Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 226

Thread: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

  1. #51
    Johnstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Leicester UK
    Posts
    361

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote DavidT View Post
    I love creatures of all kinds and would surround myself with them if I had the space and time. To reconcile that with veganism is heartbreaking.

    If we (humans) had looked after and respected other animals and the environment, there would be a lot more wild animals 'out there' to see and be surrounded by. Maybe we wouldn't feel the need for companion animals as such? - Not that I think keeping companion animals is wrong, if you do your best to make them happy then you are doing a good service. I see them like refugee animals. It's the rest of the system that has created the casualties (homeless animals).

    I'm an abolitionist - I try to be an anti-speciesist when it doesn't conflict with my own well being.

  2. #52
    DavidT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    County Clare, Ireland
    Posts
    674

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Thanks for that, Johnstuff.

    Where I live there are quite a number of wild animals - but they're hunted and harassed. They manage to survive but not in the numbers they should and they must suffer immense stress.

    We do have animals as 'pets' (people - mainly farming types - round here interpret that word as "no use") and I adore them. We have no tv - we have animals to watch. They're enthralling.

  3. #53
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Johnstuff View Post
    Not that I think keeping companion animals is wrong, if you do your best to make them happy then you are doing a good service. I see them like refugee animals. It's the rest of the system that has created the casualties (homeless animals).

    I'm an abolitionist - I try to be an anti-speciesist when it doesn't conflict with my own well being.
    I humbly disagree with characterizing them as refugees. A refugee is a person who has fled their original home to escape danger or persecution. Dogs, cats, horses, and goldfish, however, were stolen from the wild [although not every single one of them, so many still live free in nature] against their will. They live in the wild just fine without us [unless we steal them, genetically modify them through "breeding", which is really "selective culling". This has been done to the farm house turkey, for example, so much that they are incapable of having normal sex or their own , due to their weight, and only can be breed through artificial insemination. Wild turkey, however, live without humans just fine as do wild horses, wild cows, wild dogs, and wild goldfish.]

    Although the majority of pets are now more for companionship, that's not how pets first came to be. Cats, dogs, horses, goldfish etc. were stolen from their families and packs/colonies [which virtually all mammals live in] and were bred into tools, rather than their more common use of companionship we are accustomed to today. Examples include guard dog, hunting companions such as pointers, retrievers, fox hunt dogs, scent dogs, shepherds/herding dogs, fighting dogs for entertainment [still a legal multi-million dollar industry in Japan and many other countries to this day], horses for gambling/racing, sports like polo, plow pulling, carriage pullers, mounted police, general transportation, meat (maybe not where you live, but all over the planet to this day), and cats largely for mousing and rodent control on farms. And goldfish? Hmm...maybe "interior design/ decoration"?

    Yes, individual animals without homes can be thought of as "homeless" or "orphans" and deserve a good home; I have no problem with vegans helping them and taking them in, but as a category that we specifically breed more and more of I think the better analogous term to humans would be "slaves", which many people now use exclusively as escorts, "geisha", or companions.

    The domestication of animals was wrong. We had no right to do it, IMHO.

    "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men."

    -Alice Walker

  4. #54
    DavidT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    County Clare, Ireland
    Posts
    674

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Mahk

    I accept and respect what you're saying.

    All the dogs (except one, shamefully) and cats and most other animals we've had over the years have been, errmmmm, 'second hand', so to speak. That doesn't absolve me, because I want animals around me. I'm just fortunate my need can be fulfilled by these 'spares', poor things.

    I'm always telling people to never buy dogs or cats or any other animals for that matter: there are far too many strays and giveaways already. But should such companion animals be allowed to breed? What do you think?

  5. #55
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I pretty much agree, Mahk, but if history is to be believed, dogs descended from wolves who chose to co-exist with humans for their mutual benefit. Thats just a thought, really, i'm not saying it should have lead to the situation of today's domestic dogs being selectively bred, but i can see how it might have developed.

  6. #56
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    I pretty much agree, Mahk, but if history is to be believed,.....
    The problem with going by history books is that none are written by abolitionist vegans. You'll never read about the domestication of animals through a non-anthropocentric, non-meat eating, vegan perspective. They will only discuss it as being a proper and correct story of non-destructive, non-exploitative events:

    "Horses decided that they were tired of running free in the wild raising families in bands (herds) and instead wanted to be "broken in" (taught how to be ridden by humans), have saddles and harnesses put on their backs with metal bits put in their mouths and be ordered around like slaves as to where to go, pulling plows and carriages and the like."


    "Cows wanted to share their milk production cross species, so they sought out humans to milk them, artificially inseminate them in virtually perpetual birthing cycles (because only after a birth do they lactate, true of all mammals), have their young taken from them shortly after birth and be turned into other future milk producing machines or (if male) veal, and be killed at a fraction of their natural life and turned into low quality beef such as hamburgers, so as to make room for more productive, higher yield, younger new cows. This all so as to benevolently provide the humans, their best friends, with the largest amount of milk possible in the shortest period of time with the least effort."

    dogs descended from wolves who chose to co-exist with humans for their mutual benefit.
    Although we know that dogs descended from wolves, I am not confident this occurred:

    A) By the hand of humans
    or
    B) While already in the custody (already domesticated wolves) of humans
    or
    C) They "chose" it [although no one can be sure]

    Here's my own pet theory, should anyone care, of how domesticated dogs came to be. Bears, raccoons, rats, and dogs (or its pre-dog ancestor, the wolf) all are exactly the same and have been since the dawn of humans: they discovered that our garbage was an incredibly good source of quick and easy food to scrounge through. Bears could be dangerous so we discouraged those but the others we didn't much care about and maybe even occasionally speared them and ate. But then one night, while all of our human camp was a sleep, a saber tooth tiger crept into our camp. One of the dogs going through our garbage was frightened (for itself) and started barking up a storm! We awoke, grabbed our spears, and fended off the saber tooth tiger (or other predator) moments before it would have take one of our sleeping children. Early human Lisa says to early human Bob, "Are you thinking what I'm thinking? If we steal one or two of these creatures we call "dogs" from their own camp and keep them from returning by keeping them on that new invention we call a "rope", feeding it scraps and water every day to keep it alive, we have an excellent 24/7 alarm system to warn of approaching predators!"

    Soon after having litters at our own camp the offspring were never even aware they had been stolen from another species camp and felt apart of our camp and no longer were ropes needed to keep them from returning to the camp we stole them from. Later, we developed them into hunting companions, retrievers, pointers, scent dogs, etc but "family pet" was not their original purpose, that came later just like loving a horse as a pet came later after the original reason we stole them from nature.

  7. #57
    Wild Thing everdream's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Suffolk - England
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I think that encouraging the breeding of animals for human use / companianship (e.g. dog breeding) isn't right. However, I don't see much wrong with keeping a rescue pet, seeing as they are usually unwanted by others. I love my cats. One of them actually choose me, literally! She started to live in my garden shed, she was a wild cat, she was not friendly at all, she let us feed her but nothing more. But now, the change in her is remarkable, she lives inside now, uses a cat flap, lets us stroke her sometimes (but we could never, ever pick her up)

    It saddens me when I see rabbits and other such animals confined to such a small space, rabbits naturally love to run in wide, open spaces. Pet rabbits cannot do that.

