ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Greetings to all:

A believe that animal rights advocates like us should be really careful when talking to others about veganism and related issues. We should always be strategic when trying to spread veganism, even if that means -I think- formulating our speech in ways we wouldn't if it were up to us (meaning that we would like to do it this way, but unfortunately since it works better another way, we choose the latter).
I'm sure you all agree with this already. Anyway, I'd like to read some of your impressions about certain issues that are tied to veganism (whether logically as part of our speech or related to oppressions in general).

1) Abortion

For example, I have a problem with the abortion issue. Of course, since the only valid criteria to discriminate an individual is sentience, then if a being is nonsentient it shouldn't be considered as moral patient. Ok, we all agree. At least, here. But what about out there? People think of fetuses as babies, they even think of a cigoto (egg) as a baby. So, do you think they'll agree that a fetus doesn't have intrinsic value -in any given time of the gestation period?

Moreover, the problem is that we, the onces that do agree on sentience as moral criteria, do not all agree about when does sentience begin. I've heard that the fetus develops sentience at two months, 3 months, 6 months or at birth. So, which one is it? I certainly would like to know which one is true. But again, what about the majority of the population out there? Are they going to accept that a fetus -for example, if this is true- is never sentient and that only babies (that means, after birth) are?
So, perhaps they will. But should we link veganism to this question?

Clearly, we don't intentionally. But the question seems to appear rather frecuently and maybe we shouldn't spend much time answering to it. Rather, we should try to avoid the question, when possible, or redirect the conversation to the points that really matter to us (other animals exploitation). Moreover, since a lot of the population has religious beliefs that tell them that a fetus already has a soul, we should not antagonize veganism to their beliefs.

Yet I know a vegan that still thinks that, the day after its conception, the fecunded egg should be preserved inspite anything. Though a vegan, she still does not understand that a being must be sentient in order to be morally relevant. And although I mentioned this to her, she started claiming that that egg could be sentient "the next day". So... well, this is tied up to my third point, at the bottom.

2) Capitalism (analysis possibly extended to oppresive systems in general)

Capitalism is another trickie question. I'm sure capitalism has a lot to do with the expansion of animal exploitation (including humans in this definition). As long as the search for profit is the most important thing in our society, nobody's interests can ever be completely guarded. And, of course, other animals have the downside of not being able to speak for themselves.

Of course, the exploitation of certain oppressed grupos did not start with the capitalist system, rather the system was build with it. So today the search for personal gain at anyone costs is institutionalized and "feels" natural (and so, fallaciouslly, correct) on human minds that people have developed a sense of individuality, an "every men for itself" philosophy that sistematicaly allows for oppressions to continue.

I think that, as long as money is the measure of all things, this will always be regarded as more important than sentient beings interests. I believe we should try to build a society where money is not an end, but just the means to an end and only then can real equality be achieved.

The problem is that many people that "believe" in capitalism (I'm talking about the "oppressed" and not about the "oppressors", in this particular point) won't become vegans if we link this to our fight. Or at least, we could be making it more difficult for them to understand. This is related to my third point also.

But -if as I'm saying- as long as there's capitalism other animals (and humans too) will never be completely free, how could we not mentione it?

So the question prevails, should we link veganism to this issue? I think we, as moral and logical issue, ought to. But what about strategically? Maybe this social transformation is way to big and other animals cannot wait anylonger. Maybe people -the mayority- won't understand so many things at once.

The risk to fail seems too high to try...

It could also be a matter of timing, meaning that maybe later on (in the future) could it be tied but not now. Yet this looks a lot like the "welfarist" argument, sort of speak: Maybe I'm making the same mistake than people who say that veganism is impossible for people to understand it yet and that we should promote vegetarianism (or regulations) for the time being. It sure seems similar.

So... which is the answer?

And this brings me to my last commentary.

3) Educating on a system that profits from ignorance.

When I first started promoting veganism I used to tell people everything I knew about animal rights. This means I talked about speciesism, sentience, equal consideration of interests, moral esquizophrenia, common fallacies we tend to believe, etc. I thought that, as I had once, people would understand the arguments I made and be driven into a rational change. I think I couldn't have been more wrong.
I later realized that people is often more affected by emotional "arguments" than rational ones and that most of the people we encounter will not understand a word we are saying if we start talking about ethics, logic attitudes and coherence. So, though sad, it's reality.

So here's the thing. Now, when I speak to people I appeal to their emotionality and I never mention speciesism, sentience or any other complicated concept unless it is completely necessary (and it almost never is). Is better to simplify our speech because, let's face it, a lot of people are as ignorant as the day is bright and to pretend that they understand everything about the subject is fantasy. Rather, we should try to acomodate our speech to them so they become vegans.

It is more than possible to talk about speciesism without calling it speciesism.

A great proportion of a country's population is ignorant in the sense that a) they don't know much about anything, b) the don't want to know much about anything, c) they aren't capable of insight or of meditating about their own lives or the ideologies we are driven by. This is primarily a result of the oppressive economic system, spread almost everywhere in this world, were powerful people (read:with money) profit from other people's ignorance, for example, through "false needs".

