Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

  1. #1
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Francione has posted a new article about Peta/Newirk's vievpoints. It's called PETA's Ingrid Newkirk on Principled Veganism: “Screw it”, and ends with "Veganism is the least that we owe to nonhuman sentients".


    ETA:
    He also has posted some comments about Peta and Vegan Outreach here:
    Why We Must Reject the 'Happy Meat' and 'Flexible Vegan' Movement
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  2. #2
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Yawn, same 'ol Francione tune. Wish he'd pick up a different instrument.

    The day someone in the street recognizes his name and one of his catch phrases (zero sum game), I may pay more heed. Until then, the thousands new to veganism due to Ingrid and Peta's efforts will just be chalked up as evidence that we are moving backwards.

    *had a yummy meal last night at a newly veganized household, thanks be to Peta, otherwise I would be even less charitable in my criticism.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  3. #3
    leedsveg
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Yawn, same 'ol Francione tune. Wish he'd pick up a different instrument.

    The day someone in the street recognizes his name and one of his catch phrases (zero sum game), I may pay more heed. Until then, the thousands new to veganism due to Ingrid and Peta's efforts will just be chalked up as evidence that we are moving backwards.

    *had a yummy meal last night at a newly veganized household, thanks be to Peta, otherwise I would be even less charitable in my criticism.
    I don't want to get into any argument ps, but Francione's two articles make sense to me. If his conviction tells him that the "tune" he's coming out with is the right one, why would/should he change it? As for people in the street not recognising his name, I wonder how many people one would need to ask before the name 'Donald Watson' was recognised?

    lv

  4. #4
    Not real name!
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wakefield
    Posts
    256

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    I agree with LV. If Peta are saying "adherence to veganism as a matter of principle is a matter of “personal purity,” “narcissistic cultural fad,” and “fanatical obsession.”" then IMO they are nothing to do with anything the I believe and, frankly, it's an insult to all vegans.

    As for Peter Singer labelling himself as "a “flexible vegan” who will be non-vegan when it is convenient" well, whoop de doo. I'd find it really convenient not to be vegan. It'd make my life so much simpler but that isn't what it is about. So, f*** him too.

    Please excuse my 'French'.

  5. #5
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Not wishing to disagree with your support of Francione's arguments, LV, but rather am whining about his monotone message. Every time someone points me to him, I get dejavu. On the upside it is taking me less and less time to pick apart his stance which does sharpen my (limited) reasoning skills.
    No one on the street knows Donald Watson either (maybe a few in UK?).

    And, no, I don't feel insulted, Glen, by the above adverbs. I put them into context: microgram counting, purity-for-purity's sake vegan police that have gone so far into the abstract that the animals get left behind. Francione is not rescuing animals or visiting factory farms. If we remember that that is the daily reality of some animal advocates we may be inclined to cut them a little slack.

    Go ahead Francione state your case for a vegan world; more power to you. My problem with him is when our current state of the world ( non-vegan) is taken as evidence that we are on the wrong path ie not all following his way of doing things. As Jack Nicholson once said on screen, "why do I feel I am hearing the latest version of Roman Catholicism?"
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  6. #6
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Buried in the comments on that article I found about the funniest thing I have ever heard since the last time I heard that exact same thing before ...

    ... but if masses of people turn to veganism, there will be genocide against the livestock.

    ~ Nivarion
    I would like everyone to join me in eating half a cow a day from now on ....

    By Wednesday we may, between us all, have saved the lives of a modest sized herd!
    All done in the best possible taste ...

  7. #7
    leedsveg
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    Not wishing to disagree with your support of Francione's arguments, LV, but rather am whining about his monotone message.
    Doesn't make his argument right ps but Gary F. seems to have had a lot more success at persuading people on VF to his way of thinking (as opposed to PETA's). Piece of Freedom Food chicken leg anyone? No, me neither.

    lv

  8. #8
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Agreed: when he preaches to the choir he gets a hallelujah.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  9. #9
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Sure - but since Francione is the underdog, so to speak, compared with Peta's army of members (of which most apparently are neither vegan or vegetarian), he has to deal with the fact that there are a lot more people out there which 'officially' supports Peta/Newkirk than those who supports his viewpoints or even knows who he is. And since veganism isn't some complex philiophy or religion with a lot of scriptures to learn and study - it's all based on a message so short that you can write it on a postcard, there has to be a lot of repetitions if people write/talk a lot.