  8. #58
    Procrastinator Charlotte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nottingham and South Lincs
    Posts
    93

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I want to see use and abuse of non human animals abolished. However if think that like with other abuses and prejudices the more people become aware of animal welfare and are bothered about it; the more people will come to the conclusion that animals are not for human use. In the same way that once white people realised black people were just like them they had qualms about keeping them as slaves and over 200 years (generally) were outraged as them being seen as having any less moral worth. In other words a vegan world will only be realised through gradual shifts in the view points of the population as a whole.

  9. #59
    janeeyre
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    www
    Last edited by janeeyre; Jul 1st, 2009 at 08:02 PM. Reason: www

  10. #60
    Johnstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Leicester UK
    Posts
    361

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Not been on here for a while!

    Maybe refugee was the wrong word. I was really refering to all the unwanted animals that the human race has bred for pets and then rejected.
    Wild animals are not refugees.

    Re-reading my old post makes it sound like I'm saying breeding animals form pets is ok. IMO it's not.

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Abolitionist, both in theory and in practice. I do not think that welfare will work, evidence has shown repeatedly that welfare makes the public feel better about animal exploitation and is counter productive.

    Animal welfare is economically better for the exploiters and makes no significant difference for the animals.

    Every dollar spent on welfare is a dollar that could be spent on promoting veganism. Every leaflet handed out about battery framing is a leaflet that could have been handed out about veganism.

    This blog article by Gary Francione really sums up the problems with welfare

    http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/...in-a-nutshell/

    Some people seem to think that welfare will eventually lead to abolition, that free range meat will act as a gateway to veganism. The following blog posts shows why that is not the case

    http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/gateway-arguments/

    http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/...ating-animals/

    If anyone has any question please check out Garys site, check out the FAQ and then come back and ask about it on this forum. It is very annoying that abolitionists have to answer the same questions over and over again when the answers are already right there, stright from the inventor of abolitionist animal rights

  12. #62
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Did my requisite reading: nothing new there.

    Many well argued points but some border on the absurd:
    "Ironically, animal welfare reform may actually increase animal suffering. Assume that we are exploiting 5 animals and imposing 10 units of suffering on each. That’s a total of 50 units of suffering. A welfare measure results in a reduction of 1 unit of suffering for each animal, but consumption rises to 6 animals. That’s a total of 54 units of suffering—a net increase. There is no question that this phenomenon occurs. For example, in Europe, veal consumption has increased as the result of regulation about the confinement of veal calves."

    Bold italics mine. Wouldn't it be so neat and tidy if all we needed to free the animals is to stop welfare work?

    Not to say that I think all welfare activities are equal; the best happen to be run by abolitionists.

    My reading picks: previous page comments #14 #18 and this from #33

    "the distinction between welfarist and abolitionist becomes irrelevant the moment we step outside of abstract theory and enter into the material practice of working together to fight for animal liberation."

    Do I hear a hallelujah?
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  13. #63
    Metal Head emzy1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Luton, UK
    Posts
    2,149

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I wonder if there will ever be anything such as neo-abolitionism! :P
    Last edited by emzy1985; Nov 5th, 2009 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Forgot I'd already posted!
    The taste of anything in my mouth for 5 seconds does not equate to the beauty and complexity of life.

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Wouldn't it be so neat and tidy if all we needed to free the animals is to stop welfare work?
    You're misinterpretiong what Gary is saying. Of course getting rid of welfare won't free the animals. We don't just need to get rid of welfare, we need to replace it with abolition! Gary was saying that welfare hurts animals, of course it's not the only thing that hurts animals but it is a large part of the problem.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Not to say that I think all welfare activities are equal; the best happen to be run by abolitionists.
    How can a welfare activity be run by an abolitionist? By definition abolitionists are opposed to welfare, an abolitionist promoting welfare makes about as much sense as a pacifist promoting war or a feminist promoting rape.

  15. #65
    adamd164's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cork, Ireland
    Posts
    11

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I would have considered myself welfarist -- probably a "naive welfarist", you might say. But 200 years of welfarism has gotten us nowhere: it's about supply and demand, we need to tackle the source of the problem.

    Abolitionism is the only way to go: it's the future for animal rights.

  16. #66
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    ...Have gotten us nowhere

    That's the thing: how do we measure progress? If only by total absolute worldwide veganism than by definition we are all failing. Easy to point the blame finger.

    So I'll just get back to my fem-rapist-warmonger group busy TNRing our way to increased animal suffering.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  17. #67

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    That's the thing: how do we measure progress? If only by total absolute worldwide veganism than by definition we are all failing. Easy to point the blame finger.
    Progress is measured in each person that goes vegan. The entire world will never be vegan, the same way the entire world will never stop raping and murdering each other. But regardless, we should still campaign for the complete abolition of rape and murder, not more 'humane' forms. So success doesn't mean a whole world of pacifist and feminists. Success is getting as many people to stop raping and killing each other as possible. Every murder turned pacifist, every rapist turned feminist is a victory.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    So I'll just get back to my fem-rapist-warmonger group busy TNRing our way to increased animal suffering.
    If by TNR you mean Trap neuter and return, then I don't see what that has to do with welfare vs abolition. There's no reason an abolitionist can't do TNR. In fact I know many abolitionists who are involved with TNR. TNR is NOT a welfarist action. I don't remember calling you a "fem-rapist-warmonger" either.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    ...Have gotten us nowhere
    What abolitionists say when we mean welfare has gotten nowhere is that number of animals killed has increased, the animals actual welfare conditions have worsened and people have been made comfortabel with animal exploitation. All the things that have already been discussed.

  18. #68
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I was actually told by an abolitionist (with deep pockets and his own endowment fund) that opening more shelters was a feel-good waste of time and I was perpetuating suffering.

    Campaigning against Chinese fur farms, supporting farm animal refuges and companion animal shelters, protection of endangered species and anti-hunting are all welfarist therefore I am a welfarist.

    Where I can get the AR message out, I do.

    The numbers bit above oft used as an anti-welfare platform, is highly misrepresented: as wealth increases, animal consumption does too. That's the math; don't blame me. Chinese are catching up fast.

    And yes, we all agree every new vegan is a victory. But every purchase of a coat without fur trim is a victory too. Every single instance of suffering that can be alleviated is something, isn't it?

    So, if you don't want me to play for your team, fine. As I have heard from Ingrid Newkirk, it's not about us; I do it for the animals.

