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 5 of 6 [76 Posts]

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

Author

Message

jubjub
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 115

David Olivier wrote:

("fair trade" being probably only slightly better),

I'm curious: Why do you say that?

Posted: Today, at 1:36 am

Mark this post and the followings unread

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 27

David Olivier wrote:

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.

It is sentences like this last one that makes it look arbitrary to distinguish between you and a non-vegetarian non-vegan utilitarian. To "vegan" utilitarians, as we know,

David Olivier wrote:

(v)eganism is but a means(,)

merely a "tool" to help reduce suffering (along with other tools, like "cage-free" eggs) which they also use ideologically to argue against being vegan as a moral imperative which is something quite different from being "perfect" or "pure" or other virtues.

David Olivier wrote:

And lastly: it also baffles me how you can call using a being exclusively as a means to an end a “harm” at all. (...)

Using someone – not something – exclusively as means to an end means totally commodifiying her which is treating her as a thing, disregarding her basic interests in life, liberty and bodily integrity. Treating animals like this is implied in animals' property status and is the root and cause of all institutionalized suffering, cruelty, and death inflicted on nonhumans by humans.

David Olivier wrote:

I actually have difficulty in seeing what exactly is the substance of the so-called abolitionist arguments.

Yes, that is obvious, and it is really sad, given that you not only have access to all of Gary's writings, but that he and others have spent a lot of time explaining it to you on forums and in a blog's comment section. Peter Singer, the "father" of your "movement" has declared that it is OK to kill animals for food as long as it is done "humanely". Many people have difficulty in seeing what exactly is problematic about this. Some will never see it.

David Olivier wrote:

Please calm down, Gary. I think you are really not showing the best of your personality.

I would appreciate your refraining from addressing Gary personally; whatever you say is tantamount to an insult. And yes, I know he can speak for himself.

Posted: Today, at 1:38 am

Trevor
Animal Guardian

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

The Confusion of the "Abolition of Meat" Campaign

David Olivier wrote:

Please calm down, Gary. I think you are really not showing the best of your personality.

Oh, I'm not so sure. Professor Francione's most recent post (I do not believe I know the gentleman well enough yet to call him Gary, and no doubt he hopes our acquaintanceship will not progress to that level any time soon) appears to me lucid, coherent, and indicative of a previously unsuspected quality - the ability to enjoy a joke. Next thing you know, he'll start quoting poetry.

Posted: Today, at 1:40 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

jubjub wrote:

David Olivier wrote:

("fair trade" being probably only slightly better),

I'm curious: Why do you say that?

I admit that I have not investigated the matter very seriously, so I'm speaking a bit out of the top of my hat. Though the little reading that I have done gives me the impression that even those who are deeply engaged in the matter have difficulties in assessing exactly how much better "fair trade" is relatively to "standard" trade.

I do think that "fair trade" is at least somewhat better than standard trade, and that for those who benefit from it that is no small matter. I don't want to have the patronizing attitude so many self-styled radicals have on such matters. It's just that when I'm at work, comfortably in my office drinking my "fair trade" coffee, with a decent salary coming at the end of the month, and that I very well know that those who produced that coffee have certainly toiled much more than I am and are paid substantially less, I don't want to call that fair. I could call it “fairer”, but not “fair”.. That's why I put quotation marks on the expression.

David

_________________
--
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Today, at 1:49 am

Gary L. Francione
Animal Guardian

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 88

jubjub wrote:

David Olivier wrote:

("fair trade" being probably only slightly better),

I'm curious: Why do you say that?

"Fair trade" is like "cage-free" eggs--a largely meaningless device that makes liberal elitists feel better about exploitation. A "fair trade" label is like a "Certified Humane Raised and Handled" label slapped on a corpse. It comes as no surprise that you would be attracted to "fair trade."

GLF

Posted: Today, at 2:22 am

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 27

David Olivier wrote:

.. 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.

I wonder why. Because since the beginning of mankind, every child knows that in order to eat flesh, an animal had to be killed? Has knowing this had any effect on people's eating habits? If I thought of launching a campaign – or movement – that was focused on something being symbolic of the exploitation of animals which, due to their property status, means total commodificatioon, including killing, it would, for political as well as educational reasons, rather be an "Abolition of Cheese Movement".

