

Gallery

Calendar

Vegan Chat ARCO's Blogs summary page

Blogs

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

You have no new messages

Log out [ David Olivier ]


You last visited on Today, at 10:34 am The time now is Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:53 pm All times are UTC + 1	View posts since last visit View unanswered posts View your posts Calendar

Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk

Should we march with vegetarians?
Moderators: Sharon

Page 3 of 6 [76 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Message

benio
Animal Friend

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
Location: France

panthera wrote:

My impression is that most people increase their dairy/egg consumption after cutting out meat.

My impression is that it is so just in the beginning, for many reasons: for example, because people fear a deficiency in protein, or because they still don't feel at ease with strictly vegan ingredients and recipes. But if their motivation is to stop animal suffering and animal exploitation, they will over time diminish the dairy/egg consumption, because they will feel that there is something wrong with it too. Then, when they understand that the dairy products and eggs imply necessarily suffering, they will stop. Therefore, the real issue is to inform them, not to criminalize them. And in fact, at the Veggie Pride a lot of information is distributed about dairy products and eggs.

Quote:

However I truly think that a push for just vegetarianism (read: most likely, ovo-lacto-vegetarianism) leaves such a gaping hole that it needs to be addressed immediately.

But I agree with you: indeed, all my actions are not at all "just for vegetarianism"! The VP is not "just for vegetarianism" and the movement for the abolition of meat is not "just for vegetarianism". I don't understand the origin of this legend that says that our movement wouldn't criticize the other animal products: it is simply not true. In this same thread, I gave a quotation of me from an Italian forum, encouraging an activist to make banners for the abolition of animal products, saying that the important thing was to point out that we are demanding their abolition, that we are not just making propaganda for individual choices.

Moreover, being feminist, I'm much concerned about the production of milk. I even wrote a text that condemned the exploitation of the female animals: I mentioned it here and you will find the text (in italian) here on my personal website. And then some vegan men attacked me for this!!!

(I apologize for talking a lot about me, it's to give you an idea of what I do and what I think: this is still he thread for introducing myself, finally Smile

)

Posted: Yesterday, at 12:26 am

Mark this post and the followings unread

panthera
Senior Animal Rights Activist

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 809
Location: College Park, MD

oh, actually I wasn't talking about VP specifically, as I only know what you have posted. However I have a general problem with vegetarian vs. vegan outreach. And yes, I kept wondering if we should move part of this to a separate thread - do you want to split it off, or just leave as is?

_________________
Animals are not property.
ARCO's Abolitionists

Posted: Yesterday, at 12:31 am

benio
Animal Friend

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
Location: France

panthera wrote:

oh, actually I wasn't talking about VP specifically, as I only know what you have posted.

This discussion started because Diana stated proudly that she is "not interested in marching with vegetarians", referring to the Paris VP and assuming that I was involved in it. Actually, I'm one of the organizers of the first VP in Rome. (Remark, most of the organizers are vegan!)

Quote:

And yes, I kept wondering if we should move part of this to a separate thread - do you want to split it off, or just leave as is?

Good idea! Can you do it? It could be split just after my delicious recipe of vegan omelet! Wink

Posted: Yesterday, at 1:21 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

Dave_81 wrote:

So there is no nonarbitrary way to distingush veganism from nonveganism. Good luck with finding an effective application for that theory on the animal rights movement.

Veganism, as it is repeatedly defined by the self-proclaimed "abolitionists", is a distinction between persons. But from the point of view of creating a movement, classifying persons is only marginally interesting. What is interesting is encouraging ideas and practices, not classifying persons.

“Vegan” may be a valid term to name certain products and practices. People should be encouraged to use those products and adopt those practices. If someone who is not vegan, or maybe not even vegetarian, refuses, even just once, to buy eggs, perhaps because he or she saw something on tv about the way hens are treated, then that is an instance of a vegan practice. That should be encouraged. Just as, in other struggles, it is encouraged for instance that people refrain from using sexist language. No one cares to examine if this and that man has a perfect track record of not using sexist language. That is beside the point. What is the point is making the use of non-sexist language more common, and the use of sexist language less common.

An expression I much like, introduced by Antoine Comiti, is that of a person being a "végétarien du foie gras" — a "foie gras vegetarian". That is someone who, for ethical reasons, refuses to eat foie gras, while perhaps still eating other forms of animal flesh. Of course that person will then not be "végétarien tout court". But eir motivation not to eat foie gras is, by and large, the same as the motivation of vegetarians generally not to eat any animal flesh. That justifies saying that ey is a vegetarian regarding foie gras.