    Like you said: all things that have already been discussed. I'll shut up now and you can have the last word.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  19. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    I was actually told by an abolitionist (with deep pockets and his own endowment fund) that opening more shelters was a feel-good waste of time and I was perpetuating suffering.
    I don't knwo who said that but it is certainly not a representation of how the majority of abolitionists feel. When asked if things like TNR and shelters are abolitionist acts, Gary Francione, the founder of the the abolitionist approach replied:

    "My answer: absolutely! The abolitionist position is that we stop bringing domesticated nonhumans into existence But what about the ones we are here now? Given that they are here because of our selfishness and moral blindness, don’t we have an obligation to them? In my view, the answer is clear. That is why I support organizations like the Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, groups that do TNR (”trap, neuter, return”) work, such as The Animal Spirit/Homeless Animal Lifeline, and no-kill shelters. It is why we have four rescued dogs living with us (and have had up to seven at one time). These nonhumans are all refugees in a world in which they do not fit and in which they cannot, thanks to us, care for themselves. So yes, caring for individual nonhumans is not only consistent with an abolitionist animal rights position, it is, as far as I am concerned, an integral part of it."


    Whoever said that opening shelters was a watse of time was very, very misguided and not in anyway representative of the abolitionist approach.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Campaigning against Chinese fur farms, supporting farm animal refuges and companion animal shelters, protection of endangered species and anti-hunting are all welfarist therefore I am a welfarist.
    Supporting farm animals and companion animal shelters are NOT welfarist at all. Anti-hunting MAY be welfarist, depending on how you do it. If you are saying hunting is the ONLY problem then that is welfarist. If you campaign against hunting on the grounds that all exploitation is wrong and you say things like "stop hunting and go vegan", then that is abolitionist. Protecting endangered species is a tricky one, but I'd say it's more to do with environmentalism then animal rights. Campaign against chinese fur farms is definietly welfarist, becausew it makes the public think that other types of fur are OK or that leather, wool and silk are OK. If you were to say that chinese fur farms are just one example of exploitation and said "stop buying fur and other products derived from animals" then that would be a completely different story.

    Often all that is required to amke something abolitionist is to add in one or two sentences at the end of your leaflet, speech, website etc, saying somethign like "all animal exploitation causes immense suffering, go vegan"


    Quote pat sommer View Post
    And yes, we all agree every new vegan is a victory. But every purchase of a coat without fur trim is a victory too. Every single instance of suffering that can be alleviated is something, isn't it?
    It's not a victory if they just buy a leather jacket instead. That is my main problem with single-issue campaigns, they don't address the fundamental issues and they confuse the public. If we're saying that fur is wrong, but we're not saying anything about leather and silk, then people will just buy those instead. In fact, their idea that leather is OK will actually be reinforced, because even VEGANS are implying that it's OK to wear leather. If we get someone to shun not only fur, but leather, wool, silk etc, and then they buy a vegan coat, tehn that is a victory. But if they just switch around which animal products they wear, then that is not a victory at all.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    So, if you don't want me to play for your team, fine. As I have heard from Ingrid Newkirk, it's not about us; I do it for the animals.
    Of course I want you to 'play for my team'. What made you think I don't? I agree taht it's not about us, I agree it's for the animals. But what do the animals really want, bigger cages or empty cages? If you answered empty cages, then shouldn't we promote that?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Like you said: all things that have already been discussed. I'll shut up now and you can have the last word.
    You're misinterpretaing what I was trying to say, I was talking specifically about what abolitionists been by "200 years of wlefare have gotten us nowhere". There is still plenty more to discuss in every other aspect of this debate. I think it's a shame that you don't want to continue, did I say something that offended you? If so I'm sincerely sorry, it was not my intention to offend anyone. f you want to continue discussing this then I'm OK with that, but if not that's also fine.

  20. #70
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    No, you are not offensive at all; just my impatience showing.

    I have yet to read any substantiating numbers that 'prove' the abolitionist ideology gets results. That is where I get stuck.

    As a guiding set of principles, I have no argument; everyone chooses their own path.
    Gets even trickier defining who is and is not an abolitionist (neo or not). The rebuke I got from a self-described abo follows:

    THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT FITS INTO OUR PLANS. THIS IS NOT A VIABLESTRATEGY AND TAKES PRECIOUS FUNDS AWAY FROM EFFORTS TO STOP OR
    MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THIS PROBLEM. NO SANCTUARY CAN BEGIN TO
    EVEN RESCUE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS. THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF
    TIME AND MONEY THAT IS NEEDED ELSEWHERE. THE ENVISIONED RESULTS
    THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO BE NOT
    WORTHY OF THE INVESTMENT. BETTER RESULTS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY
    OTHER STRATEGIES. THIS YEAR THERE WILL BE CLOSE TO 800 MILLION
    PIGS KILLED FOR FOOD IN CHINA ALONE. SANCTUARIES ARE "FEEL GOOD"
    PROJECTS FOR HUMANS AND, OF COURSE, THEY DO BENEFIT THE ANIMAL
    THAT IS SAVED. BUT, AS A STRATEGY, SANCTUARIES ARE A WASTE OF TIME,
    EMOTIONS, ENERGY AND MONEY.
    Gil Michaels



    Love the capitals, eh? Well, I am still waiting 1 year on to hear of his brilliant strategy that will amount to something. Anybody out there getting any results for the animals, I applaud.

    If there is anything to debate then it would be evidence regarding the '4 problems of welfare'. Gary has offered us his opinion but not made a strong case at all. I don't buy into it. I see no zero-sum game.

    However, since abolitionism means veganism, getting folks in that direction by hook or by crook just might make me enough of an abo. If some folks call me welfarist then fine; I will wear that label.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    No, you are not offensive at all; just my impatience showing.
    OK, I'm glad that I wasn't being offensive

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    I have yet to read any substantiating numbers that 'prove' the abolitionist ideology gets results. That is where I get stuck.
    Kind of hard to 'prove' something that's only been around 2 or 3 years! However, I know several otehr abolitionists who have all convinced heaps of people to go vegan, and I personally convinced 2 of my classmates to go vegan this year. Promoting veganism seems much more likely to get more vegans then promoting any kind of non-veganism! (happy meat, vegetarianism etc.) If you want proof that happy meat makes people go back to eating meat then just do a google search and you'll find hundreds of people who were veg and have now gone back to eatign meat, many have even become 'ethical' butchers (as if there's anything ethical about slaughtering animals)! Her are a few examples:

    http://www.ethicalbutcher.blogspot.com/
    http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/...re-eating-meat
    http://www.43things.com/things/view/...ing-meat-again
    http://www.vaildaily.com/article/200...32/0/FRONTPAGE
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/fa...in&oref=slogin

    None of those are from abolitionist websites or anything. I'd especially recommend reading the 'about me'; setcion from the 'ethical butcher'.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Gets even trickier defining who is and is not an abolitionist (neo or not).
    An abolitionist (by definiton) is anyone who follows these six principles:

    1. The abolitionist approach to animal rights maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
    2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitationóbecause it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
    3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
    4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly ďimprovedĒ regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.
    5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to oneís personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
    6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement. Violence is the problem; it is not any part of the solution.
    In a nutshell, anyone who uses welfare, violence or intolerance to promote animal rights is not an abolitionist.