    It's sad that an organization as large as Peta - which promotes veganism - haven't been capable of converting it's own members to avoid animal products as much as possible. This of course means that Peta's own members is an active reason that all these animals suffer, are exploited and killed. If Francione is going to spend the rest of his life on focusing on the extremely simple and 'short' idea that "veganism is the least that we owe to nonhuman sentients", and Peta/Newkirk will oppose that, I, for one, surely will do my best to help him 'win' that discussion.

    ETA: It will be very hard for the members of to convince others to stop contributing to animal suffering (by not supporting the factory farm industry, avoid animal products etc) - for the simple reason that most of them is supporting that animal exploiting industry by buying their products. It's kind of like if one would start a violent non-violence movement. It's all rather absurd, and this is why I'm not surprised when Francione keeps commenting on Peta/Newkirk/Veganoutreach and Peter Singer. If he would do it more often, and repeat his simple viewpoints in more fora than he does today, there would be less, not more animal suffering.

    We can't really expect that someone who has a simple message shall stop doing what he believes in - even if someone finds it repetitive. Those who have heard it before can just skip reading his stuff.
    Last edited by Korn; Dec 6th, 2010 at 09:43 AM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  10. #10
    Kimberlily1983
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    While it's certainly the case that Francione is repetitive, I think his criticisms of PETA are dead-on. PETA needs to consistently back up veganism; its practices leave people questioning the organization often more than the practices that it challenges (for example, collaborating with meat-eaters on single-issue causes, awarding slaughterhouses awards for "humane" changes, etc.).

    On the other hand, by bringing in supporters who are themselves hypocrites, PETA makes an enormous amount of money, which it can then use to get more publicity, disseminate more educational materials, etc. While Francione is right that they cause a lot of harm, does the good they cause outweigh it? Does it achieve a world of good even by being hypocritical, in that it gets people thinking about animal issues. Many of us are convinced to care by PETA, and then go on to be critical of it and more aware of animal rights issues. Does PETA possibly know exactly what's it doing in this respect?

    Is it possible that what's best is that everyone be doing what they think is best? Is it possible that the best case scenario is to have this massive, hypocritical organization that without a doubt does some good, as well as people like Francione and ordinary folks like us criticizing them?

    I understand the case welfarists are making: that abolition is too unrealistic at this point, and someone needs to help the animals now, through the law. But I myself see the insistence on abolition as necessary; that welfarism does not take animals seriously, that it harms the cause. But is this debate itself, between welfarism and abolition, crucial in getting people to understand why welfarism isn't enough, so that if all we had was people insisting on abolition, the cause would not be helped?

    Francione says no to this, that if we all insist on abolition, the corporations themselves will become "welfarists", will give us welfare reform. I think he's right, but only if we can have significant numbers demanding abolition. It's a lot easier to get people to demand welfare reforms than it is to get them demanding abolition. If the movement had started off as abolitionist, would things be the way they are today? Would most of us have gotten where we are now? I think it's probably a good thing that it started off as welfarism, and that PETA has continued this tradition and attracted huge numbers, as these numbers will be ripe for the change Francione wants to see. So he's right to knock welfarism, but at the same time we should all acknowledge that welfarism has, and continues to, attract the audience that's now willing to hear our side of things. Would they have been willing from the beginning? Maybe not...

    So, I would say that I agree with him, that we need to get the movement to shift over to mostly abolitionism. The public seems to be slowly following: they're the ones that will be the welfarists.

    We've already seen the major move from the majority of the public being indifferent to animals with a small segment considering themselves welfarists: now I would say the majority of people identify as welfarists, and the minority is the abolitionists, with those indifferent being an even smaller group, perhaps? Does this sound fair? If so, that's an amazing amount of change, of which we no doubt owe largely to welfarists. So now we need to work on making the welfarists become abolitionists, and the indifferent might become the new welfarists... and the world will look even more different then.

  11. #11
    Kimberlily1983
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    About Newkirk, the funny thing is, I agree with the arguments against absolute "purism". For me, though, it means something entirely different than flexitarianism. For me, it means not worrying about bone char in sugar. It means not worrying about whether Red 6 or Blue 7 food colorings are animal derived, if once or twice a year I buy something like Jolly Ranchers. It means not obsessing every time I see "natural flavoring" on a product's ingredient list.

    It also means realizing I'm not going to die if we're on the road and the only pit stop around sells only products containing animal ingredients, and that means I can't have a meal or snack until later. It means accepting that sometimes my soy burger will be fried on a grill beside beef burgers.

