I'm abolitionist and proud :D
Printable View
I'm abolitionist and proud :D
Me too:-)
Me three.
Abolitionist.
It seems contradictory to call oneself a vegan but not an abolitionist.
Abolitionist, definitely. But while cats, dogs and other 'pet animals' are abandoned, I do believe in taking them in as companions and caring for them. It's kind of my way of paying back for the thoughtless people who threw them out :(
Abolitionist here too!
Yes, we all now have stated that we are pro abolition.
The point of the thread, I assume, is to weed out those diabolical welfare activists. That would be me :eek:
'it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment'
contradicts
'so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided'
Because using nonhuman animals for food, research, clothing, entertainment, etc. creates unnecessary suffering. Welfarism is a lie.
It is a lie to bring in legislation for breeders; it is a lie to raise standards for agro-business; it is a lie to try to improve the lives of existing animals?
Not all of us care to wait for One Day.
I think of it as a disease- animal use is the disease and animal welfare issues are the symptoms. Its important to find immediate ways to ease the symptoms but that should not be done at the expense of treating the underlying disease. Both can be done in conjunction as long as people understand that easing the symptoms won't cure the disease.Quote:
pat sommer
I hope that made sense! :/
I'll go with that, Blueberries. It is an entry point, the thin end of the wedge.
I have just heard on occasion, rhetoric that makes us pet-do-gooders out to be the enemy. Not here of course. :-)
Thanks :D. Glad it made sense!Quote:
pat sommer
I'm an abolitionist, but in the current necrotarian world I sometimes have to make compromises, such as neutering animals and looking after victims of the pet trade the best I can, because they can't be abandoned. Or buying organic food that has probably been fertilised with shit, because pesticide kills a lot of animals and probably causes more suffering in the long term, and probably harms the environment more (not that cow shit doesn't harm the environment, as we know!)
They're the compromises we probably all have to make unfortunately :(Quote:
splodge
I think, as I get more and more time/experience with veganism, I am understanding that it automatically equates to abolitionism... However, I think a more relevant discussion on abolitionism vs. welfarism, should be on the definition of the term "Abolitionist"...
There is a quote from Gary L. Francione himself that may add to this discussion (taken from http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs):
"As someone who lives with seven rescued canine companions whom I love dearly, I do not treat this matter lightly. Although I regard my companions as family members, they are still my property and I could decide tomorrow to have them all killed. As much as I enjoy living with dogs, were there only two dogs remaining in the world, I would not be in favor of breeding them so that we could have more “pets” and thus perpetuate their property status. Indeed, anyone who truly cares about dogs should visit a “puppy mill”–a place where dogs are bred in the hundreds or thousands and are treated as nothing more than commodities. Female dogs are bred repeatedly until they are “spent” and are either killed or sold into research. We should, of course, care for all those domestic animals that are presently alive, but we should not continue to bring more animals into existence so that we may own them as pets."
That statement seems to me, to partially say that abolitionism (presently) inevitably encompasses some forms of welfarism...
I think that the true meaning of the term "Abolitionist" is (in my humble opinion of course) a wish/intention/effort (depending on how much activism you partake in) to END all animal use, suffering, and death; but allows in some ways for the idea that increasing existing animals' welfare should also be important (for example, by offering sanctuary to dairy cows; who though they in some way become the property of their carers, are only deemed as such to protect them from natural predation if they are not used to a natural environment/have not learned natural survival instinct, or avoid the possibility of harm by other so-called owners).
The problem for me, is not welfarism in itself, it's welfarism to the exemption of any abolitionist intention; ie. if welfarists are advocating the suspension or reduction of harm (remember, reduction does not mean cessation of harm) to farm animals, until the greater harm comes to bear (slaughter), and then doing nothing further, then yes, they are inevitably giving the impression that the slaughter is acceptable, and no matter how good their intentions are, this is not good for the movement, and more importantly, the animals. It could even be possibly counterproductive.
However, assuming there is as yet no legal way of stopping an animal going for slaughter; if for instance, one is aware of incredibly horrendous treatment of animals on a local farm for instance, isn't it better to support better welfare for those animals while alive and on that farm, and alongside helping the farmers find alternative ways of earning money such as farming plant based food, then appealing to them to release the animals for sanctuary (even if this may not happen)?