    Quote pat sommer View Post
    The rebuke I got from a self-described abo follows:

    THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT FITS INTO OUR PLANS. THIS IS NOT A VIABLESTRATEGY AND TAKES PRECIOUS FUNDS AWAY FROM EFFORTS TO STOP OR
    MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THIS PROBLEM. NO SANCTUARY CAN BEGIN TO
    EVEN RESCUE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS. THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF
    TIME AND MONEY THAT IS NEEDED ELSEWHERE. THE ENVISIONED RESULTS
    THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO BE NOT
    WORTHY OF THE INVESTMENT. BETTER RESULTS CAN BE ACHIEVED BY
    OTHER STRATEGIES. THIS YEAR THERE WILL BE CLOSE TO 800 MILLION
    PIGS KILLED FOR FOOD IN CHINA ALONE. SANCTUARIES ARE "FEEL GOOD"
    PROJECTS FOR HUMANS AND, OF COURSE, THEY DO BENEFIT THE ANIMAL
    THAT IS SAVED. BUT, AS A STRATEGY, SANCTUARIES ARE A WASTE OF TIME,
    EMOTIONS, ENERGY AND MONEY.
    Gil Michaels
    I strongly dsagree with Gil on this issue. I can't believe that anyone who calls themselves an aniaml rights advocate of any kind could be opposed to direectly saving the lives of nonhumans. Reminds me of that old starfish anology, where the person is throwing starfish back into the water and someone says "you can't make a difference there are millions of starfish here". To which the starfish-saver replied by throwing one back in the water and said "I just made a difference for that one".



    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Anybody out there getting any results for the animals, I applaud.
    I agree completely, I think we just have different opinions of what a result is!

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    If there is anything to debate then it would be evidence regarding the '4 problems of welfare'. Gary has offered us his opinion but not made a strong case at all. I don't buy into it. I see no zero-sum game.
    That's certainly a big topic for debate! Which parts do you have the biggest problems with, I think it's easier to deal with them one at a time rather then all teh 4 problems at once. Just so you know, I believe Gary actually missed out THE most important problem! No offence Gary! My biggest problem with welfare is that it's promoting something you don't believe in. As a vegan I do not believe that happy meat is OK, so why should I say to others that it is?
    Last edited by fftradio; Nov 30th, 2009 at 05:54 AM.

  22. #72
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    That's where I get snippy with abos: for any breach of the code, we welfarists get lumped in with happy-meat butchers.

    I reckon abos go back further than old Gary:
    in '95 while interning at Peta, I overheard our receptionist deal with a call from an irate supporter who was insistent that Peta's campaign to eliminate brutal surgery on cows imported from Mexico be stopped. The caller's rationale was that it 'sent the wrong message' and Peta should only preach veganism.
    After being berated some minutes, the receptionist shouted "even if I was going to be killed, I wouldn't want my ovaries ripped out without anesthetic!", thus ending the call and beginning my introduction to abolitionism.

    I promote what I believe in: if it can't be veganism due to circumstance (I don't hang out with uni students these days) then it will have to be something down that track and without the AR disclaimer to boot. It ain't always appropriate to let folks know they are on slippery slope by agreeing with us that, say, shark fin soup shouldn't be served at banquets or the cat meat market in Guangdong should be shut down.

    And should you find yourself at all sympathetic to my position you're a welfarist too and can turn in your abo union card ;-)
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  23. #73
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Laura(Go vegan) View Post
    I think that animal welfare (which has been around for 200+ years) does not work and actually encourages people to feel better about eating meat and animal products. The whole "happy meat" and "free-range chicken and eggs" phenomenon only helps people to not feel guilty when sticking their forks into dead flesh.

    Animal welfare refers to the viewpoint that it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided. The position is contrasted with the animal rights position, which holds that other animals should not be used by, or regarded as the property of, humans.[2]


    Animal Abolitionist refers to the viewpoint that it is not morally acceptable to use animals in any way, including as pets, food, in entertainment or for any kind of experimentation and medical research.



    Groups like PETA are rewarding places like KFC in Canada and Whole Foods (which sells meat) for being animal friendly. I think this is wrong and only encouraging people to eat animals and animal products.
    People tend to mix up welfare with "Welfarism". First of all, wanting to end all animal exploitation doesn't mean that we don't want to help an animal in need. If an animal would need my help, I'd of course want to help it, just like I would want to help a human that needed my help.

    Some of the confusion in the animal rights movements is reflected in the disagreements between Peter Singer - who don't really seem to be an "Animal Rights" person, at least if it's correct that he thinks that "killing animals is not a speciesist act if done painlessly" and Gary Francione, who makes it clear that he (like every other vegan) doesn't support that idea.

    Apparently, Peter Singer have stated the following in a recent interview: "You could say itís wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say itís just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I canít accept that idea."

    It's not about making a scale showing which sentient beings that it's 'most wrong' to kill. The mouse is as important for the mouse as a human is for the human. A mouse who is a mother probably cares as much for her kids as we care for our kids, and living beings often support other members of the same species. When Peter Singer writes "I can't think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed," one has to remember that he is a human, and not a mouse - but that doesn't have anything to do with "more" or "less" wrong.

    Singer (if he has been quoted correctly) claims that "You could say itís wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious" necessarily leads to "itís just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me" - but there is no list; no scale. Killing is wrong - period. If I could save the life of my kids or save the life of some mice, I'd of course save the life of my children, but that doesn't mean that I also feel that it's wrong to harm/kill animals.

    In the above mentioned interview, Singer continues: "What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why itís so tragic when humans die." There could be many reasons that it's seen as tragic that a human die, but the 'problem' with all these debates is that we (humans) keep forgetting about what it feels for an animal to die or suffer: it's not about how important that animal is to us, but about how important that animal is for itself.

    Some humans are more 'present' than others, not and may not worry so much about future (or the past, or about death) as some other humans, but we don't upgrade or downgrade their rights for that reason. If Peter Singer really thinks that "killing animals is not a speciesist act if done painlessly", he is a speciesist, not an animal rights person - and yet some people call him the 'father' of the animal rights movement. (This is where Francione's comment comes handy in: "Never before in human history has a social movement been so very deeply confused").

    Vegans don't need to define if we are abolitionist or not. We are vegans, so we already are against animal cruelty and animal exploitation - period.

    But do we need to figure out if we are for or against animal welfare? Personally, I think the question is wrong.

    If some of us help animals and that act can be seen as animal welfare... so what? We are not against helping any animals, but we are against accepting small improvements for animals as a substitute for what we really want - namely that animals, just like humans, deserve a good life without us exploiting them in any ways.

    Vegans go further than many members in animal rights movement. We clearly state that we wouldn't kill an animal or keep it in captivity for it's milk even if it would not be treated badly. The main focus is not suffering vs. non-suffering. We don't consider meat or milk from 'happy cows'. If a vegan would have to choose between supporting an animal welfare organization, an animal rights organization or a vegan organization, the animals would IMO get the most of her donated time or money by supporting a vegan organization. We can help a few animals by rescuing them from horrible conditions, but we can save a LOT of animals by going vegan. Not only because we'll not cause death and suffering for the hundreds of animals we otherwise would have indirectly killed/harmed, but because we also will increase the likelihood that others (friends, family, kids etc) go vegan or reduce their consumption of animal products - by showing that being vegan is possible and enjoyable.