So, its not anyone's fault to be caught in an ideology, I think.

Anyway, the point is that my change of strategy has had great results. I've had great feedback. Better than before, at least.

So we are clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about, for example, speciesism at all. When giving lectures or writing articles, books, etc, it's fine. But when doing a public manifestation or educating one by one, I think we ought to avoid it -or any other confusing and counterintuitive concepts aswell.

Ok. I await for comments. Thanks beforehand.

Minna-san, sayônara desu (Good bye to all).

PS: Obviously, I've talked from the perspective that gives me the chilean society, but I think it suits for almost every country , being all the same these days with "globalization" and thanks to the U.S. entrepreneurs’ lasts decades' strategy of spreading (read:imposing) its economic system everywhere.

So, no thoughts whatsoever, huh?

I see.

Is anyone there?

Sayounara

PS: Should I change this to Advanced Animal Rights Talk? (a forum with even less movement, sadly). Any thoughts?

Hi Veganomante,

It is good that you raise the points you want to get clear about, and in the following I will give you my point of view.

Concerning the subjects of abortion and of capitalism, I don't want to go deeper into them. But you might find it useful to consider what Gary says about the issue of abortion in his book Introduction to Animal Rights. Your Child or the Dog? You can read the relevant passage (11. question) also here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=73

Regarding capitalism and animal rights activism, Gary said on the Vegan Freaks forum:

If we replaced capitalism with Marxism tomorrow, that would not necessarily result in abolition of animal exploitation. Marx believed that it was acceptable to use animals for human purposes because, according to KM, animals were not able to produce for the benefit of their species in the way that humans can. In other words, when it came to animals, Marx was no more enlightened than Aquinas or Kant. Therefore, whether the system is Marxist or capitalist, we need to dislodge from humans this notion that animals are morally "inferior" to us.

It is possible to have a capitalist society that rejected or largely rejected animal exploitation just as we could have one that rejected any other particular commodity. For example, I frequently use the very bourgeois institution of "pet" ownership to help people to see that their eating of animals is completely inconsistent with their moral views about nonhumans based on their views about their "pets." I have gotten a fair number of people to become vegans using that argument.

Please do not think that I am in any way dismissing concerns about the adverse effects on human and nonhumans of capitalist commodification. I just think that it is problematic not to recognize that human exploitation and animal exploitation are different in important ways, or to think that there is any necessary connection between rejection of capitalism and rejection of animal exploitation, or to think that we cannot significantly reduce animal use even in a capitalist society.
http://www.veganfreaks.net/forum/showpo ... stcount=19

(You need to be registered in order to have access to this part of the forum).

I agree with Gary 's view on both the subjects.

2. As for the strategy of vegan education, I disagree with your view

Veganomante wrote:...that animal rights advocates like us should be really careful when talking to others about veganism and related issues. We should always be strategic when trying to spread veganism, even if that means -I think- formulating our speech in ways we wouldn't if it were up to us (meaning that we would like to do it this way, but unfortunately since it works better another way, we choose the latter).

and that

(it) is better to simplify our speech because, let's face it, a lot of people are as ignorant as the day is bright and to pretend that they understand everything about the subject is fantasy. Rather, we should try to acomodate are speech to them so they become vegans.

Of course we should consider our strategy which may vary due to the situation and the person(s) we are talking to, but we should not do so according to the notion that people are not amenable to a clear abolitionist message, because they "don't want to know" or "aren't capable of insight," or are simply too mean or too dumb or whatever. This very notion is constitutive of welfarist ideology which causes the problem it seeks to solve. Indeed, we should not, referring to your words, make the same mistake as those who promote vegetarianism and/or regulations on the grounds that people are not going to "buy" the claim go vegan.

We need not give philosophical lectures on animal rights theory on the street or at other places outside a classroom where we come to talk about veganism and abolition. There are quite a variety of ways to phrase things, some of which may be more effective than others, and every opportunity to have an exchange with fellow activists about how to approach people, and how to argue, is helpful and welcome. You see a conflict and, therefore, necessary choice between emotionality and rationality. I'm sorry but I fail to understand what kind of conflict that should be. You can very well appeal to emotions by presenting rational arguments. But if by doing the former, you mean to have to relapse into the treatment/cruelty issue of animal exploitation in order to be more effective or successful, then you are presenting – and appealing to –irrationality, and whatever "great feedback" – one which is more pleasant to you – this may result in, it is inimical to abolition.

Veganomante wrote:So we are clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about, for example, speciesism at all. When giving lectures or writing articles, books, etc, it's fine. But when doing a public manifestation or educating one by one, I think we ought to avoid it -or any other confusing and counterintuitive concepts as well.