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

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Exactomundo Kimberlily.

    Support Gary, love Gary, believe in Gary: I have no argument with anyone making those choices. Teasing out fact from faith is where I keep chiming in. Just because a clever bloke like him says it and our own deep seated prejudices support it, don't make it real. The pronouncements he comes up with are breathtakingly arrogant in their certainty: the movement is going backwards. Now, how is one supposed to refute that, may I ask?

    I will leave all the misconceptions and misrepresentations regarding Peta out. I will, however, mention how eerily similar some of this is sounding to conservative attacks: they vilified the term liberal by attaching a new definition (is that coopting?) and then pasted that label wherever they wanted to taint a reputation. What is the difference with this 'new welfarist' spiel?

    So, you want to know the truth of how best to create a vegan world? Well, I ain't got any answers! Anybody says they hold a monopoly on that precious commodity? Until then, let's just maintain a little critical thinking as Korn has:

    "So he's right to knock welfarism, but at the same time we should all acknowledge that welfarism has, and continues to, attract the audience that's now willing to hear our side of things. Would they have been willing from the beginning? Maybe not..."
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  13. #13
    Kimberlily1983
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote pat sommer View Post
    "So he's right to knock welfarism, but at the same time we should all acknowledge that welfarism has, and continues to, attract the audience that's now willing to hear our side of things. Would they have been willing from the beginning? Maybe not..."
    Hey, it was me that said that! But I'm glad you liked it nonetheless... Last week I had something attributed to me that I didn't say, so I guess this evens that out, haha.

  14. #14
    pat sommer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hanging around California
    Posts
    723

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    oops, I'll have to troll thru Korn's post now for a quote; may take me awhile...
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  15. #15
    Bad Buddhist Clueless Git's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Milton Keynes
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote Kimberlily1983 View Post
    About Newkirk, the funny thing is, I agree with the arguments against absolute "purism". For me, though, it means something entirely different than flexitarianism. For me, it means not worrying about bone char in sugar. It means not worrying about whether Red 6 or Blue 7 food colorings are animal derived, if once or twice a year I buy something like Jolly Ranchers. It means not obsessing every time I see "natural flavoring" on a product's ingredient list.

    It also means realizing I'm not going to die if we're on the road and the only pit stop around sells only products containing animal ingredients, and that means I can't have a meal or snack until later. It means accepting that sometimes my soy burger will be fried on a grill beside beef burgers.
    I agree with this ^

    We would go stark raving mad trying to stay 100% 'clean' in a 100% 'dirty' world.

    Errr ... or at least we would have the appearance of being so and vegans that have the appearance of being stark raving mad are a pretty good advert for the anti-vegan cause?
    All done in the best possible taste ...

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

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    ...and that is the crux of Ingrid's argument.

    and that promised Korn quote:
    "If he would repeat his simple viewpoints in more fora than he does today, there would be less, not more animal suffering." Lovely thought; hope he does. And leave off with the blame game: his eloquent argument for veganism should IMHO stand alone.

    And just because I can't leave well enough alone, a couple of Peta Army comments:
    Anybody here ever shake the tin for donations? You do of course make sure that anyone contributing a coin isn't morally misaligned with the cause, right?
    So goes it for Peta; make a donation and receive the mailings and they get to say there are a million 'members'. The nice grandma retired in Miami who worries about chained dogs probably won't commit to a vegan diet anytime soon. Activists are a very small subset and generally conform to Peta's mantra: animals are not ours.
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

  17. #17
    Kimberlily1983
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote Cupid Stunt View Post
    We would go stark raving mad trying to stay 100% 'clean' in a 100% 'dirty' world. Errr ... or at least we would have the appearance of being so and vegans that have the appearance of being stark raving mad are a pretty good advert for the anti-vegan cause?
    I think one day, perhaps in the not so far off future, everyone will be vegan, and they will look back at previous generations, and those of us who were vegan in the midst of a world full of non-vegans, and they'll say things like "I don't see how they could stand it." Most won't be able to understand how we could eat the soy burger cooked next to the beef burger, the same way most people today would not be able to eat a beef burger if it had been cooked next to a human burger. It's not that it's wrong to get the soy burger, but it will be a question of the horror of living in this world, period, while this is going on around us.

    That said, I think we have to face it. And I think the real horror of it hasn't fully dawned on most of us yet: even those of us who think we're enlightened here still have a way to go before we're going to be fully conscious. I count myself among those people. I've come so far, but I know there's farther to go. This isn't entirely a bad thing: as I've expressed before, some separation and distancing might be a good thing. As you say, if we walk around obsessing about every little thing, and if we walk around completely devastated, it's likely no one's going to listen to us.

    I don't know... My opinions on many subjects are rapidly changing/evolving for me this year - 2010 was a big year for me! I have more thoughts on this particular subject, but will leave it at that for now...

  18. #18
    Johnstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Leicester UK
    Posts
    361

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    I can't see the articles but the comments are making me mad, mad, mad grrrr....

  19. #19
    Metal Head emzy1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Luton, UK
    Posts
    2,149

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    I support GLF and his stance on Peta etc. I can't remember on what essay he wrote it, maybe these ones, but about how he ran into an ex-vegetarian at wholefoods who was now happy to eat meat because it had been raised, "humanely." So for as many people as welfarism draws into the movement, it equals a whole lot more moving away.
    The taste of anything in my mouth for 5 seconds does not equate to the beauty and complexity of life.

  20. #20
    Kimberlily1983
    Guest

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote emzy1985 View Post
    So for as many people as welfarism draws into the movement, it equals a whole lot more moving away.
    I'm not sure if it equals more moving away, but certainly some, definitely. I think organizations like PeTA probably get a lot of people to go vegetarian/vegan (and more than they lead away from a veg life, is my guess), as I think many people make this choice without closely examining the issues, and don't realize the contradictions involved in PeTA's work, etc. (And I say this not as someone who rejects PeTA outright: I think they've done a lot of good. At the same time, I think there are problems with the way they do their thing, and I'd like to see some changes there.)

    I agree with Francione, too: we should be putting our energy into abolitionism. As he says, welfare reform will happen on its own if we're successful about advocating abolitionism. If we get huge numbers turning vegan, the industry will make those welfare changes itself, without us demanding them, in the hopes that some of us will find what they do less appalling and wrong, in the hopes that we stop seeing a need to be vegan.

    Of course, if we're really successful, everything they do in terms of welfare reforms won't be enough, because for me, I don't care how pretty you make the farm, how nice their lives are made, at the end of the day if you're using those animals for your own "gains", killing them for trivial purposes, etc. that's not okay by me. I think - and hope - that most vegans feel that way, or those of us who are "true" vegans anyway, in the sense of avoiding all animal exploitation, not just eating vegan to be healthy.

  21. #21
    Metal Head emzy1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Luton, UK
    Posts
    2,149

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Alot of what does my head in about Peta is the sexism. Don't get me wrong I'm sure they have converted many to a compassionate way of thinking, but plenty of omnivores are Peta members and think that's ok. What really pushed me away from them was Jamilia doing an anti fur add and then the next day cooking a sheep on some cookery programme. Sucks!
    The taste of anything in my mouth for 5 seconds does not equate to the beauty and complexity of life.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Colony, Texas
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    I kind of get what Newkirk is saying and has said before. Maybe I don't agree with her choice of words, but this is what I hear: Some people are never going to go vegan. You couldn't tell them anything that would ever make them feel inclined to do so. You could, however, convince these people that eating less meat/dairy, and choosing meat/dairy that comes from more "humane" sources, such as a family farm. To me, this is still some kind of progress. We cannot promote veganism in way that says, "You must go vegan, or you are fucking scum.", and I'm not saying that we do - but trust me, a lot of non-vegans hear that. So it's more important to be like, "Okay, make any change you can for the better!" It's better than alienating everyone and having them make no change whatsoever. IMHO.

  23. #23
    Karma Junkie vava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Yorkshire, England, UK.
    Posts
    876

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    Quote Kimberlily1983 View Post
    Most won't be able to understand how we could eat the soy burger cooked next to the beef burger,
    I don't understand how not eating a soy burger cooked next to a beef burger helps animals?
    even perfect isn't perfect - Rubyduby 4th July 08

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

    Default Re: New Francione article about Peta/Newkirk's viewpoints

    You got it Christinablue!
    Having worked with kids and now raising my own child, I am a great believer in the-slippery-slope approach to change rather than the win-the-rational-argument. How many of us have had people agree with us but still continue to be omnis?
    the only animal ingredient in my food is cat hair

Similar Threads

  1. PETA Ad NOT OK!
    By Vegabond in forum VEGANISM - THE MAIN TOPICS
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: Nov 11th, 2008, 10:56 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
  •