    I'm not in suggesting that animal friends shouldn't help animals or institutions/organizations that help animals in need, but rather to look closer at the big picture. And: it's when discussing these things that we actually need to make a choice between "welfarism" and "abolitionism": shall we support/donate to animal welfare organizations or to vegan organizations?

    I think going vegan and promoting veganism is the way to go, so I don't need to deal with terms like "animal welfare" or "abolitionism", because the word "vegan" covers it all.

    I started this site, and if someone would ask me if I would start a site for animal welfare causes - or for raising money for suffering animals in factory farms, my answer would have been no (strange as it may seem). It's not because I don't think every animal on the planet needs all the help it can get, but it's because my time is better spent at promoting veganism. "Vegan" is the only term that covers the full perspective without getting lost in details.

    There are lots of people who are against animal suffering. Even meat eaters aren't 'pro' animal suffering - more than anything else they are trained to eat meat. Many non-vegans would support animal welfare campaigns or donate to help animals in need if asked. If vegans and vegan activists reduce their promotion of veganism and start working for animal welfare causes instead, more animals will suffer.

    But nothing is black and white. One could probably say that a person who would manage to make one other person go vegan per month (but isn't a vegan) does more for animals than a vegan who doesn't contribute to make others go vegan. And - how efficient is our support for vegan campaigns/organizations really - when it comes to real life results? If you're not happy with the job [insert name of pro vegan organization here you support] does, how much do you help the vegan cause by giving them some money every year?

    The main problem today may not be to figure out the difference between veganism/abolitionism and animal welfare, but that a number of vegans don't feel that there's any really good choice in terms of organizations to support. If Peta really reward "places like KFC in Canada and Whole Foods (which sells meat) for being animal friendly", forget about Peta, and Singer don't even seem to be a vegan.

    Personally, I don't even think it's mainly about 'rights' - someone will always claim that 'rights' is only a theoretical world, or claim that humans have the right to kill animals, just like tigers and lions. It's about 'not rights', and about making sense: if animals don't have rights (according to some humans), who can give us the 'right' to kill and harm them? If we don't want to suffer or be killed, would it make any sense at all to cause suffering and death for others? That simply wouldn't be fair.

    It is that simple. And if it happens again that a another cat up needs food and a place to live, I'll invite it in. I won't be thinking that "I shouldn't feed the cat now, because that's "welfare" - I should promote veganism instead". Contradictions are often something that only occurs on the surface.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  24. #74
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I'm with you here, Korn: "Vegans don't need to define if we are abolitionist or not. We are vegans, so we already are against animal cruelty and animal exploitation - period. But do we need to figure out if we are for or against animal welfare? Personally, I think the question is wrong."

    But not in agreement with the 'time best spent/less suffering with vegan orgs'. My reasoning summed up in your words again: nothing is black and white.

    So, looking for a consensus opinion, am I free to give my time and money on a case by case basis to any single-issue animal cause, without being scorned as welfarist?
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  25. #75
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I free to give my time and money on a case by case basis to any single-issue animal cause, without being scorned as welfarist?
    Well, not only is nothing black and white (except black and white!), but we're not on this planet to please others or to 'live someone else's dream'. If I would be in touch with suffering animals regularly, I'd of course want to help them and would maybe have needed to contribute to help single animals also as a means to keep myself sound; to feel that I do something to help the poor animals. Humans aren't really rational most of the time, and that's just the way it should be.

    If the goal is to contribute to as little suffering as possible, supporting the vegan cause directly is the best way to go in my opinion, and while there are others who can support rescue centers etc (without being pro veganism), only pro-vegans will support the vegan cause. But again; this doesn't have to be an either-or situation.

    Since so few people still support veganism, it would simply feel wrong if we would all be involved in various kinds of rescue work, welfare etc., and not contribute to building a large, strong vegan community - which is a colossal task. The vegan movement needs loads of people and money only to keep some small organizations and sites alive and updated - and so on. There are already several big organizations that are working for more or less "welfaristic" solutions, but there are there really any large organizations that promote and focus mainly on veganism? I don't think so.

    I don't blame anyone for not supporting the vegan movement, or for supporting welfare work or individual animals - all I want is that the vegan movement to grow bigger, faster.

    If some vegans support animal welfare cases and not vegan causes, I'd really like to know why - but personally I, don't feel I'm in the position to scorn anyone for anything (or have any interest in that). Helping is always good, and since the best way to help animals IMO is to strengthen the vegan movement, I'm just sharing my thoughts about the importance of not only supporting animals on an individual basis, but to share the movement that is going further than any other movement in respecting them; the vegan movement, which also is "suffering', to use that term.


    Even if I somehow stress the importance of promoting veganism, most of all - I think it's great that people care for others than themselves (other humans and other species). Let's not make it complicated - to have scales or lists of what kind of behavior that is most ethical may only give us headaches anyway.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  26. #76
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Oh, I do buy all the ethical arguments promoting vegan orgs as preeminent, in theory. But strategically, that's where the shades of gray come in.

    Where there is a viable effective vegan group to contribute to (more than just clearing up after meetings) then no contest. For those of us lacking that obvious choice or for those people with specialized skills/aptitude best utilized in a not-vegan-defined campaign, there are other opportunities.

    I like the idea of infecting an unsuspecting group with my veganism. You know it's not a hot virus; it takes some incubating. I know of good groups in the animal protection and education fields that are tacitly vegan through the influence of a few members.

    So, we all make up our own minds how best to use our individual time talent and wealth. And to the next one (no one here) that dares tell me otherwise...
    Lead, follow or get out of the way.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  27. #77
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I guess I have my own private definitions

    Abolitionist: A person who wants a complete disconnection with the use of domesticated and wild animals. No circus, rodeo, zoos, ox drawn plows, hunting/fishing, animal experimentation, animal farms even if "free range", horseback riding, or pets. [Existing animals are however to be grandfathered in sanctuaries and should be cared for, but not allowed to reproduce, until they all die of natural causes. The complete phase out process would only take a decade or two.]

    Welfarist: A person who allows for (super nice) circuses, zoos, game parks, and pets as long as the animals are "well cared for and happy". Some may even allow for horseback riding, but I suspect only the ones who are unfamiliar with the procedure of systematically dominating the horse called "breaking", I believe. All they know is the horse they ride seems to be a loved pet and enjoys being directed around, what they don't see is the years of domination training and separation from the horses mother it took to get there.