Rather than ignoring the plight of animals destined to be slaughtered whilst they are still alive because you can't stop harm completely, as long as one is making it very clear that the animal's slaughter and the meat industry is not supported by them and is trying to help prevent slaughter (whether they succeed or not), wouldn't it still be a good thing to do?
Reminds of the phrase I saw on someone's signature on here "Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little."
It's a very sad day, when you go into a supermarket and see a package of meat with "spoilt pig" written on it, giving the impression that not only has the pig not been harmed but has in fact been treated even better than it deserved to be... So, I can completely see why temporary or short reaching welfare activism is not helping enough, and could be damaging...
I suppose what we need more of, instead of arguing between ourselves, is at the very least adding to those welfare management issues that some people will take up, with more charity to sanctuaries, more publicity of such sanctuaries and why the animals are there in the first place, more education for the masses, more vegan school/hospital food, more accurate (and CLEAR) labelling (so non-vegans see that veganism isn't such a "fringe" movement), more positive discussion, and working further towards the criminalisation of harm to animals.
Quote:
Peabrain
Hello Peebee,
I do not see farm sanctuaries as welfarism.
Welfarism, for me, is to fight for "more humane" conditions under which animals are to be used by humans, e.g. campaigning for larger cages etc.
Some welfarist activities (e.g. "Ban de-beaking of chickens" or "Ban life exports") are lauded by their proponents as "abolitionism", as they claim to "abolish" some behaviour that is bad for the animals. However, simply trying to abolish some (bad) aspects of animal exploitation (and thus validiting the idea that animal exploitation in itself is not wrong) is what is commonly referred to as "welfare".
That's the catch here. The argument against is that time and ressources are limited, so you can either try to get people to go vegan or to treat animals a little better.Quote:
Peabrain
You can always tell a person "Hey, you should go vegan! OK, but heck, if you absolutely positively can not do that (or don't want to), then why do you not at least try to eat less meat. Hmm, or at least get "ethically raised" meat. Hmm. or, if not even that is not possible, why not eat beef insteaf of veal and foie gras?"
But my personal view is that this is not as strong as telling people simply to "go vegan".
Best regards,
Andy
Convoluted, eh, Peabrain? Just remember, anyone flying the banner of Abolition reserves the right to criticize the actions and or motivation of those that help actual animals.
Pat,
I have heard more criticism of the outcomes of welfare activity, not so much the motivation.
To cite Gary Francione, the improvements in the conditions in which veal calves are raised (only horribly cruelly mistreated nowadays, no longer unimaginabely horribly cruelly mistreated as before) has led to ... more veal being consumed nowadays, with many people having a better conscience about it, because they think that much has already been done to improve the lot of veal calves.
Best regards,
Andy
If indeed I have a mistaken understanding of what welfarism is, and the finite definition for the term is to try to reduce suffering to the exemption of any abolitionist intention; then I agree, welfarism is not an option. I can see why the statement you suggested about less meat/higher welfare meat, can muddy the waters, but I didn't actually suggest we make those statements, and I'm not sure people who care about the welfare of animals automatically think of it as being "on the condition that we get to keep them subject to our slavery".
At the risk of repeating myself, I object to Gary's notion of causation. Welfare improvement caused higher consumption (from all us vegans that suddenly decided to tuck into flesh afterall?) Rising affluence is the industry's explanation.
I loathe preconceptions and supposition masquerading as fact (guessed that I am atheist?).
Telling people to do something is stronger how? We will see how our actions play out over time, a great deal of time. The current crop of 20-something abolitionists absorbed the messages and were shaped by campaigns from their childhoods. Only now do we see that long-term outcome. Ironic that some of them turn around and snap at the hands that guided them.
Okay, all that last bit was rather unscientific and up-on-my-high-horse :faint_smilie:
Personally, I'll take any actions that give measurable benefit to animals in the short to mid-term regardless of the instigator's motivation. Find a way to make that the thin end of the wedge; push and keep pushing.
I think the term "abolitionism" originated with the campaigns against slavery. I don't know much about it but it looks as if there might have been a similar policy disagreement back then as some of the people who campaigned for the abolition of meat-eating tried to get slaves treated better in the meantime, while others thought they should just focus on getting it abolished (see here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Slavery_Society). It seems like hair-splitting to say the first lot weren't abolitionists, though, as they all campaigned to have it abolished (and succeeded).
If anyone campaigned for better treatment of slaves WITHOUT trying to get it abolished then they weren't abolitionists, obviously.
I think you've said better what I was clumsily trying to say earlier, and what pat said quite a few posts ago; all here are pro-abolition. Yes, the welfare issue does get used by some meat eaters as a way of denying guilt, but not all welfare activists are doing it for those reasons. As has been said, welfare issues are sometimes the thin end of the wedge that leads to veganism.
I also agree with Pat, I have yet to be convinced that improving animal welfare increases the prevalence of meat-eating. There is always going to be the odd backslider trying to justify themselves by saying they only eat free-range etc meat, but I suspect they would find some excuse anyway ("I didn't feel well" etc - this often gets mentioned at the same time in fact). As you suggest, there are also people who start trying to consume only free-range etc meat and then decide to pack it in altogether (I was one of them).
Some people also use the argument that it's a waste of energy to campaign for animal welfare when you could be campaigning for abolition of meat-eating but that's a matter of opinion IMO, and in practice most of us don't devote all of our time to one or the other anyway.
Welfarism has two purposes, which are actualy just one purpose;
1. To make increased/continued production/purchasing/consuming of the product seem less wrong.
2. To make arguments against the increased/continued production/purchasing/consuming of the product look less right.
It is pure and simple marketing and pure and simple marketing works equaly well on both pure and simple minds.
Strangely, or not, it is as clear as daylight to black-hearted evil-minded b'stards (by which I mean those of us who have dabbled in marketing) though.
As Christine Keeler famously said; "He would say that, wouldn't he?
As someone else famously said; "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist."
When an industry benefits from rising affluence you can always be 99.999% certain that it was because that industry had a 99.999% successfull marketing plan.
I don't wish to knock or undermine what other activists do if they are trying to help animals however I have come to the conclusion of late that vegan education/promotion is the best and possibly only way to really help animals.
The argument is often made that "most people won't go vegan" so it's better to try to get them to consume animals that have been less badly abused then the animals they used to consume. There are a lot of unknowns though. I think showing a consistent vegan message is very important. Maybe people wont change straight away however they may have had the seed planted in their mind so next time they are considering the issue of animal suffering they might consider veganism.
I do think there is a risk of giving the impression that animal use is in any way acceptable. For example some people think there is such a thing as humane slaughter. I'm suspicious of welfare groups like CIWF, surely compassion would mean no use of animals.
I think Francione has a valid point about the large animal "rights" groups that they get a lot of money form non-vegans and so if they promote veganism more then they risk alienating their supporters. Maybe they fail the animals because the group funding is more important to them?
I try to use any single issue or welfare issue as a way of bringing up veganism. For example a lot of my freediving friends have been posting on FB about 'the Cove'. I reposted the same link and explained as best I could that if what goes on in the cove bothers you then really you should consider your own use of animals and go vegan.
So, the makers of The Cove should have been explicitly promoting veganism instead by your logic? See how tricky it gets?
When Gary chimes in about groups in competition to his following, he cleverly leads his faithful to the conclusion that money is the motivating factor.
Well yes why shouldn't they promote veganism? If for arguments sake the life of a cow is equal to the life of a dolphin, I imagine that a far greater number of lives would be saved if they at least promoted veganism along side condemning the cove? I'm not saying the makers of the cove are wrong or bad just that maybe in terms of promoting 'animal rights'/veganism they could be more effective. I don't really know a great deal about the makers of the cove, maybe they do promote veganism?
I suppose it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Do you want to lessen animal suffering/use/abuse in one specific area or do you want to lessen the suffering/use/abuse of all animals?
I don't know that I'm right I'm just saying it as I see it. I don't know if I've worded it all that well.
Do you disagree with the point about funding then?
Edit: Just to add 'the Cove' is a single issue cause rather than a welfare cause. In thinking about welfare/abolition there is also the issue of single issue causes and maybe in my discussion above the two have become muddled.
I must admit, although I should be having breakfast, I'm putting it off right now (don't worry, I'll get it later) because this topic is so interesting to me... I must admit I'm conflicted on this issue, I do think Pat has a point, that it's not as simple as "either/or" (although do correct me if that's not your point Pat)...
What Cupid has said about welfare being a marketing ploy is from the point of view of industry, and thus, this would seem not to be actually about welfare at all. So I don't necessarily think it's fair to put all people concerned with welfare into the camp of merely trying to justify meat eating. I also find it mildly insulting that you made the point, Cupid, about pure and simple marketing working on pure and simple minds (unless the "pure" part refers to innocence rather than lack of intelligence), because - albeit for a short stint - I was one of those minds...
I think it was Harpy who said earlier that the "welfare" issue is what ultimately led her to veganism, and it was the same for me.
My journey to veganism started with my son's request for support to go vegetarian; I researched it for him (he was also talking about animal testing a lot), and when I found out about how widespread the animal testing was, and then about factory farming I was horrified, but as a still defensive omnivore I was trying to protect my view of what I thought was a "need" to eat meat....
This then lead me down the path of welfare... Yet in so doing, I started to become increasingly uncomfortable as I realised that in order for the animals to have welfare needs, they had to be feeling, emotional beings, who experienced pain and suffering just like myself... I pretty much decided I was going to move into vegetarianism, which I liked the sound of because I was a serious cheese fan. However, for some unprompted reason, without yet coming across any vegan discussions on the internet (which I was to do later in copious amounts), I had a thought regarding milk; "If I breastfed two of my three children (problems with massive over-production of milk and severe mastitis that put me critically ill in hospital stopped me from breastfeeding the third), and if the milk was only made when I had the babies, and stopped when they stopped feeding, then cows must have to have babies to make milk too, and they must also get mastitis etc..." I looked into that (and was led to look into related issues surrounding eggs etc), and was so distressed by what I found out that I IMMEDIATELY became vegan.
Of course then, the "spoilt pig" branding that I mentioned seeing in the shop earlier in this discussion, now just represents an incredibly cynical and greedy market, and yes, it doesn't seem welfare is at all the priority with these people...
I know in my heart I could never be one of those people who fool themselves with "at least the animals haven't suffered too much", and turn away from veganism, because I know now, that no suffering is necessary at all. I will always make an effort to look after my health, but I'm now of the strong opinion that even if I end up with a deficiency (which I won't) I don't care, as long as I have been able to opt out of knowingly hurting others for the rest of my life on this planet.
But you see what I'm saying? Although I appreciate the welfare issue very nearly led me to believe I was justified in eating meat, I had had that seed sown, and I chose to water it, even though at first it seemed like the vine that grew was going to choke me with sadness and disgust, I persevered, and found the fruits (metaphorical and literal) at the end of it.
*at this point I went and got my brekkie and am happily chomping of cashew butter and raspberry jam on toast, trying not to get my mouse and keyboard sticky*
I guess though, that not all people will be as probing as I was, and the question here is not about the motivations of those who work for the welfare of existing animals with all the goodness in their hearts, but about the horrible result that seems to have happened, where people unlike us, think that makes it okay to harm them, as long as it isn't too badly...
BUT! The reason people believe it has to happen, despite knowing that there is some suffering involved, is because they genuinely think it's necessary in their diet to be well and stay well. They also in general, seem to think that animals eat animals, and that it's part of nature.
So, thinking in this way, I agree with Johnstuff that the best way to move towards abolition is to educate, maybe not so much about the welfare of animals, as the rights, and the human misconception that we need meat/milk/eggs etc, it to live healthily. Indeed, I would focus on letting people know about the lovely tastes, the nourishment, the availability of foods (clothing, toiletries etc) first, rather than on the badness of causing harm to animals (which I would of course, talk about, but not until after the desire to keep a tight grip on the NEED to eat meat had been prised away somewhat as I don't want people to close their minds before I get them to see the light)...
BUT (again)... I still can't help really wanting to look after any animals that I can. The whole world is not going to change overnight, and I just find it hard to ignore the plight of the few, in order to help the many (which may not happen until a much later stage)...