[I am tired of using "he/she" and prefer to switch to Spivak pronouns.]

Perhaps you and many others find that shocking, in that it dilutes vegetarianism too much. But then, yes, I think we should dilute vegetarianism and veganism into every wrinkle of society!

Another problem with the term "veganism" as you and other "abolutionists" use it is that you want to stretch it as far as you can, perhaps out of an obsession for consistency. Since humans are animals too, you would have it mean that the product must contain no human exploitation either. But hardly any such product exists. As you generally favour deontological (rights-based) ethics, you don't allow yourselves to draw lines on quantitative criteria, such as this product being worse than that one because it contains more exploitation, suffering, death or whatever. So logically you are left with no choice but that of refusing practically all products. But that would leave you with approximately zero followers! In the end, you resort to the practicable/practical distinction or some variation. But that distinction, as I have pointed out, is quite arbitrary. It is only a thinly disguised version of deciding what is and what isn't vegan following what you see as practical (“practicable”) for yourselves.

Dave_81 wrote:

However not even you, David, subscribe to this theory; for you claim that it is not arbitrary to distingush meat from other animal products.

If I ever said that, then I wasn't expressing myself aptly. If you take into consideration the suffering and death implied, I think it is arbitrary to distinguish between eating meat and eating dairy or eggs. It is also arbitrary to distinguish between eating meat and eating plants. As has been pointed out quite rightly by the anti-animal people, the production of plants involves the death and suffering of many non-human animals. If you only consider those bare direct consequences, there can be some forms of animal flesh that imply less suffering and death than a nutritionnally equivalent amount of some kinds of plant food. (For instance, there may be less suffering and death in one pound of whale flesh than in one pound of cane sugar.)

However, I think that eating the flesh of an animal is a clear signal that you don't take the animal's interests seriously. Drinking cow's milk is not such a signal, is not such a symbol. It may be a symbol of something else, but it is not such a potent symbol of the fact that non-human interests count for zero. People who do take into consideration the interests of non-human animals quite naturally start off by shunning meat. They do so individually, and the refusal of meat becomes a collective symbol. It becomes a rallying sign for the movement. Just like most any sign, it is partly arbitrary. But so what?

Refusing to eat meat is a very important step on an individual level, and is a very important political symbol. But it shouldn't be given an absolute all-encompassing significance. Yes, it is in large part arbitrary.

Quote:

You do, however, think it is arbitrary to distingush veganism from vegetarianism; or, at any rate, you think that the difference between them is so theoretically/morally negligible that one can only make sense of strict veganism in the light of the concept of personal purity; or, to put it more concretely, that vegans must be preciously concerned with personal purity to distinguish veganism from vegetarianism.

Distinguishing veganism from vegetarianism — or rather, as a significant subspecies of vegetarianism — is very well on a practical level. But you try to make much, much more of that distinction than that. You attempt to make veganism into the cornerstone of your philosophy. You also try to flatly deny the significance of vegetarianism, and regularly belittle and insult people who are “only” vegetarians, as misguided, immature, selfish or traitors.

And as you say, you try to make so much of being vegan, and try to frame it so narrowly as an issue of personal merit, sincerity and so on, that yes, you do end up seeming concerned with nothing much more than the purity of your own belly-button.

Quote:

For among other things, the dairy and egg industries cause more suffering than the meat industry (at least, dairy cows and egg laying hens are exploited for much longer than animals who are used for their meat), and exponentially more than the keyboard industry.[/i]

It was asked of Diana and of Rivers to justify that kind of claim. They didn't. I pointed to numbers showing that over 90% of the animals who are killed are killed exclusively for their flesh. And since following Gary the fundamental harm done to an animal is to kill em, you, or at least Gary, should agree that over 90% of the fundamental harm done to animals is due to the consumption of meat; and that the consumption of eggs and dairy products accounts for less than 10% of that harm.

But you do have a point when you note that cows and hens suffer for a longer period. In terms of numbers, cows are marginal, but, yes, eggs are an enormous source of suffering. Just one egg means over 24 hours of suffering for a hen, generally in conditions of intense suffering. That is a point that should be stressed to any vegetarian who eats eggs.

Quote:

Second, you must have a very superficial conception of what it is for something to be morally the same as something else if you think that, for example, someone who directly violates human rights is morally the same as someone who uses roads (in the Southern United States, for example) that were built using slave labour - that, indeed, anyone who refuses to work with the human rights violators, but who works with those who use roads that were built using slave labour, is a "divisive" human rights advocate who can only be preciously concerned with their integrity because the differences between these acts is so morally negligible.