  28. #78
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Welfarist: A person who allows for (super nice) circuses, zoos, game parks, and pets as long as the animals are "well cared for and happy". Some may even allow for horseback riding, but I suspect only the ones who are unfamiliar with the procedure of systematically dominating the horse called "breaking", I believe. All they know is the horse they ride seems to be a loved pet and enjoys being directed around, what they don't see is the years of domination training and separation from the horses mother it took to get there.

    have you had much to do with horses?

    i'm familiar with the vegan ethics behind choosing not to ride horses - one of the reasons why i choose not to do so after spending most of life doing just that - but i have to chime in here and say that i have 'broken' many horses personally and found it to be a symbiotic relationship. Didn't take long and i certainly never attempted to dominate a half-ton animal .

    the way that you say 'welfarists' may even 'allow' for horse riding makes it look like you think that is worse than using (exploiting) animals for profit in circuses and zoos .

    I try not to label myself or other people. Personally my ultimate goal would be abolition - surely that's true of all vegans though?. On the way to abolition i would certainly do all i could to aid the welfare of animals though.

    Like Pat Sommer, i too have been called out before by 'hard core' vegans because i worked in animal shelters. I wonder what people like that would rather see happening to abandoned 'pets' .

  29. #79
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    have you had much to do with horses? .
    More than most, I suspect. I took formal lessons for a few years riding English style, even a brief introduction to Dressage, and also rode a few times Western style in Colorado on a ranch.

    Horses don't naturally want to be ridden; they were put on earth to be free and not have a metal bit put in their mouth being ordered around by a system of rein, crop, and stirrup commands as slaves by humans riding on their backs. We don't own horses; they are a part of nature and we have no right to steal them.

    i have 'broken' many horses personally and found it to be a symbiotic relationship.
    You sound reminiscent of a pimp speaking of breaking his "bitches". "They liked it."

    Didn't take long and i certainly never attempted to dominate a half-ton animal
    I see, so they are free to leave or quit at any time, are never tethered or restrained, and enjoy biting down on metal bits being ordered around by another species. That does seem natural.

    Also, you are being naive, IMHO, nearsightedly thinking your own experience with horses is representative of how most are kept.

    How would you like it if a stranger stole a baby family member from your home, intentionally breaking the family bond (this is why a fowl less than a year old is separated from their dam) and relying on the Stockholm syndrome to make the hostage grow accustomed to the abductors and trainers, keeping them in a barn, and through a process that includes leather restraints, tethering, crops and whips (yes I realize there is no blood), and an unpleasant metal bar placed in their mouths (the bit) are systematically forced to learn a series of rein, crop, and stirrup commands they have to abide by that their master (the rider) dictates, forcing them as to where to go, when, and how fast? I guess on the plus side they get free room and board while enslaved and medical expenses, well at least if the human deems them "salvageable" that is when injured.

    Just because you've tended horses in a loving non-offensive way and think of them as "pets" doesn't mean the majority of them will have it so good either. Most are raised as beasts of burden and are used for pulling plows, carriages, racing where one dies every 25 races or so [has to be "put down" due to "not cost effective" to repair injuries that occur during the race], and worse:
    [YOUTUBE]vV0dxf9Ou6Q[/YOUTUBE]

    Just like cows and chickens that are "spent" and are no longer profitable to maintain, horses are sold to Japan and French slaughterhouses and turned into dogfood and human meat. Think this is rare? Guess again. Try tens of thousands per year including the horse world "role models/heros " like the Kentucky derby and Preakness winners including Ferdinand, Charismatic, and War Emblem.

    Horses should not be ridden; they don't "want" it anymore than we would. The fact that we can easily indoctrinate them into "accepting it" as we do children in India and China who are enslaved as well, shouldn't be misconstrued that horseback ridding is a mutually "symbiotic" relationship. That's horse poop.
    Last edited by Mahk; Dec 1st, 2009 at 04:23 AM.

  30. #80

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    That's where I get snippy with abos: for any breach of the code, we welfarists get lumped in with happy-meat butchers.
    I think i need to start making myself more clear because a lot of what I've said has been misinterpreted. I said that welfarists may cause people like the ethical butcher, I never said welfarists were the ethical butcher. I meant to say that welfare campaigns results in people turning off veganism and going back to eating meat I didn't say the welfarists themselves go back to eating meat. Am I making sense?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    I reckon abos go back further than old Gary:
    Of course, but he invented the term and turned it into an actual movement.

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    I promote what I believe in: if it can't be veganism due to circumstance (I don't hang out with uni students these days) then it will have to be something down that track and without the AR disclaimer to boot.
    You think only uni studenst are receptive to veganism? In what circumstance can't you promote veganism and are forced to promote free range?

    I'm sorry if i offended you by including the link to the 'ethical' butcher, i was not trying to imply that you are like him or anyhting like that.

  31. #81
    straight edge
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    I am an abolitionist Vegan.

  32. #82
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Mahk i am deeply offended by your comments. Horses can be ridden without the use of bits, stirrups or whips. I was never like a 'pimp' and i never thought of horses as 'pets', either . Don't be so presumptious. You are very pompous!. And please do not patronise me. I lived and worked with horses most of my life until recent years.

    As i said though, ultimately i am an abolitionist - i see no other way for vegans. So naturally i include the abolition of dogs kept as 'pets', taken from their mothers and siblings and kept in houses and walked on leashes . I don't feel cruel or wrong for looking after 'my' dog though. Just don't make so many assumptions. It may be *your* opinion that horse and human cannot have a symbiotic relationship, but it's not my experience atall. Therefore it's not a 'fact' that it doesn't exist, it's your opinion.

  33. #83
    baffled harpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,655

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote fftradio View Post
    I meant to say that welfare campaigns results in people turning off veganism and going back to eating meat I didn't say the welfarists themselves go back to eating meat.
    I've heard/read this a few times, but is there any statistical evidence to support the idea that this happens in significant numbers? I have heard a few anecdotes to this effect, but I have also come across a number of people (myself included) who began by trying to eat meat that was better from a welfare point of view and then stopped eating it at all. It would be interesting to have some evidence about which effect is more common.

    FWIW Britain seems to have an above-average level of interest in animal welfare and more vegetarians/vegans than most other countries, but obviously that doesn't prove any form of causation.

    ETA sorry, I see I already said most of this earlier in the thread. Am still not convinced though.
    Last edited by harpy; Dec 1st, 2009 at 01:24 PM.

  34. #84
    gutts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    I promote what I believe in: if it can't be veganism due to circumstance (I don't hang out with uni students these days) then it will have to be something down that track and without the AR disclaimer to boot. It ain't always appropriate to let folks know they are on slippery slope by agreeing with us that, say, shark fin soup shouldn't be served at banquets or the cat meat market in Guangdong should be shut down.
    I just wanted to take issue with the circumstance clause. As a mid-twenties professional (who travels a fair bit) with only omni friends and colleagues I'd say that I can't get my head around where you're coming from when you say you "don't hang out with uni students these days". That said, most people are fucking babies when it comes to food so I can see how it can be difficult in many situations. However, I'm not sure it's a good reason to soften your principles to accomodate their shitty lifestyle.