I certainly agree that we should avoid any confusing and counterintuitive concepts, but this applies to writing books, articles, etc., as well as to all other forms of education. Or do you mean to say that regarding the former, we can "afford" to talk about things people are not interested in, since books on abolition will be read by only a few who can be supposed to know about these things, anyway? Let me be very clear: There is nothing confusing or counterintuitive in the abolitionist message. If you think you can't get it across the way you have been trying to for a while, then you should reconsider that way, but you should not "accomodate" the message to what you think people are (more) responsive to.

I recommend you read the thread "Abolitionist Theory: Objections" on this board:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=287&p=1492#p1492

Veganomante wrote:So, its not anyone's fault to be caught in an ideology, I think.

You think not? I happen to think that clinging to an irrational ideology and refusing to reconsider it is the fault of the person concerned.

Finally, I'd like to share with you – with all colleagues here – my most recent personal experience in vegan outreach. Yesterday, I went to a vegetarian snack bar which had opened in February this year. I had not been there before, and I wanted to see what it was like. The proprietor comes from Hong Kong, and the menu is Asian style. We came to talk immediately while I was standing at the counter. I said I was vegan, and he said that the menu was "half vegetarian, half vegan," and showed me which dishes were vegan. On the menu, it says: "Giving up meat is the expression of our RESPECT FOR ANIMALS. Moreover, the production of vegetable food is significantly MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND than the production of meat. " (emphasis in the original). No dairy products are used. And apart from the noodles, every dish that contains eggs can be served in a vegan version. When I asked him why he still uses eggs, he said they were difficult to replace. He told me that he had started this enterprise "out of conviction," even though the sales had dropped since he had changed from his former business where he used to sell a lot of meat. He said that he also used to eat a lot of meat but stopped doing so for moral reasons. The same applied to the people working with him. I replied that this was a great decision, and that I would be confident of the business becoming better, because more and more people were thinking about the moral, health and environmental implications of consuming animal products, and that veganism was the future.

Then I had a very tasty meal with seitan (which I was praising loudly), and the proprietor continued talking with me. At another table sat a young woman who had been listening to us for a while before she chimed in with the remark that what had been said concerning animals would apply as well to – guess what? – plants of course. This was the beginning of a conversation which went over an hour and was finished by the place closing which was almost an hour late due to the three of us being engaged in this conversation. I did not pretend to have heard the "plant argument" for the first time, but I managed to react as if I took it seriously – to a certain extent beyond which I dealt with it ironically (but not aggressively). Actually, I have begun and am able to avail myself of the plant question as a means of leading the conversation to the subject of sentience as a general matter and to the issue of using sentient beings, for whatever purpose, as human resources. We also went through the insects (worms/ spiders) issue and the lifeboat scenario. And we talked about the habit of eating dogs and cats in other parts of the world, and that there is no difference between doing that and eating dhickens and fish. All these subjects were being discussed without the "technical terms" speciesism or moral schizophrenia being mentioned.

The proprietor made the point that animals have souls as well as humans and, therefore, feelings as well. However, he then presented the idea of animals being meant for serving humans, without being made to suffer or killed of course. I respectfully opposed this idea, claiming that animals were meant as little to serve humans as humans were meant to serve other humans, for example black people, or women, or children. This was most challenging to the lady who raised the question whether humans could be humans at all without using animals. (!) She then asked me about pets and guide dogs and monkeys who are trained to assist handicapped people. Was there anything wrong with that use of animals, and if so, what? I explained the abolitionist point of view. And throughout the conversation, she really seemed to be trying to figure out what's wrong with using animals. She was looking for a consistent explanation for why it should be wrong. And I don't think it was just good luck that I had met someone who appeared to be an exceptional case within the majority of those who, as you say, "don't want to know much about anything". People, average, 'ordinary' human beings, are not only receptive to, they DEMAND a consistent message, a message that they are constantly and systematically denied and deluded about by organized welfarism.

Despite the proprietor's obviously religiously (though not Christian) motivated idea of animals as servants for humans, I was under the impression that he was open to reconsider this idea and to realize that it is not consistent with the claim of respecting animals. I spent a good deal of time pointing out the benefits of a vegan lifestyle and how easy it is. Being critical of myself, I'd like to note that I could have asked why he thought this to be the case to make him think about it, instead of immediately confronting him with an opposite view. Before we all left, I gave the lady a copy of a vegan starter kit (I always carry one with me). I don't know if she will eventually go vegan, but I'm sure that it is much more likely to happen than if I had told her how cruel factory farming is, and that we should try to make it more "humane," or that she should give up meat first.

Before I became an abolitionist, I used to focus on flesh in my activism. And whenever I was doing anti-flesh-only outreach, I felt helpless and lost and considered my performing to be insufficient which today I understand as being due to the fact that I was not doing the right thing. So, according to my personal experience, abolitionist education, in addition to being the right thing, is much more pleasant than welfarist.

Thanks a lot for your views and story.

I certanly have something to say for I feel I didn't make myself clear in some parts of my post. Though I need time to write it I'll do it on another occasion because I don't own a computer.

But I say now that I have read Gary's book you refer to, I understand clearly that emotion and reason are two sides of the same coin and that when I speak about a more emotional speech I'm not thinking of welfarist kind of talk.

I'll elaborate that on my next post.

Até logo.

"vegan starter kit"? Tell us about this vegan starter kit.

panthera wrote:"vegan starter kit"? Tell us about this vegan starter kit.

Unfortunately, there is not much choice of German print material giving basic vegan information, not even welfarist (the most widespread one is doubtlessly PETA's starter kit), let alone abolitionist. I was referring to a brochure, 19 pages, illustrated, in DIN A 4, covering flesh (mammals, birds, and fish), dairy, eggs. The first page points out moral schizophrenia (without naming it as such) and a clear statement that "organic"/ "free-range" is no alternative. Then follows an interview with the vegan world champion in body building, Alexander Dargatz (who is also a doctor). The content of the following pages, in short:
 What meat is all about: a rotting corpse;
 health risks of meat and health benefits of a meat free diet;
 information about egg production: battery, cage-free, free-range / all male chicks are killed/ end of the road for all laying hens: the slaughterhouse;
 cow milk is meant for the calf/ information about dairy production and health implications of dairy consumption;
 information about fishing/ omega 3 fatty acids;
One page is entitled: "Bearing witness to: reality of factory farming" (the reality of the "family farm" is mentioned). Each chapter about one area of animal exploitation includes vegan product information and a recipe. One page deals with vitamins and minerals (getting them all by a 100% vegetable diet), another one with meat eating being an ecological disaster. Bottom line: "As long as consumption of animal products remains, farm animals' agonizing lives and deaths will not change." §1 of the German Animal Protection Act is quoted: "(...) No-one is allowed to harm or kill an animal without good reason." There are also wellknown quotes from Pythagoras, G. B. Shaw, and A. Einstein.

The publisher is an association (run solely by volunteers) which does not claim to be an animal rights org, although the term is used in the "About us" section of their website. They have a multiple single-issue agenda, though not a "multiple choice approach" a la "Even if you like meat". However, according to an online commentary on the last world vegan day, "the important thing is not to be the 'most perfect' vegan possible but to avoid what can be avoided. Nobody claims infallibility, but easily avoidable products such as meat, milk, eggs, or leather are taboo for the person who lives vegan." This talking about not being perfect and "infallibility" reminds me uncomfortably of "Vegan" Outreach. Their focus is on "atrocities" in factory farming, and they think that "even the smallest step toward an improvement of the way animals are being treated with is a great success for the animals." They promote meatout and don't appear to have any problems with any welfarist group/org.

In sum, I'm not particularly keen on promoting this group; that's why I use their brochure only with an added sheet of paper on which is a disclaime: "I am providing this to you as a source of information on veganism. I do not necessarily endorse other positions that this organization may promote," and the URL of Gary's website and to the site where, among other things, the translated version of his blog essays is posted.

Why do you think speciesism is a complicated idea, or that other people think so? It might be explained in a complicated way and it might be explained in an esay way, that depends on the way you put it. As you said, it’s possible talking about it without calling it by the word. It’s only a plea for justice. Too ask people: "do you really think it’s ok to harm someone just because they are different than yourself?" Can it become more easy than that? Most people are familiar to racism, so why should speciesism be more difficult to understand?

[I have revised my post and re-writen some of it]

Hi to both of you, Karin and arild:

Now that we are on strike at my University (demanding for a better education -united with other universities and schools), I have some time left to get back on the subject I raised.

Let’s start with capitalism this time.

You quote Francione:

“It is possible to have a capitalist society that rejected or largely rejected animal exploitation just as we could have one that rejected any other particular commodity. For example, I frequently use the very bourgeois institution of "pet" ownership to help people to see that their eating of animals is completely inconsistent with their moral views about nonhumans based on their views about their "pets." I have gotten a fair number of people to become vegans using that argument.”

Well, I particularly don’t think the above should be considerer as a goal. Though I think what Gary states is true, it is not what I pursue on a daily basis when a reject commodification of sentient beings.

I think the key question is to ask ourselves what are we fighting for. If we are fighting for the end of “other animals’ slavery” then, ok, maybe we could live in capitalist society where other animals would have the status that some humans possess today (and not be slaves). But we have to realize that in today’s world we, humans, have not the same status among ourselves. There are different “kinds” of humans, mainly: rich and poor, oppressors and oppressed, property owners and labor workers. And in a hypothetical capitalist society which regarded other animals as humans, it would regard them as “poor” humans or, if you wish, as “proletariat” (1).
Of course, it would be a strange kind of “proletariat”, which wouldn’t work legally (for the only way for other animals to labor is to be slaves) but they nonetheless would be exploited above all because their lives would have less value than rich people’s property (just as the lives of workers have today). Yet, I seriously doubt you can end animal exploitation without ending capitalism first or at the same time, since you cannot magically disappear capitalism as in the example above quoted and replace it for another economic system.

So then, what am I fighting for if I say it isn’t other animals’ slavery? Simple: In being vegan I’m fighting “exploitation” or, put it another way, the dominative and hierarchical way-of-thinking.

Just as you cannot be a coherent vegan if you don’t realize that other forms of oppression are mistaken, like racism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism, you cannot be a coherent vegan if you don’t realize that other forms of oppressions are mistaken, such as classism. And capitalism is the womb where all forms of oppressions thrive. Why? Simply because the ideology behind capitalism regards profit and accumulation higher that anything else, anything, including the lives of sentient beings, whatever species we belong to.

When I say “vegan”, of course, I mean “ethical vegan” for it is pointless including environmental or health vegans. An ethical vegan is a person that has understood that the only criteria to be a member of the moral community is sentience and, thus, she regards other animals as moral patients. Then, she cannot accept any of the arbitrary discriminations that exist among human animals such as ageism and classism. This is why there may be feminists that are speciesists but should not exist vegans that are classists.

Let’s go back some steps.

Almost every one of us think of speciesism as a prejudice, just as we do other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism. Nevertheless, a new approach is needed if we are to fully understand the way speciesism (and other “isms”) work in the framework of society.

As David Nibert argues in his 2002 book Animal Rights Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation, speciesism is not really a prejudice but rather an ideology. On praxis, what this means is that speciesism is not the reason why other animals are exploited but rather is the social constructed argument to justify the exploitation already in place. Thus, speciesism is born a posteriori animal exploitation (this I will take on later to justify my opinion on using the word “speciesism” when advocating for other animals’ rights). In order to justify oppression, the “system” creates an “argument” that will validate the pre-existing discrimination. And this is true in every form of discrimination, from racism to sexism and from heterosexism to speciesism. This is an ideology and has in its DNA encoded the fact that we (humans) won’t ask questions about it and just think of it as “natural”, “correct” and “the way things are”. This way, the ideology can grow silently.

This is key to understand how speciesism and other oppressive ideologies work in society, for they are not an individual, psychological, innate inclination to think some way or another (for example, thinking of other animals as commodities) but rather how society persuades us (read: force us) to think. If you can see the precedent, then you can understand in what way speciesism is an ideology and not a prejudice.

To understand how specifically corporate capitalism has a direct impact on other animals, here’s an excerpt from Nibert’s book:

“[…] the National Fluid Milk Processor Board has saturated the cultural landscape with the ‘milk moustache’ campaign, in which famous humans –ranging from movie stars to sport heroes– all sport a milk moustache to promote the “wholesome” and “healthy” quality of cow’s milk. The campaign was created in part to counter the trend of sugary and adulterated-sugar-substitute-based soft drinks eclipsing milk in the marketplace. ‘U.S. milk consumption peaked at 32 gallons per person in 1970. In 1999… it was less than 24 gallons’. Key to increasing the consumption of cow’s milk is boosting its consumption among young people, and ‘teenagers are considered a critical market for dairy industry’. One of the marketing strategies of the dairy industry is placing flavored milk products in school vending machines, alongside soda machines. The vending machines are decorated with photos of such celebrities as The Backstreet Boys and The Dixie Chicks. The milk products –chocolate, strawberry, and coffee flavored– are high in fat (especially saturated fat) and have as much sugar as the soda.”

In the continuing of animal exploitation capitalism is a key factor, having enterprises advertise unmercifully their products, paid with sums of money impossible for us to get and making it from difficult to impossible for us to counteract.

Besides, for me personally, it is unethical to support (in not opposing I see endorsement) a system that is responsible for such an inequality among humans (though I’ve argued already that this is true for other animals as well) and that today has spread worldwide. In this sense, not only has capitalism created inequality and oppressions among humans inside a national frontier but, in this days, it has created inequality between nations or, if you wish, between “blocks” of the world, being the global North the oppressor of the global South.

I quote Nibert one more time:

“In many parts of the world today, fresh water is a commodity ‘more precious than oil’. ‘[N]early a billion people around the world do not have access to clean drinking water’, and countless other animals cannot survive as their homelands dry up. Entire species are threatened with extinction as vast bodies of fresh water disappear. Sensing opportunities for profit, some transnational corporations are pushing for the privatization of control and distribution of the Earth’s supply of fresh water”.

I take you to Chile now, the reality in my country.

Here, water is a commodity. I have to pay for it, even though I clearly shouldn’t. It should be my right to have clean fresh drinking water for it is vital to my existence. Without water I cannot live. Thus, it is an intrinsic right, such as education and access to health. But wait… I have to pay for those too. Even though I cannot live without medical care and without education I would most certainly live in the street, I have to pay to get those rights that are mine anyway.

Speaking of the ‘milk moustache’ campaign it comes to my mind an advertisement that TV exhibits in my own country. It’s called “Yo Tomo” (or, in english, “I Drink”) which consists of several entertainment and sport figures posing with a glass of cow milk on their hands. It is aimed at showing the importance that has drinking cow milk in our health. Yet, strikingly, the advertisement is not financed by the Ministry of Health (as many people are led to think) but by the Federation of Milk Producers (Fedeleche), with two thirds of the money; and by the Ministry of Agriculture, with one third of the money.

So, the motivation is profit, not concern for human health.

What I am saying is that we, as people that have noticed that sentience is the only valid criteria to discriminate between individuals, should fight all forms of oppressions at once and not settle for minor battles. This does not mean that we should be activists against every oppression, which would be ridiculous since we have so little time and resources, but rather that no matter which “fight” we choose there’s no reason for us to participate in other forms of discrimination.

If a choose to be an activists for veganism, that’s because I feel that animals have it worse this days and because a feel that veganism is the most fertile ground for the construction of a new society, based not on violence and competition, but on love and cooperation, ideals that capitalism is clearly not in favor of.

Of course animal exploitation can exist in a Marxist country, but I am not saying that is the way we should take nor that there are only two possibilities to a society (Marxism or capitalism). And certainly, capitalism is not the best we’ve got.

I encourage you to read Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres and, of course, also David Nibert’s book I mentioned earlier.

Let’s move on to vegan education:

You say:

“Of course we should consider our strategy which may vary due to the situation and the person(s) we are talking to, but we should not do so according to the notion that people are not amenable to a clear abolitionist message, because they "don't want to know" or "aren't capable of insight," or are simply too mean or too dumb or whatever. This very notion is constitutive of welfarist ideology which causes the problem it seeks to solve. Indeed, we should not, referring to your words, make the same mistake as those who promote vegetarianism and/or regulations on the grounds that people are not going to "buy" the claim go vegan.”

First off, I haven’t said people are “too mean or too dumb” to understand the abolitionist message nor I would never say it. Being ignorant and being “dumb” are two completely different things.

Ignorance is the “absence of knowledge”. On animal rights and veganism most people are ignorant as we once were. On ethics most people are ignorant also. And on insight most people are ignorant as well. To deny this is silly since, if it weren’t this way, veganism would spread as fast as northamericans’ fear for “terrorism” –for lack of a better metaphor.

Dumb means stupid. I don’t believe anyone to be stupid (nor smarter).

The reason people are ignorant is because of the economic and social system. In order to exist, capitalism needs to keep people ignorant so they cannot know that they are being exploited. They need to think “this is the natural order” or that “poor people are lazy”, or better yet that “other animals are inferior to humans”. The system prevents people to having access to knowledge because if they got to it they would realize they are living in a crappy world and they would rise to change it. This is why most people is ignorant and the burden is not on them. This would be ridiculous of me to say. On the contrary, I’m thankful for the conditions that lead me to realizing this and other things (such as speciesism). And now is my time (our time) to help others realize this issues.

… About technical terms.

You cannot go around the world saying “don’t be a speciesist, speciesism is an arbitrary discrimination analogous to racism and sexism, we are moral squizophrenic” or things like that.

I say: “ […] we should try to acomodate our speech to them so they become vegans.”

You say: “There are quite a variety of ways to phrase things, some of which may be more effective than others, and every opportunity to have an exchange with fellow activists about how to approach people, and how to argue, is helpful and welcome”

I read the same thing.

You say: “You see a conflict and, therefore, necessary choice between emotionality and rationality. I'm sorry but I fail to understand what kind of conflict that should be. You can very well appeal to emotions by presenting rational arguments. But if by doing the former, you mean to have to relapse into the treatment/cruelty issue of animal exploitation in order to be more effective or successful, then you are presenting – and appealing to –irrationality, and whatever "great feedback" – one which is more pleasant to you – this may result in, it is inimical to abolition.”

I fail to see where did I say that I see a conflict between emotion and reason. As I said in my previous post (the short one) I’m very aware that emotion and reason are two sides of the same coin. But I won’t say they are the same thing. That’s why we have two different words for each manifestation and both denote different things.

But perhaps it is my fault for not knowing how to express it correctly in english. If this were the case, I apologize. When I meant that we should try to appeal to people’s emotion I meant that we should try to create a sense of empathy, both to ourselves and to other animals. What I meant was that I cannot talk for 15 minutes straight to people I run into the street about moral squizophrenia, That is what I mean. Perhaps you missed the point because you would never even think about doing this, since you know that “[t]here are quite a variety of ways to phrase things” but I know people who do what I’m saying and I certainly do not think it’s strategic or effective.

So, the point is just that: deliver an abolitionist message, with simple words (not complicated or counterintuitive terms) and appeal to people empathy –this last poijnt being key. It sounds obvious but is not to a lot of vegans who engage in too technical discussions with people that are just passing by.

That is why I say that if you are writing a book or giving a lecture you have the advantage of being able to use technical terms, not because “books on abolition will be read by only a few who can be supposed to know about these things” but because when you are reading any book you are supposed to be interested in that book and you won’t get bored (at least, you shouldn’t) since you bought it or borrowed it from a friend or took it out of the library or whatever.

But when you are walking down the street you are thinking in a million different things, your own problems with your family or with money, and you need activists that know how to get to your heart. You can do it with an abolitionist message, no doubt about it, but you have to be clear in trying to get people to empathize with you.

I also think that when writing a book you should try to make the reading entertaining on a syntactical level. I also believe that some animal rights’ books lack this recreational sense so important in education. Bob Torres’ book, though, does not.

Moving on.

I say: “So, its not anyone's fault to be caught in an ideology, I think.”

You reply: “You think not? I happen to think that clinging to an irrational ideology and refusing to reconsider it is the fault of the person concerned.”

I’m sorry, I didn’t know that “to be caught in an ideology” meant “to cling to an irrational ideology and refusing to reconsider it.” Does it really? I thought it was “to be part of something without knowing it”. My english seems to fail me one more time.

So, what I meant was that is not people’s fault to be part of an ideology without knowing it, which is obvious.
But I read what you are saying and I do not agree. I wouldn’t blame it on the person that doesn’t want to change as it obvious the systemic invisible threads of the society constructed ideology. People have different rhythms and you cannot ask everyone to make the change as fast as you did. I became vegan over night. I don’t think many people can do that nor I feel better than them because I did it this way. I’d love it if every one would change in a heart beat but people have different timings. Of course, we should always tell people to go vegan (and particularly, I don’t mention vegetarianism, which again, has showed me that you can spread veganism without even linking it to vegetarianism –since in reality it has little to do with it) but we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that all humans have the same mind and the same way of reacting to the same stimulus (though alike) and realize that for some it may be more difficult or easier to get rid of the ideologies they’ve been taught since they were infants. If someone has a hard time understanding what I say, firstly I will question myself and my strategy on educating this particular person, and secondly I won’t blame her and think she’s mean or evil or a bad person. In my opinion, there are no bad guys and good guys nor is the real world like a comic book (most of which I enjoy reading though), there are just bad ideas and good ideas. I don’t think I’m going to heaven and I do not think a bugler is going to hell. He’s just wrong on his approach to society. But certainly I won’t miss the systemic conditions that got him to steal in the first place. The same with speciesism.


Now, in response to arild.

You say: “Why do you think speciesism is a complicated idea, or that other people think so? It might be explained in a complicated way and it might be explained in an esay way, that depends on the way you put it. As you said, it’s possible talking about it without calling it by the word. It’s only a plea for justice. Too ask people: "do you really think it’s ok to harm someone just because they are different than yourself?" Can it become more easy than that? Most people are familiar to racism, so why should speciesism be more difficult to understand?
“
Well, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It is better to spread the abolitionist message without being so technical. You can reject speciesism without using the term itself.

Though, I believe it is way better to talk about veganism than reject speciesism, especially when doing outreach on the street.

Why is this? Because of what I said earlier: on a sociological approach, you can see that speciesism is a constructed ideology meant to justify other animals’ exploitation. Hence, speciesism is not the cause of animal exploitation, but the other way around. Then, in order to free other animals you shouldn’t focus on the branches but on the log of the tree.

Just as racism is not the actual cause of race discrimination, speciesism is not the cause of other animals’ exploitation.

How can you fight animal exploitation effectively: talking about veganism. But we need to realize that the world is far from being equal just by doing this.

So, what happens with abortion?

As I talked before, all struggles for equality should joined just because all forms of oppression are entangled.

What happens with abortion is that -being illegal- it becomes a form of oppression, again, from the rich segment of the population against the poor ones. Why is this? Just because the fact that is illegal doesn't stop people from having an abortion and what happens is that only people who can afford it can have the procedure done safely.

For example, talking about Chile again. Here abortion is illegal. Yet abortion is a procedure that is performed every day, who knows haw many times (many). Since it's illegal, you cannot go to the hospital to have the procedure done. The only way to have an abortion that is safely done is to go to a fancy and expensive private clinic. So, again, only people with a lot of money can have it done so no one knows and you are not detenied for "murder".

Nonetheless, many poor people who wish to have an abortion (desperate for a glims of equality in their lives) seek out means to have an abortion. But since they cannot afford to go to a fancy clinic, they turn to clandestine abortion clinics, with little or no regard for sanitation and sterilization. Many of this people end up with consequences for this poorly performed operations and they are force to go to the hospital where they fear being caught.
Prohibiting the legalization of abortion is an oppression on the poor.

The same thing happens with the Day After pill. The Right fought to prevent levonorgestrel to be given in any public health institution by free. The Government had already began doing it when the Right presented a claim at the Contitutional Tribunal. The Right won. Now you cannot -if you are poor- get access to the pill. But, nevertheless, if you do have money you can buy at any multinational drugstore (there's one in every corner). And the Right doesn't care... the only problem they had was with making it free... curious (2).

What I argued in my first post was that we should consider what we link to veganism and what we don't. If it is tangled. I think you should. This way you're fighting all forms of oppression at once or, if you wish, you're changing the paradigm from the dominative and hyerarchical society to a matriarcal and moral society away from profit as its logo.

When I wrote my first post I wasn't clear about abortion, but know I am, as I already argued.

Regards

PS: It might take me a while to get back to you again since we are going to take control over the university in the next days in order to make pressure to the state. Wish us luck.

(1) Though racism, sexism and others are as well forms of discrimination that still exist. The reason for this is understandable from the sociologycal point of view, where racism, for example, is a construct of society rather than an individual inclination to a way of thinking. THis is why, though human slavery is supposed to be over, racism continues.
(2) Though the Government has said that they'll start giving it to the mayors so they'll give it for free (a legal void).

Good luck with the strike!

I’m also slow at writing replies.

I believe in the value of linking oppressions, including capitalism. “Anti-exploitation” would be a better umbrella-term than “anti-capitalism”, since the anti-capitalist movement as a large isn’t “anti-exploitive” when it comes to the nonhuman world. On the other hand I guess the same can be said about many animal rights advocate, since they don’t object to capitalist exploitation. Still it’s a significant distinction between economic exploitation in a liberalist setting, and the rearing and slaughter of nonhumans. Their slavery has more in common with traditional human-slavery than capitalist wage-slavery. Animal rights abolitionism is supported by some liberals that aren’t anti-capitalists. Many in the anti-capitalist camp only prefer a state driven capitalism and aren’t that critical to economic growth and industrialization, which is an engine in animal exploitation.

I agree with the point about speciesism being an ideology over material conditions. But how does that make it less a prejudice? It still functions as a prejudice for individual thinking persons. People act according to conscious intent and meaning. Not only, but people find other meanings in life than material wealth. The ideology/moral have an independent existence and significant in peoples life although it’s created by material conditions. It maintains them.

I think Joan Dunayer gave a good definition of speciesism, something like: “believes AND practices”, that fail to give all animals equal consideration and respect. It includes both the material and ideological factors.

This is kind of old, but I´d like to share my opinion.

I believe that the opening post was mostly referred to "How much is too much?"

Obviously, Veganism/Abolitionism is NOT too much, not only because it´s an easy thing to do, but also because it is the LEAST we can do, if we take AR seriously, both in our lives AND in our outreach.

Now, the problem might arise when we define Veganism. It certainly isn´t a diet, or simple consumption habits, but an ethical imperative regarding ALL animals. Other members have argued, for example, that they always say something about human rights when talking about AR and Veganism which I think it´s something we should do, "reminding" people that we are also animals. But certainly, in doing outreach, our main focus is other animals.

In that sense, I guess that the original post question would be something like "Should we avoid talking or elaborating on certain topics (human-related) that might cause non-vegans to further close their minds, or generate some kind of animosity towards a most basic understanding of Veganism (as related to our relationship with other animals mainly)?"

When talking about veganism:

Should we get into lengthy discussions about abortion and sentience with people that might have irrational (probably religious) beliefs involved, or should we answer briefly or avoid that discussion, to focus the issue on other animals?
I believe we should be clear and strong on the importance of sentience, but I think it is a good idea to re-direct the argument because, most probably, those people are just taking a tangent to avoid thinking about their exploitative habits regarding other animals.

Should we discuss about capitalism with capitalist people?
I think we ought to be critical of it, indeed. But I think that our critic must be focused on its exploitative nature, which is part of other systems as well, and not just on one of its particular forms (in this case, capitalism).

Another similar issue certainly is "religion". From its anthropocentric, therefore speciesist views, shared by most, if not all religions, influencing the whole way we see and treat other animals, to the usually hierarchical, oppressive and dominative forms taken by many of them, regarding humans, "religion" is problematic.

I guess there are 3 different ways of confronting it. (1) Arguing for veganism from the inside of a particular religion and its supposed values (e.g. "love", "compassion", etc.) (2) Arguing for critical thinking rather than following blindedly certain established dogmas (e.g. accepting that you can´t take the bible literally but, as best, as a "guide") or (3) openly rejecting religion and challenging its very existence.

As for now, I usually take option (2) since it avoids being confrontational, yet very clear in arguing for a more open way of thinking. I don´t take (1) because I don´t think I would be honest doing it, since I think it is a bunch of crap (sorry, had to say it), although from my background I have some knowledge about Christianity and I could have a discussion from there with Christians. Sometimes, especially after seeing or being with "blind" and irrational religious people, I think I should go for (3). I still have to think about it. It might be one or the other (or even a combination of them) depending on the person I´m talking to.
Just as with the abortion issue, I think that, if possible, we should re-direct the conversation to morality and logic, without getting stuck in a tangent.

Now, on direct forms of discrimination towards humans, such as homophobia, racism, sexism and classism, I think we should be open and clear in rejecting them, without thinking about "not alienating" someone, just as much as we do with speciesism.

We certainly can´t address all forms of exploitation in a single discussion, and there is not (always) only one way of responding to a particular question, since our responses might depend on the person we are talking to. But we CAN focus on Veganism in its basic form (as the rejection of the instrumental view/slavery of other animals, openly including human animals) by talking about oppression and discrimination, thus, although not explicitly, covering each and everyone of its other forms.

Was this what you were referring to, Veganomante, or am I just hallucinating?