I'm not that interested in seeing people as “morally the same”or not. I'm interested in getting a movement going. That is a difference between you and me.

Quote:

Third, since the concept of personal purity plays no role in the structure of abolitionist arguments, it is difficult to see what role it could play in a serious critique of abolitionism.

I actually have difficulty in seeing what exactly is the substance of the so-called abolitionist arguments. Most of the points are made by belittling and slandering all other animal people; such as in this thread. By trying to explain that vegetarians don't care about animals; by attacking people nominally, under the pretext that they do not conform to your standards of purity; by trying to make it appear that you have some kind of copyright on the term "abolition"; and by creating an absurd divide between what you call "welfarists" and "abolitionists". Apart from all that vacuous rhetoric, it is true that I have difficulty in seeing the substance of your arguments.

David

Posted: Yesterday, at 1:37 am

benio
Animal Friend

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
Location: France

panthera wrote:

I kept wondering if we should move part of this to a separate thread

Can I suggest the title of the new thread?

It seems to me that the question "Should we march with vegetarians?" would sum up well this discussion.

Posted: Yesterday, at 1:54 am

Gary L. Francione
Animal Guardian

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 88

benio wrote:

This discussion is boring.

Well, I finally find something you say with which I can be in complete agreement.

The "abolition of meat" campaign is, without doubt, a most most incoherent campaign. Now I recognize that you think that "coherence" is an "amoeba word," but the notion of cohering, particularly as it applies to logic, is a meaningful and important notion, at least for people who seek to think clearly. I recognize that logical thought may not be a goal to which you aspire (logical thought may be inconsistent with your concept of praxis), but that does not mean that the concept of coherence is without meaning or significance. And it is fascinating to be told that meat is "symbolic" and other animal products are not similarly "symbolic" by people who insist on using only words with a clear and non-manipulable meaning.

This could have been a most interesting thread. Diana, Dave_81, and others raised some interesting questions. But you and Olivier responded by engaging in insults and ad hominem remarks and, quite remarkably, whined and cried about being "attacked" and "belittled."

Boring, indeed.

GLF

Posted: Yesterday, at 3:32 am

Trevor
Animal Guardian

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

David Olivier wrote:

And since following Gary the fundamental harm done to an animal is to kill em

I don't think that's correct. If I have understood the theory, the fundamental harm done to an animal is to use it as a means to an end (whether one kills it, drinks its milk or wears its skin).

Posted: Yesterday, at 5:14 pm

jubjub
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 115

David, I really like the way you think.

David Olivier wrote:

I agree. An interesting (albeit imperfect) comparison could also be made with the fair-trade movement. There, they don't say, "If you buy non-fair-trade coffee, even once, you are a bad person." Instead, the message is that each time you sit down for a cup of coffee, you have the choice between fair-trade and non-fair-trade, and the goal is to make the fair-trade choice more common.

David Olivier wrote:

Just one egg means over 24 hours of suffering for a hen, generally in conditions of intense suffering. That is a point that should be stressed to any vegetarian who eats eggs.

That's a good way of thinking about things, and I've wondered before if it could be meaningfully applied to all non-vegan products. One egg means 24 hours for a hen in a battery cage. A chicken breast means 10 days or so for a chicken in a broiler shed. A glass of milk or a slice of cheese means some number of minutes for a cow on a dairy farm. And so forth.

Posted: Yesterday, at 5:36 pm

panthera
Senior Animal Rights Activist

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 809
Location: College Park, MD

jubjub wrote:

Don't forget to include a "slice" of the slaughter experience for all of them. And for the dairy cow, a "slice" of distress from having her newborn taken away as well as the "slice" of slaughter and the "slice" of transport to the slaughterhouse!

_________________
Animals are not property.
ARCO's Abolitionists

Posted: Yesterday, at 7:08 pm

jubjub
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 115

panthera wrote:

Yes, it gets complicated, doesn't it? Maybe we could say, for every X gallons of milk you drink, one dairy cow suffers the distress of having one calf taken from her, and so forth. I think that's easier to understand than "slicing" up the experiences.

Posted: Yesterday, at 7:20 pm

terri
Animal Guardian

Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 59

jubjub wrote:

David, I really like the way you think.

David Olivier wrote:

Just one egg means over 24 hours of suffering for a hen, generally in conditions of intense suffering. That is a point that should be stressed to any vegetarian who eats eggs.

For me the fair trade comparison doesn't work at all.
I think that if you know that your non-fair-trade coffee comes from slavery or other malpractice and you still buy it that you are a bad person! I also wonder if the fair trade campaigns have so much success? Maybe they lack it because they do not want to step on anyones tows?

I also do not think it is needed to put a measure on suffering. The question shouldn't be how much do they suffer, I don't care if a pig suffers more than a cow or a free range chicken has a better live than a battery chicken. All of them suffer because we see them as objects and do with them what we want.

Posted: Yesterday, at 8:05 pm

jubjub
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 115

terri wrote:

For me the fair trade comparison doesn't work at all.
I think that if you know that your non-fair-trade coffee comes from slavery or other malpractice and you still buy it that you are a bad person!

The point is not what you think - the point is how the message of fair trade is presented. And from what I have seen, it is presented as I described.

terri wrote:

I also wonder if the fair trade campaigns have so much success? Maybe they lack it because they do not want to step on anyones tows?

In the "Fair Trade" thread over in the Chit Chat section, I linked to a couple of pages that say that fair trade is growing at a rate of 50% per year. I think that's pretty successful. It's certainly faster than veganism is growing.

terri wrote:

I also do not think it is needed to put a measure on suffering.

Maybe it's not needed for you, but it might be a helpful concept for some people. All it is is another way to represent the reality of the situation.

terri wrote:

The question shouldn't be how much do they suffer, I don't care if a pig suffers more than a cow or a free range chicken has a better live than a battery chicken. All of them suffer because we see them as objects and do with them what we want.

But here you misunderstand me. I didn't say anything about whether a free range chicken has a better life than a battery chicken - just that producing one egg takes about 24 hours of a hen's life. (And for the vast majority of hens in the US, that's 24 hours of life in a battery cage.)

Posted: Yesterday, at 8:43 pm

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

jubjub wrote:

It's hard to give precise figures, as they vary depending on many factors. For dairy cows, there is this page on Wikipedia that gives enough data do do some calculations, probably representative of milk production in the United States. On the average, a US cow produces one calf and a bit under 9,000 liters of milk every year. The cow starts producing (giving birth to her first calf) at about two years of age, and is “culled” (= sent to death) after about three years of production on the average, in other words when she is about five.

That means that the production of 26,000 liters of milk (3 times a bit less than 9,000 liters), or about 7,000 US gallons, four animals — one cow and three calves — are brought to life and killed. The cow will have been exploited about five years. The level of suffering she is subjected to is difficult to assess and I haven't really tried; I imagine it is less than that of battery hens. Calves, if brought up for veal, are subjected to very harsh conditions, as described in Singer's Animal Liberation, and are killed at less than four months of age. The calves may also be used to produce beef.

Roughly speaking, then, one US gallon (about 4 liters) of milk implies about 1/2,000th of the death of an animal. It also imples about 6 years / 7,000, that is perhaps 8 hours of the exploitation of an animal, mostly of the cow (the above figure of 6 years is the 5 years of the life of the cow + 3 times four months for the calves).

I haven't looked precisely into the figures for eggs, but I think that saying 1 egg = 24 hours of suffering (and 1/350th of a death?) is about correct. Given the conditions hens are made to live in, a battery egg may well be as heavy with suffering as the same amount of foie gras! (The liver of one stuffed duck weighs about as much as twelve eggs; and takes about twelve days of force-feeding to produce.)

Thus it appears that milk implies much less suffering and death than eggs. I have the impression that the amount of suffering and death in milk is of the same order as that in many plant foods (how many insects are squashed between the sugar canes to produce one kilogram of sugar?).

David

Posted: Yesterday, at 9:04 pm

terri
Animal Guardian

Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 59

Of course fair trade products will get faster popular than veganism as you do not really need to change any of your habbits, exept than paying a little bit more for more or less the same product. If you descide to go vegan you DO need to make some big changes in your live, what explains why it doesn't have a higher growth.

Maybe if they would have started the fair trade campaigns different, they would already be much farther...

Posted: Yesterday, at 9:05 pm

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

jubjub wrote:

David, I really like the way you think.

Thanks, jubjub! Smile

David

Posted: Yesterday, at 9:22 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 3 of 6 [76 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Consolidation Loans | Rambo Knives | Cheap Loan | Loans | Myspace Proxy

Copyright © 2005, 2008 ARCO
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Bringing Animal Rights closer. Offering support for a pure vegetarian, fruitarian or raw food (plant based) diet and a vegan lifestyle.

[ Time: 0.7181s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0125s) ][ Debug on ]