    On the other hand, I'm not feeling the puritanical vibes from the other camp, either. I'd agree that abolitionism is the baseline, but the world is complex and we should do what we can where we can without compromising our core beliefs. Maybe that takes me out of the fold and into welfarism because I see many shades of grey in ethical decision-making and would tend toward net profit, generally. However, there are situations where that profit would be negated by an undermining of principle, imho.

    With all that said I'm a little sick of the argument, already. Abolitionist philosophy can underpin AR activism if enough Abolitionist Vegans work their way into groups / charities using intelligence and good old people skills. Of course, that might mean they'd have to step down from their priestly duties of thought-policing well-meaning people on forums and instead engage their energies to do something useful in the real world.

    gutts

  35. #85
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote gutts View Post
    With all that said I'm a little sick of the argument, already. Abolitionist philosophy can underpin AR activism if enough Abolitionist Vegans work their way into groups / charities using intelligence and good old people skills. Of course, that might mean they'd have to step down from their priestly duties of thought-policing well-meaning people on forums and instead engage their energies to do something useful in the real world.

    i feel the same, particularly about this bit:

    "With all that said I'm a little sick of the argument, already"

    its futile really, all that matters is that vegans do what they can, when they can and how they can :smile:.

  36. #86
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    How would you like it if a stranger stole a baby family member from your home, intentionally breaking the family bond (this is why a fowl less than a year old is separated from their dam) and relying on the Stockholm syndrome to make the hostage grow accustomed to the abductors and trainers, keeping them in a barn, and through a process that includes leather restraints, tethering, crops and whips (yes I realize there is no blood), and an unpleasant metal bar placed in their mouths (the bit) are systematically forced to learn a series of rein, crop, and stirrup commands they have to abide by that their master (the rider) dictates, forcing them as to where to go, when, and how fast? I guess on the plus side they get free room and board while enslaved and medical expenses, well at least if the human deems them "salvageable" that is when injured.

    - i only just realised what you meant here by a 'fowl', i guess you mean a foal .
    The mare would naturally wean the foal away in time but yes it is usually done at 6 months of age with domesticated horses.
    However you are making a LOT of assumptions here again. When i have broken horses in they have never been younger than 3 years of age and i assure you no 'crops' (whips) were ever involved! . Also i would like to say that it really isn't that simple to 'force' a large animal to do anything, there should be some mutual respect.
    However, because i know (from experience) that not everyone treats horses with empathy and compassion, and because i know there are issues attached with the whole process of breeding and training horses, i choose not to participate any longer - even though i miss my contact with horses on a daily basis.
    Just because i have chosen not to ride anymore doesn't mean i make huge assumptions about what other people do though, or assume that anyone with a different opinion doesn't know what they are talking about and should be lectured on the basics of equestrianism .

    Its pretty awful seeing puppies being weaned from their mothers aswell, by the way, i do hope i'm not being too cruel keeping 'my' dog in the house with human beings for company. Maybe i should 'return' her to the wild where she could live in a pack, roaming the countryside and scavenging for food . I even had the audacity to take her for a car ride today - i'm sure wild dogs never choose to do that! .

  37. #87
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    Mahk i am deeply offended by your comments. Horses can be ridden without the use of bits, stirrups or whips.
    Yes and I suppose no reins dictating there head motion, either. Get real. You are not fooling anyone but yourself. What makes it immoral and cruel is independent of whether any pain is involved. Horses only can be ridden because we put various restraints on their heads and bodies and indoctrinate them for many months, sometimes even over year, that this is their lot in life and what our dictated commands mean in terms of which way to go, what to jump over, and how fast. To think that horses were "meant" to be ridden by humans is complete speciesism and completely not vegan. We have no right to subjugate any species for transportation, entertainment, racing, jumping, or whatever you want to call it. Thinking "But they want this" is completely delusional.
    ---

    Here we see the more "civilized" form or ridding, English style, including an excellent tutorial in the English subtitles on the sadistic practices euphemistically called "punishment" and "sawing":

    [YOUTUBE]lkxOp_xfVEg[/YOUTUBE]

    An attitude that "they want it and it is symbyotic" is really quite sad and pathetic IMO. No species wishes to be the subjugated slave of another, it has nothing to do with whether pain is inflicted or not. Bit-less bridles don't erase the crime of enslavement. Again, the fact that humans are capable of doing this in no way justifies it as being permissible morally. It is unethical to enslave another animal species, that's not a matter of "opinion", it is a vegan fact. Just because we know how to keep rats in cages in order to inject them with drugs we wish to test doesn't mean we have the right to, nor keep tigers in zoos for entertainment. These animals were put on earth for their own reasons and it is not our "God given right" to maniplate, enslave, and exploit them, even if we can "without inflicting pain".

    For those of you who don't know, in order to break a horse, which means "break it of its independence, spirit, and self determination to do as it chooses until it becomes subservient to humans' orders and is subjugated as a slave", is a lengthy process taking anywhere from up to a half a year or sometimes even longer. After intentionally stealing a foal from her mother to break their bond and show that "humans are in charge now and tell you where you may be and what you should do", bit by bit horses are indoctrinated to accept various head and body restraints such as bridles, saddles, reins, metal bits in their mouths [that's the norm BTW, don't let others fool you it is "rare", although bit-less does exist], etc and eventually the weight of a human resting on their back, an entirely unnatural condition they were never meant to endure. Thinking they were put on earth in order for us to do this to them is a completely selfish, human centric attitude and 100% speciesism. Horses were meant to run free and live on their own without humans and thankfully many wild horse do just that all over the world to this day.

    People who advocate they should be gathered up, genetically manipulated by selectively breeding them for our selfish needs, kept entrapped in corrals and tethered in stables to be ridden at our beckon call for our whims, and used for transportation etc. sicken me.

    Mahk i am deeply offended by your comments....Don't be so presumptious. You are very pompous!. And please do not patronise me. I lived and worked with horses most of my life
    The feeling is completely mutual. How anyone calling themselves a vegan can rationalize horse riding with the prerequisite breaking [indoctrination] as ethically acceptable offends me deeply; I don't care if they claim they exclusively use bitless, it is still manipulative, forced exploitation and enslavement of animals that deserve to be free. Horses are meant to roam in the wild free, without head and body restraints, (bits in their mouths), or humans riding on their backs dictating their motions, whereabouts, and sex lives, as we see here in this group of wild horses:

    Last edited by Mahk; Dec 1st, 2009 at 08:24 PM.

  38. #88
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Mahk you are getting very personal which is something you often accuse others of .

    Where do you get your information from, Mahk???. You had a few riding lessons - doesn't make you an expert .

    'Sawing' at a horse's mouth is very bad practice, for one. For another thing it used to take me a few weeks (a bit different to the timescales you mention) to 'break' a horse in - and by that i mean getting them used to being handled/ridden, just as someone 'house breaks' a puppy. I could find pretty much anything on the internet to show any subject in a bad light .

    But..........i really can't be bothered to fight with you. I worked with horses for years, i've looked after all sorts of different horses and ponies (including rescued ones). I've also explained that i no longer ride, and it's because of the ethical issues. Therefore its not my stance to defend the exploitation of any animal, i just hate seeing one sided BS here.