I guess what I'm saying is that I wish it to be acknowledged that all here are pro-abolition, even if some have an interest in welfare... Maybe rather than thinking of it as simply as "are all you vegans "proper" vegans, or do you advocate meat eating under the guise of welfare issues?" (I'm not saying anyone here specifically said that, but I have heard it said at times elsewhere during this type of discussion), we could instead be asking "How can we work towards abolition, yet do what we can for animals in the meantime in such a way that does not seem to promote animal use?"...
I don't honestly know the answer to that one. It is, as Pat says, a bit tricky, IMHO.
Incidentally I meant to add, my son has gone from vegetarian to also being a vegan. :)
".. works on both pure and simple minds .. ", I said PeaBrain.
i.e. It works on a mind that is simple but not necesarily pure, a mind that is pure but not simple or a mind that is both simple and pure.
Intended as a compliment to the welfarists who may or may not be simple but are definitely in every single instance motivated by 'purity' of mind, that was.
On things that relate to awareness that meat comes from animals being killed, animals having a slight preference for life over death, etc; The idea of a genuinely innocent adult (as opposed to an adult disengeniously feigning innocence) is quite absurd, don't you think?
Okay CS I shall take my mildly insulted-ness down a notch... *steps backwards and bumps into absurdity* Your last comment is true indeed, but absurd as it is, innocence in this subject does exist (insofar as lacking knowledge, rather than lacking culpability).
Unfortunately many meat eaters genuinely think it's necessary, and as human animals many of us respect nature even if we don't like it; we don't think owls are evil for catching and eating mice, and we don't think lions are evil for doing the same to antelope... Then in addition to that many really truly think there is no such thing as factory farming and that animals lead charmed lives, essentially be cared for very well and kindly by their farmers, before being slain as quickly and as painlessly as possible. In essence they believe therefore, that farm animals are having better lives than they would left in the wild where predation, illness or injury may cause way more suffering, than their captive lives would.
That may well then translate to being simple minded, but there it is... *steps back again and bumps into a mirror*
Unfortunately it is what I thought until I had the rose tinted spectacles torn away from my face and stamped into a thousand pieces.
But of course, we're not so much talking about meat eaters, as vegans who believe welfare should matter (despite them wanting the abolishment of any harm to animals whatsoever).
Are they pure? Simple? A bit of both?
If they (we/I whatever) are assisting harm in some way (unintentionally), should we be really be implying simple-mindedness/pointing the finger of blame, or is it not better to try to find alternatives together?
The first vegans I ever remember meeting were at a CIWF demo against live exports, and I didn't have any trouble grasping that they were against consumption of animal products but for improving the way animals are treated in the meantime. So I don't see why anyone else would either, really.
Exactly harpy.
As an afterthought to anyone reading this BTW, the rose tinted specs weren't ripped off my face literally, just metaphorically, I'm not suggesting aggressively spreading the message. :)
I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself here, and repeat my questions (no big fat ego here I promise)... *guffaw* :p
...and repeat my suggestions...Quote:
...we could instead be asking "How can we work towards abolition, yet do what we can for animals in the meantime in such a way that does not seem to promote animal use?"... AND ...is it not better to try to find alternatives together [rather than quibbling on terminology/the better approach]?
Anybody else got some straightforward suggestions on how to reach abolition sooner, and dare I say, help the animals in the meantime (even though we are clearly rejecting the label of "welfarist" in the sense of the maniacal baddies; the meat industry fat cats)?Quote:
I suppose what we need more of [...] is at the very least adding to those welfare management issues that some people will take up, with more charity to sanctuaries, more publicity of such sanctuaries and why the animals are there in the first place, more education for the masses, more vegan school/hospital food, more accurate (and CLEAR edit: VISIBLE) labelling (so non-vegans see that veganism isn't such a "fringe" movement), more positive discussion, and working further towards the criminalisation of harm to animals.
Let me bounce something off of you and see if it leads anywhere PB?
Analogy (p-poor one, as always!): You (abolitionist) take a weapon (welfarism) into a fight. Opponent (meat industry) picks up exact same weapon (welfarism) and soundly whoops yo' butt (increased meat sales as people become happier that all pigs/cows/chicken have pet names, personal attendants, etc ..) with it.
Even in the abscence of an alternative weapon is it not insanity to take that exact same weapon back into the fight again?
Seperate answer to same question ..
I do have one very straightforward idea that, I reckon would make massive inroads into both things; A concerted campaign to level cruelty laws between livestock and pets with a nasty twist.
The nasty twist being that such a campaign need not argue for livestock to be elevated to the same protection levels as domestic animals.
It need simply argue for levelment. I.e. Propose an equal choice between either upgrading protection for livestock OR downgrading protection for pets.
Thinking being this:
1. A campaign simply to upgrade livestock is easy to resist.
2. A campaign simply to downgrade pets is absolutely unnacceptable.
3. A campaign simply aimed at exposing the ridiculosity and blatant hypocracy of arguments defending a differential could hardly fail to succeed.
The only fly in the ointment there being that it is ever increasingly seen as 'clever' to defend ridiculosities and hypocracies that are popular and people will do so without shame.
- - - Updated - - -
That the meat and dairy industries are increasingly harnessing welfarism (organics, free range etc, too) as a marketing strategy because it successfully increases their sales.
Is the empirical evidence of increasing numbers of meat/dairy building welfarism into their marketing campaigns something you would dispute?
Theoretically, if there were no weapon there would be no fight. Not really an option, so... If there were absolutely no alternative weapon, then adaptation of the aforementioned weapon would be the only answer... Which leads on to this:
That is diabolically genius! I like it a lot... Nay, I love it! Because the beauty of it would be, even if there were no "win" it would expose an extremely hard to ignore truth.Quote:
Seperate answer to same question ..
I do have one very straightforward idea that, I reckon would make massive inroads into both things; A concerted campaign to level cruelty laws between livestock and pets with a nasty twist.
The nasty twist being that such a campaign need not argue for livestock to be elevated to the same protection levels as domestic animals.
It need simply argue for levelment. I.e. Propose an equal choice between either upgrading protection for livestock OR downgrading protection for pets.
Thinking being this:
1. A campaign simply to upgrade livestock is easy to resist.
2. A campaign simply to downgrade pets is absolutely unnacceptable.
3. A campaign simply aimed at exposing the ridiculosity and blatant hypocracy of arguments defending a differential could hardly fail to succeed.
The only fly in the ointment there being that it is ever increasingly seen as 'clever' to defend ridiculosities and hypocracies that are popular and people will do so without shame.
I've always thought that laws needed to change for the biggest inroads to be made, and to the end that I wanted to understand how the "higher welfare" standards differed to other farms (so I looked into it in detail - hard reading but I wanted to understand what was being done)...
With the FTA guidelines it was extremely lax, with the Soil Association a little bit better in terms of living conditions and some changes made that I don't know are better or not (for instance dairy calves get to stay with their mums until they are 2 years old - thereby getting even more bonded before they are torn away from their families and sold on - albeit they have to go to "approved" farmers with better welfare standards), and RSPCA was much more detailed, for instance; they advise the "killers" at slaughterhouses ensure that the chickens are not able to see other chickens being killed, and are carfeful not to break legs or wings through rough handling), and did mention laws about certain levels of care being taken on farms etc...
But what was glaringly obvious was that even with strict guidelines, what the animals had to endure was horrible...
I would personally suggest that for any such "levelling" campaign to even get enough of a hearing by the public, it would have to have been shown to Government officials first...
My personal feeling is that most meat eaters do not understand that there is an alternative, and that may well be the foundation of any kind of successful campaign... If people know that animals are harmed but still think it's okay, it has to be because they think it's necessary...
First, they need to learn about the alternatives, WITHOUT the emotive, painful, and scary stories... Or at the very least this information needs to come alongside the campaign, and to add to that, farmers and industry people need to find other ways to get money (because as we all know, they WILL contend any justified argument with the "crackpots" line, if they fear their business will fall)...
So a many pronged approach; Education about alternative foods/clothing/toiletries etc. AND support for businesses and farmers to grow/sell/create these alternatives AND your dastardly plan of asking people to consider placing all creatures on a level playing field, legally. But all first, to government officials, who can then spread the message through hospitals, school, GP's, health visitors... THAT is when the public will listen.
- - - Updated - - -
Makes me wonder how many vegans are in office here in the UK. Interesting...
- - - Updated - - -
http://theveganoption.org/2011/12/13...n-day-mccarth/ This might be of some interest... Admins please let me know if this link is not appropriate but I am certain it doesn't advocate illegal activity etc...