In the conclusion of his book, MEAT. A Natural Symbol (London, 1991), Nick Fiddes states: "The arguments have been split and polarized. On the one hand, the extreme militancy in the defence of animals is growing, on the other hand, meat supply is more and more being industrialized. (...) Until now, no single alternative philosophy has emerged that challenges the exploitative paradigm – instead, a loose knit bunch of views gather under a green umbrella." (I'm sorry to have to quote from the German issue: Fleisch. Symbol der Macht (2001), p. 268 (transl. by me, emphasis mine))
This book was published in 1991, four years bofore Animals, Property, and the Law, in which Francione presented a well-founded, consistent theory which radically challenges the exploitative paradigm , that is, the paradigm of animals' property status. Because of the latter, there is NO moral or logical distinction between several forms, practices or products of exploitation including killing for meat the abolition of which can only ever be achieved if animal advocates cease to make distinctions of whatever kind, for political or other reasons.

The abolitionist approach as developed by Francione marks the crucial turning point in animal rights theory, in animal ethics, in ethics. To ignore this and to act accordingly means to abet animal exploitation, including the killing for meat, of which welfarism is a constitutive part.

Posted: Today, at 2:28 am
Last edited by Karin on Today, at 2:46 am; edited 1 time in total

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 27

Error, sorry.

Moderator please delete.

Posted: Today, at 2:41 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

Gary L. Francione wrote:

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,"

Gary, you have not answered any of the points that were put forward to explain the meaning and relevance of the meat abolition movement. You have never accepted to discuss things seriously. Any thread of reasoning that comes to conclusions that displease you ends with your throwing your arms around and declaring that what is said is absurd or outrageous. Why it is absurd or outrageous is never said.

The thread about the meat abolition movement is full of such dead ends. They are all the more common because your followers seem systematically to adopt the same tactics. We have a good example above, where in reaction to my expressing a point of view, Diana admittedly has nothing more to answer than “what the fuck”, which is not an argument. Andrea thinks he makes a good joke, which actually completely misses the point of what I said. Trevor too just says “haw haw!”. If this was a schoolyard, you would probably just corner me and beat me up; stupid laughter and bullying are the arguments you seem to know best, at least against people who are non-believers in your cult. (Actually, your cult members too seem somewhat terrorised, constantly making apologies among themselves for not being perfect, and praising the name of G**y every now and then just to be on the safe side).

The fact is that there are a great number of inconsistencies in your theories. There is an inconsistency in insisting that your “abolitionist” vegans have nothing to do with the dirty “welfarists”, as you like to call everyone else, and at the same time spending so much time trying to belittle and insult those welfarists. If you really thought that the meat abolition movement had nothing to do with you, you would just leave it alone. If Diana really believed that the Veggie Pride demonstrators have nothing to do with vegans, and that as she said they are not against animal exploitation, she would not want to be go speak to the Veggie Pride demo in Paris, as she said she would.

There is another inconsistency in saying, as you do in your article translated in the latest issue of the Cahiers antispécistes, that:

Gary Francione wrote:

Actually, as I explained previously, the equal consideration of the interests of animals, that is seen by utilitarians as the goal of the movement for animal welfare, will be impossible to respect as long as animals remain the property of humans. (Retranslated from French)

...and at the same time insisting that those welfarist utilitarians don't want to abolish the property status of animals. If the goal of the animal welfare movement is the equal consideration of the interests of animals, and if that goal can be attained only by abolishing the property status of animals, it follows that the abolition of the property status of animals is among the goals of the animal welfare movement.

The problem (for you) is that what you call "the animal welfare movement" may well be just as abolitionist as you are, in practice. But since you think you have some kind of a copyright on the idea of abolition, you certainly don't want to recognize that. At the same time, you constantly try to recruit people who are part of the so-called animal welfare movement. For that, you try to show them that your aims and theirs are similar. You are constantly trying to eat your cake and have it. Hence the slip above. So much for your coherence!

Another point is about the definition of veganism. When it is pointed out that there is no clear-cut, categorical, distinction between the harm done by a vegan — such as the animals crushed in the production of cane sugar — and the harm done by a non-vegan, and that in the end the line you trace is little more than a subjective judgement on what appears to you indispensable and what you feel you can do without — there is a really striking similarity between your reactions and those of your followers.

A few examples. The first are taken from a discussion on Antoine Comiti's blog about the abolition of meat, on this page. Antoine noted that by paying taxes you also participate in animal exploitation: “You have choice. Thoreau refused to pay the poll tax. But, yes, choosing to refuse to pay taxes has inconvenient consequences. So I suppose that if you decided to pay taxes, you also decided that in that case subsidizing animal exploitation is "morally permissible".” To that, the Francionite Karin Hilpisch responded:

Karin Hilpisch wrote:

Someone who morally analogizes the consumption of animal products to paying taxes is - well, someone who, whatever movement he might be running, and to which effect, has already succeeded in demonstrating one thing: That he is not to be taken seriously as an opponent in a rational debate. Let's forget about him.

Then Gary Francione:

gfrancione wrote:

We cannot be perfect and avoid all moral hazards so we have no obligation to do anything. To apply this principle in the present context: since we must pay taxes or go to jail, we have no obligation to be vegans; since road paving surfaces often contain animal products, we have no obligation to be vegan.

The mental gymnastics to which some will go to avoid veganism never cease to amaze me.

Notice that there is no argument at all in this passage; all it does is question Antoine's motives.

James Crump attempts to give an argument, though, or rather repeat one he had already given:

James Crump wrote:

The idea that there is no morally salient difference between (1) not being vegan and (2) paying taxes is absurd. The qualitative difference is that the former involves the commodification of animals, which by definition and necessarily violates their basic rights, whereas the latter does not. It is analogous to saying that there is no difference between (1) owning human slaves oneself and (2) unavoidably contributing in some way to an economy that involves human slavery.

No one ever attempted to explain how the animals used to test the plastics in our keyboards are less “commodified” than those in a piece of not-perfectly-vegan cake! But it doesn't matter if the distinction doesn't hold water; let it suffice to declare that not to accept it is absurd:

James Crump wrote:

Moreover, the idea that people who want to abolish animal exploitation should take the position that there is no morally salient difference between practices that do, and those that do not, involve the commodification of animals is absurd.

But it's not enough to say it once, it should be said 50 times:

Karin Hilpisch wrote:

how desperately those people are looking for reasons not to be vegan or not to promote veganism is demonstrated by the mental gymnastics to morally equate (A) consuming animal products like dairy with (B) using computers, roads, opening a bank account, or paying taxes.

To give more authority to the argument, Karin quotes Gary himself, saying the same thing:

Karin Hilpisch wrote that Gary wrote:

"Question: Isn’t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position?

Answer: No, it is not. Those who support animal exploitation (all nonvegans, K. H.) often argue that accepting the 'benefits' of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals. This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are
beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die.(...)
Indeed, the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan “love it or leave it“ uttered by the pseudo-patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely. Anima byproducts are used in a wide variety of things, including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics. But the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot (and are not obligated to, K. H.) avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation. The individual who is not stranded in a lifeboat or on a mountaintop always has it within her power to avoid eating meat and dairy products, PRODUCTS THAT COULD NOT BE PRODUCED WITHOUT THE USE OF ANIMALS, unlike drugs and medical procedures, which could be developed without animal testing.“

Note that here again, there is no argument. “This position, of course, makes no sense”. Of course. Since you say so. Gary attempts a reductio ad absurdum, mentioning the fact that if you want to be perfectly pure, that means suicide. But the issue is not whether you should be perfectly pure, or not pure at all. The issue is whether there really is any “categorical” distinction at hand between the forms of animal exploitation Gary feels justified in indulging in and those he has renounced. At best, Gary is answering a strawperson.

To reinforce the argument, Gary then adds that if you don't agree with him, you reminisce him of far-right “love it or leave it” people.

Lastly, Gary does attempt a categorical distinction. There are products that could not be produced without the use of animals, and those that could. Meat and dairy cannot be produced without the use of animals, and so are off-limits. But what about a piece of cake containing eggs and butter? Cake can be produced without eggs and butter, so does that justify eating cake produced with eggs and butter, when there is no other cake in the shop? It seems it all amounts to an issue of the way you call things. Meat cannot be produced without using animals, but then let's call it food; food can be produced without using animals, and it's not my fault if this particular food happens to be meat, so I can eat it, as long as I say that I am eating food, that just happens to be meat, and not meat?

When in this thread the same issue — of whether there is any categorical difference between what a Francionite indulges in and what ey eschews — we have the response by Diana:

Diana wrote:

I don't understand how one can say that a vegan does not have less "blood" on their hands than a vegetarian. It is obvious. A vegan avoids as much as practicable (practicable, not practical), animal products, as well as products that have been, for instance, tested on animals.

A vegetarian eats animal products, with all the death and exploitation of animals that that implies, wears leather shoes/jackets, fur coats/accessories and does not avoid products tested on animals. All vegetarians are concerned with is a certain aspect of their diet. Vegans go further than their diet to englobe all animal exploitation.

So how is it possible for anyone to even consider that vegetarians do not have more "blood" on their hands than vegans? Vegan of course does not only refer to diet. Veganism refers to a way of life that encompasses much more than one's taste-buds. And goes on to naturally include all other forms of exploitation which include also non human animal exploitation.

Again, apart from expressing her shock, and misrepresenting the ideas she disagrees with (no one said that, generally speaking, being vegan isn't a good thing), and insulting people (saying that “a vegetarian” eats animal products, wears leather and fur and so on, and only cares about eir diet), Diana brings precious little in way of an argument.

So it goes on and on. Later Dave_81 came in just to repeat the same thing.

What is striking is that since Gary seems to have no argument to respond, and just resorts to arm-waving, his disciples just copy him. They argue when Gary argues, and wave their arms when Gary waves his. It seems that this Gary's “abolitionist” movement has room for exactly one thinker. All others are content with repeating what he has to say, no less, no more.

To get back to the issue of coherence, or consistency: yes, that is another consistency problem in Gary's ideas. To hold that there is one absolute standard — called veganism — and to be repeatedly unable to show why that standard is any more absolute than a more stringent one, or a more lenient one, or one that is just different, is to have a contradiction.

This message is getting slightly long, so I'll stop at those three contradictions. There are certainly others. That's all right, Gary: everyone has contradictions. No one is coherent. Neither you nor I. The difference is that I don't fetishize coherence. To get back to Gary's post:

Gary wrote:

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.

Logic and reasoning are tools to try to attain the truth. The aim is the truth, coherence is but a means. Coherence is important, but only important as a tool. I have the impression that you value coherence for it's own sake. That is why you absolutely want to believe that your ideas are perfectly coherent. And that those of other people are "most incoherent".

A last point. You above call the concept of a meat abolition movement a campaign, twice. One form of consistency I appreciate is consistency with the facts, which means refraining from stating as true something you know to be false (aka lying). It was explained clearly to you that no one has in mind a “campaign” for the abolition of meat; and it was explained that the distinction between a campaign and a movement is important, a movement being open and inclusive. You continue, in spite of that, to call it a campaign, trying to reduce it to an operation planned and executed by some particular group or faction. For a person to constantly speak of ethics and to resort so repeatedly to deception is another example of your being, well, less coherent than you try to appear.

David

_________________
--
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Today, at 3:17 am

Gary L. Francione
Animal Guardian

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 88

David Olivier wrote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

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,"

Gary, you have not answered any of the points that were put forward to explain the meaning and relevance of the meat abolition movement. You have never accepted to discuss things seriously. Any thread of reasoning that comes to conclusions that displease you ends with your throwing your arms around and declaring that what is said is absurd or outrageous. Why it is absurd or outrageous is never said.

The thread about the meat abolition movement is full of such dead ends. They are all the more common because your followers seem systematically to adopt the same tactics. We have a good example above, where in reaction to my expressing a point of view, Diana admittedly has nothing more to answer than “what the f**k”, which is not an argument. Andrea thinks he makes a good joke, which actually completely misses the point of what I said. Trevor too just says “haw haw!”. If this was a schoolyard, you would probably just corner me and beat me up; stupid laughter and bullying are the arguments you seem to know best, at least against people who are non-believers in your cult. (Actually, your cult members too seem somewhat terrorised, constantly making apologies among themselves for not being perfect, and praising the name of G**y every now and then just to be on the safe side).

The fact is that there are a great number of inconsistencies in your theories. There is an inconsistency in insisting that your “abolitionist” vegans have nothing to do with the dirty “welfarists”, as you like to call everyone else, and at the same time spending so much time trying to belittle and insult those welfarists. If you really thought that the meat abolition movement had nothing to do with you, you would just leave it alone. If Diana really believed that the Veggie Pride demonstrators have nothing to do with vegans, and that as she said they are not against animal exploitation, she would not want to be go speak to the Veggie Pride demo in Paris, as she said she would.

There is another inconsistency in saying, as you do in your article translated in the latest issue of the Cahiers antispécistes, that:

Gary Francione wrote:

Karin Hilpisch wrote:

Then Gary Francione:

gfrancione wrote:

Notice that there is no argument at all in this passage; all it does is question Antoine's motives.

James Crump attempts to give an argument, though, or rather repeat one he had already given:

James Crump wrote:

But it's not enough to say it once, it should be said 50 times:

Karin Hilpisch wrote:

To give more authority to the argument, Karin quotes Gary himself, saying the same thing:

Karin Hilpisch wrote that Gary wrote:

Diana wrote:

Gary wrote:

Please calm down, David. I think you are really not showing the best of your personality.

GLF

Posted: Today, at 3:28 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

Gary L. Francione wrote:

Please calm down, David. I think you are really not showing the best of your personality.

GLF

I should have copyrighted that sentence! Very Happy

David

_________________
--
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Today, at 3:30 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

The Confusion of the "Abolition of Meat" Campaign

Gary L. Francione wrote:

David, can you please point us to where Comiti says this? I mean, based on the internet offerings from him that I have read, I don't have a particularly high regard for his views but this is surely a mind-boggling notion even for him to articulate (I should say, however, that I like your use of the gender-free Spivak pronouns). Frankly, there's not a great deal to say to someone who thinks that it is not anything but an idiotic use of language to claim that someone who does not eat foie gras is a "vegetarian regarding foie gras." I understand that some Nazi guards would not exterminate very young Jewish children. They must have been "non-anti-Semites regarding very young Jewish children."

I don't know if it is in any text of his currently on the Web. Ask him if you want. My friends of the group L214 use the expression here. But it is his idea, initially.

Oh my, we're in for another bout of arm-waving!

David

_________________
--
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Today, at 3:45 am

David Olivier
Animal Guardian

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 51

The Confusion of the "Abolition of Meat" Campaign

Gary L. Francione wrote:

But who is jubjub? He is a welfarist named Hoss Firooznia. He big issue is the promotion of "cage-free" eggs. You should read about him on the "Vegan" Outreach thread, where he refused to discuss this troubling welfarist campaign.

I did read some of that thread, and have found nothing that justifies calling him a promoter of any kind of eggs. You try to make it look like he has some vested interest in their sale. That is not decent behaviour on your part, Gary.

David

_________________
--
http://david.olivier.name/

Posted: Today, at 3:52 am

Karin
Animal Friend

Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 27

David Olivier wrote:

It seems that this Gary's “abolitionist” movement has room for exactly one thinker. All others are content with repeating what he has to say, no less, no more.David

In any event, it would be better to have a movement with just one thinker than to have a movement with no thinker at all which is exactly the case with the "movement" you belong to. The way you are performing here cannot reasonably be described as thinking; I'd rather call it delirious. Anyway, I'll leave you here, and the board, for the time being; I might drop in again in a couple of weeks to see whether or not the abolition-of-meat infection has passed.

Karin Hilpisch

Posted: Today, at 4:20 am

Gary L. Francione
Animal Guardian

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 88

The Confusion of the "Abolition of Meat" Campaign

David Olivier wrote:

Gary L. Francione wrote:

I did read some of that thread, and have found nothing that justifies calling him a promoter of any kind of eggs.

Really? Then you either cannot understand English or you feel a debt of gratitude to jubjub because he reserved judgment on the idiotic comment that you attribute to Comiti that a person who does not eat foie gras but eats other flesh is a "vegetarian regarding foie gras."

GLF

Posted: Today, at 6:37 am

Trevor
Animal Guardian

Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 69

Karin wrote:

In the conclusion of his book, MEAT. A Natural Symbol (London, 1991), Nick Fiddes states: "The arguments have been split and polarized. On the one hand, the extreme militancy in the defence of animals is growing, on the other hand, meat supply is more and more being industrialized. (...) Until now, no single alternative philosophy has emerged that challenges the exploitative paradigm – instead, a loose knit bunch of views gather under a green umbrella." (I'm sorry to have to quote from the German issue: Fleisch. Symbol der Macht (2001

Curious translation, that. "Macht" is the German word for "power", or perhaps "might" in the sense of the English phrase "might is right". I cannot make any picture in my mind of why the translator used "der Macht" as a synonym for "Natural". Then again, I cannot make any picture in my mind of why the original author used the adjective "Natural" in the first place. Perhaps I should read the book (in one language or the other, or both).

In the meantime, I would counsel only that Professor Francione should not readily accuse David Olivier in these terms: "either you cannot understand English or...". Unless, that is, Professor Francione would readily conduct these debates in French, or German, or Italian, or... well, he was kind enough to point out to me only the other day that when he said "most people", he meant "most people whose systems of thought have been informed by Western European philosophy since the eighteenth century". Perhaps they're the only people whose views matter. On the other hand...

Posted: Today, at 8:37 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 5 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

Remortgages | Mortgages | Remortgaging | Mortgage Loans | Debt Consolidation

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: 0.8635s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0142s) ][ Debug on ]