    Obviously you know everything about everything and you are a way better vegan than me . I bow to your superior knowledge and thankyou for using your time so wisely here, enlightening us all (*bows head*).

  39. #89
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    ooooh, by the way, i have a child aswell. You know when he was a baby i insisted he wore a nappy !. Then i 'broke' him in to eating at the table with a metal knife and fork, and i insisted he wore restrictive clothing at all times, and learn how to use a toilet!!! .
    I am so dominant, damn it!.

    Mahk you must feel simply terrible about those riding lessons that you had...........

  40. #90
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    Where do you get your information from, Mahk???. You had a few riding lessons - doesn't make you an expert .
    Yet interestingly you are unable to discredit any of the factual data I have presented.

    Mahk you must feel simply terrible about those riding lessons that you had.........
    I most certainly do.

    Horse back riding personally, using them for labor, or attending races/jumping competitions and the prerequisite breaking of the horse's free will, spirit, and independence in order to indoctrinate it into a subjective role where it is obliged to accept being harnessed and ridden, a completely unnatural act we have no right to impose, is something I will never do ever again and for the rest of my life. We have no right to steal animals from nature, or breed them, impose our rules, and exploit them for labor.

    Vegan Chrissie Hynde, lead singer of the Pretenders, similarly to me once used horses, saw no harm in it, and was once even married on a horse drawn carriage, but now is ashamed of that fact and publicly speaks out against them.

  41. #91
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    ^ oh yeah that's the same Chrissie Hynde that was recently seen on TV showing her complete ignorance of the fact that not all wines are vegan friendly

    Mahk - how can i possibly discredit your 'factual' data - and why whould i want to .
    Please read this carefully:
    i have already stated here, more than once, that i no longer keep horses or ride horses. The only horses i am likely to look after in the future would be horses that have been rescued from slaughter.
    Therefore, the only reason for my posts here on the subject is that i dislike it intensely when people make sweeping statements. If people make sweeping statements that concern a topic of which i have very little knowledge then maybe i will accept that, or if interested, do some research. If, on the other hand, people make sweeping statements about subjects of which i have a lot of personal experience, then i will put forward my own views based on that experience.

    You can find anything you like online to 'back up' your wild accusations. I could (if i could be bothered) do the same to show that there are many people around who work with their horses in a respectful, empathic manner. But let me repeat myself - why would i want or need to do that?. I know it, because i've lived it.

    You carry on anyway, i'm never sure what you are trying to prove but feel free to talk to the hand..........

  42. #92
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    You can find anything you like online to 'back up' your wild accusations.
    My "wild accusations" you say? I stand by all my data and no one, including you, has discredited any of it.

    I could (if i could be bothered) do the same to show that there are many people around who work with their horses in a respectful, empathic manner.
    That's an oxymoron. We have no right to break horses in the first place, it doesn't matter what technique is utilized, they are all immoral even if there are no bits, whips, crops, pain, etc. It is not our right to subjugate other species for labor.

    ^ oh yeah that's the same Chrissie Hynde that was recently seen on TV showing her complete ignorance of the fact that not all wines are vegan friendly
    Didn't Heather Mills make the same faux pas the opening week or her restaurant, IIRC?
    Also, since there's no such thing as vegan certified wine in the United States, by the Vegan Society nor any other vegan certification/registering body, it doesn't surprise me how she might not be familiar with the how it works in your country. Also not all vegans, nor vegan organizations, are processed based vegans but are rather content based vegans.
    Last edited by Mahk; Dec 1st, 2009 at 09:18 PM.

  43. #93
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    That's an oxymoron. We have no right to break horses in the first place, it doesn't matter what technique is utilized, they are all immoral even if there are no bits, whips, crops, pain, etc. It is not our right to subjugate other species for labor.
    erm, as i said, i agree, that is why, as a vegan, i no longer ride/keep horses.
    I just didn't like that you seemed to be speaking about *everyone* involved with horses, and making some huge generalisations about them all.
    It might be 'factual' to say that some parents abuse their children, it doesn't mean that all parents are abusive - i'm just using that as a comparison.

    Abusing animals is, to my mind, a different topic to that of the morality behind the entire concept of whether humans should ever have, and/or should continue to, domesticate animals. Two different things. I was pointing out, - backed up by my own experience - that horse riding is not necessarily an act of abuse. I was NOT saying, however, that horse riding is necessarily morally 'correct'.

  44. #94
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    I just didn't like that you seemed to be speaking about *everyone* involved with horses, and making some huge generalisations about them all.
    Everyone who breaks horses, regardless of method, is committing an immoral and unethical act according to the principals of veganism. There is no "correct or acceptable way" or

    respectful, empathic manner
    to subjugate another species without guilt. The pain from bits, crops, whips, spurs etc, which you have repeatedly pointed out, is completely immaterial. Breaking is wrong in and of itself. Anyone who doesn't renounce their previous use of horses that have been broken and insists on continuing to do so, unlike you and me, is not vegan in my book.

  45. #95
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    The pain from bits, crops, whips, spurs etc, which you have repeatedly pointed out, is completely immaterial.
    I'm really interested to see where i stated this, please show me

  46. #96
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    ^ Here's one:
    Quote cobweb View Post
    Horses can be ridden without the use of bits, stirrups or whips.
    So what? Breaking is wrong.

  47. #97
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    Everyone who breaks horses, regardless of method, is committing an immoral and unethical act according to the principals of veganism. There is no "correct or acceptable way"

    have i actually disagreed with this logic?
    as i said before, what i dislike is you, or anyone else, making sweeping statements inferring that everyone who keeps horses is abusive in some way.
    A person can look after an animal superbly well and have a great relationship with that animal whilst still occupying the potentially 'immoral' position of being 'keeper' of that animal. That was my point.

  48. #98
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Here's another:
    Quote cobweb View Post
    When i have broken horses in they have never been younger than 3 years of age and i assure you no 'crops' (whips) were ever involved!
    So what? Breaking is wrong.

  49. #99
    cobweb
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote Mahk View Post
    So what? Breaking is wrong.
    I get your point, you don't seem to get mine . I didn't like that you were (seemingly) giving us all a lesson on the process of breaking-in horses, and you stated that it involves whips, stirrups and bits. I was pointing out that that is definitely NOT always the case.

  50. #100
    Mahk
    Guest

    Default Re: Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

    Quote cobweb View Post
    have i actually disagreed with this logic?
    Here:
    Quote cobweb View Post
    I could (if i could be bothered) do the same to show that there are many people around who work with their horses in a respectful, empathic manner.
    [emphasis mine]

    Another oxymoron. Breaking a horse, or using one that was broken for you previously by another party, is not "respectful and empathatic" to the horse, by definition, since we have no right to subjugate them as transportation vehicles in the first place, regardless if pain was used.

Similar Threads

  1. New abolitionist vegan outreach pamphlet available
    By powder in forum Projects, companies & links
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Feb 16th, 2009, 09:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •