archive-com.com » COM » A » ABOLITIONISTAPPROACH.COM

Total: 223

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Eat A Sausage. Do It For The Animals. - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    Yes indeed domesticated animals who will be mutilated abused in various ways and eventually end their lives amidst the stench and horrors of a slaughterhouse are living a natural life What a victory Comment from HSUS Facebook page Love the piggies No more suffering Absolutely These pigs have a great life The suffering is all gone Comment from HSUS Facebook page in response to critical comments There s always someone looking at the down side of things At least they can enjoy a small amount of their lives Yeah stop being divisive Jump on the HSUS bandwagon Disagreement is not permitted Comment from HSUS Facebook page It s so important to respect and not mistreat our food animals Comment from HSUS Facebook page Ball Park Hillshire Farm and Jimmy Dean God bless all of you and your business for not continuing to serve pork from industrial farms that treat their stock so inhumanly Thank you for having the inner strength to stand up for what is right and moral Bless you all Putting aside the fatuous praise for these companies this person obviously thinks that these firms are ending intensive conditions generally which is not the case They are just stopping the economically inefficient practice of using gestation crates at some point in the future Fantasy 3 This sort of campaign is not encouraging people to continue to consume animals Comment from HSUS Facebook page I m not a fan of pork but if I were I d buy these brands Comment from HSUS Facebook page THANK YOU Ball Park Hillshire Farms and Jimmy Dean for your compassion in eliminating gestation crates I m back to being a customer Comment from HSUS Facebook page I don t eat meat but I do tell my friends and family which companies are doing the right things Thank you to all of the companies that are making these moves to be more compassionate Comment from HSUS Facebook page Thank you Hillshire Farms I can start buying your products again Comment from HSUS Facebook page now I know whose brands to buy Fantasy 4 Animal welfare reforms are wonderful because they help animals suffering NOW From HSUS The Hillshire Brands Company today announced it is actively engaged in advancing alternatives to traditional gestational stall housing and intends to have this solution in place by the end of 2022 said Hillshire in its statement The company continued by making clear that its plan is to source all pork from suppliers who use housing that provides the animals the opportunity for adequate movement and comfort Etc etc etc I found these comments in less than two minutes As of the time I wrote this there were almost 3100 likes almost 400 shares and more than 150 comments many favorable If anyone sees this as anything other than a breathtaking sell out of animal interests I disagree I have been accused of being divisive more times than I have eaten broccoli and I love broccoli for criticizing

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/eat-a-sausage-do-it-for-the-animals/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive


  • My Debate with Libertarian Philosopher Tibor Machan - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    of animal rights Our topic Do Animals Have Rights The debate was videotaped and a number of people have asked to see it The video was originally available on the Rutgers Library site but we have moved it over and you can now watch it here Professor Francione Debates Professor Tibor Machan Do Animals Have Rights January 12 2012 If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2012 Gary L Francione Related posts Debate on Animal Rights with Libertarian Philosopher Tibor Machan Debate with Professor Michael Marder on Plant Ethics The Abolitionist Regulationist Debate From Another Era Sound Familiar Debate The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research A Moral Justification New York Times Debate on Carriage Horses Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share by Mail Français Visitez notre site miroir français Recent Posts Guest Essay This is Why New Welfarists Should Stop Equivocating on Moral Principles Concerning Animals A Response to Mercy For Animals Incremental Reform in the Human Context Is Not Analogous to Welfare Reform and Single Issue Campaigns in the Nonhuman Context The Animals Need YOU A Report from the Intersectional Justice Conference Why Welfare Reform Campaigns and Single Issue Campaigns Necessarily Promote Animal Exploitation When Intersectional Justice Means Promoting Meat Fish Dairy Imagine If There Were a Real Animal Rights Movement Challenging Peter Singer s Paternity Claim Business As Usual VegfestUK and the Animal Welfare Industry The Vegan Society Senior Officer of

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/my-debate-with-libertarian-philosopher-tibor-machan/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Response to James McWilliams-And It's Not Debatable - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    direct debate whether oral or written Professor McWilliams characterizes a discussion about these matters as a matter of verbal sparring That trivializes the reality that there are important substantive issues here including the notion embedded very firmly in welfarist ideology that animals do not have an interest in continuing to live or at least that animal lives have less moral value than human lives for purposes of justifying their treatment as economic commodities Moreover there is the matter of whether welfare reforms actually do provide significant improvements to animal welfare both as an absolute matter and in terms of encouraging continued consumption of happy animal products as a defensible ethical position to use Peter Singer s phrase Surely no one could deny that having large animal groups sponsoring happy labels for meat and other animal products is explicitly intended to make consumers feel that they are acting in a socially responsible way to use an HSUS phrase when they eat happy animal products And there is the issue of whether those reforms that are accepted or enacted actually increase production efficiency and thus fail to represent any sort of incremental step toward abolition and indeed further enmesh animals in the property paradigm I hope that that Professor McWilliams will at some point decide that it is a good idea to engage in a direct discussion written or oral about these important issues My invitation remains open If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2012 Gary L Francione Related posts Commentary 21 The Animal Rights Debate the Abolitionist

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-james-mcwilliams-and-its-not-debatable/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • "Farmed Animals" vs. "Farm Animals" - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    They talk about how we should abandon the worst abuses a meaningless concept when the entire process is abusive of factory farming and move towards the idyllic family farm which by the way misses the basic moral point and is just a fantasy anyway I heard one of these happy advocates say that we had to go from having farmed animals in factory farms to having farm animals on family farms To the extent that farmed refers to animals who are involved in the industrial agricultural process and that if these animals were exploited supposedly more humanely on family farms they would once again become farm animals I see that as problematic precisely because it suggests that in a humane context these animals are a type of animal Either way I do not think that calling them farmed or farm animals will amount to much Promoting veganism as an unequivocal moral baseline and stopping the promotion of happy exploitation would however make a great difference If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself The World is Vegan If you want it Gary L Francione Professor Rutgers University 2012 Gary L Francione Related posts The Focus on Factory Farming Important Announcement No Factory Farmed Small Fish Friday Swine Flu A Problem of Animal Treatment or Animal Use Eat A Sausage Do It For The Animals The Abolitionist Approach and Farm Sanctuary Discuss Happy Meat Abolition and Welfare Reform Share this entry Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google Share on Pinterest Share on Linkedin Share on Tumblr Share on Vk Share on Reddit Share by Mail Français Visitez notre site miroir

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/farmed-animals-vs-farm-animals/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Nicholas Kristof: Please Wince. Please. - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    itself But Nicholas do the cows die of old age No apparently not When cows age and their milk production drops farmers slaughter them Bob has always found that part of dairying tough so increasingly he uses the older cows to suckle steers That way the geriatric cows bring in revenue to cover their expenses and their day of reckoning can be postponed indefinitely in the case of his favorite cows I teased Bob about running a bovine retirement home and he smiled unapologetically I feel good about it he said simply They support me as much as I support them so it s easy to get attached to them I want to work hard for them because they ve taken good care of me Kristof concludes We need not wince when we contemplate where our food comes from The next time you drink an Organic Valley glass of milk it may have come from one of Bob s cows If so you can bet it was a happy cow And it has a name Relax everyone Please Don t wince Rest assured that you can exploit with compassion Yes these gentle animals will meet their day of reckoning when they will be slaughtered But they were happy Drink that milk It s good for you and for Bob s children I wonder whether Kristof has any pictures of how happy Bob s girls are on that day of reckoning But the profound moral schizophrenia of Kristof s position is summed up in one sentence And it has a name It has a name It Despite Kristof s confused concern the bottom line is that these animals are things And that s the whole problem in a nutshell For Kristof and other welfarists and this includes just about every large animal protection organization in this country animals are things They are not nonhuman persons They are not members of the moral community It is fine to exploit them as long as we torture them less than they would be tortured in an alternative situation as long as we send them to slaughter with a name And before I get the usual angry emails from the welfarists who will ask some version of but isn t Bob s farm better than a conventional dairy farm let me be clear It is worse to impose 10 units of suffering than 5 units of suffering But we have to justify both And we cannot justify either if the only reason offered is the pleasure we get from consuming milk If the principle that unnecessary suffering is wrong a principle that everyone including the Kristofs of this world purports to accept means anything it must mean that pleasure cannot be a sufficient justification for imposing pain and suffering on animals There must be a compulsion a necessity There is no compulsion here There is only the tragedy of those who are choosing to do something that they know is morally unjustifiable and engaging in

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/nicholas-kristof-please-wince-please/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • An Invitation to Professor McWilliams - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    harm animals if we kill them painlessly That was Bentham s position it is Singer s position it is the position that most of the large organizations accept Indeed it is precisely that position that allows PETA to kill healthy animals that it takes in at its Norfolk facility and to advocate that it s fine for other shelters to kill animals That position in my view is problematic for a number of fundamental moral reasons Moreover you accept uncritically that animal welfare reforms actually do provide significant improvements for animal welfare I disagree At best the reforms are analogous to padding a water board at Guantanamo Bay Note that I said At best Most of the time they do even less From an economic standpoint most of these welfare reforms actually increase production efficiency For example you cite the HSUS campaign against gestation crates Have a look at HSUS own literature which after surveying the agricultural research states Sow productivity is higher in group housing than in individual crates as a result of reduced rates of injury and disease earlier first estrus faster return to estrus after delivery lower incidence of stillbirths and shorter farrowing times Group systems employing ESF are particularly cost effective In addition c onversion from gestation crates to group housing with ESF marginally reduces production costs and increases productivity So why does industry fight Because that is all part of the symbiotic relationship that exists between industry and these large groups The animal groups identify practices that are economically vulnerable industry resists a drama ensues industry eventually agrees to make what are meaningless and possibly even financially beneficial changes the animal groups declare victory and fundraise industry praised by the groups reassures the public that it really does care about animals The public feels compassionate and continues to consume animals You discuss Joy s view that going vegan is asking for a profound shift in consciousness that people make only when they re personally ready to do so Has anyone suggested otherwise The issue is not whether it s a matter of moral choice Of course it is The issue is whether we are going to make the argument that people ought to make that moral choice or reassure them that they can discharge their moral obligations by eating happy animal products and consuming compassionately with all that involves both as a theoretical and a practical matter As a general matter I found it bewildering that you think we are going to make people more receptive to a vegan message by deciding along with Joy Cooney and others that the public simply is not ready to hear a serious argument about animal ethics I disagree I think that most people can understand the arguments just fine The problem is that the animal welfare groups simply don t want that discussion to take place They have for many years now done everything possible to stifle it Indeed you seem to think that this issue is recent

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/an-invitation-to-professor-mcwilliams/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Only Sentience Matters - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    in a biomedical experiment We ought to see this in the animal context as well 2 It sets up a standard that animals however much they are like us can never win For example we have known for a long time that nonhuman great apes are very much like humans in all sorts of ways but we continue to exploit them However much animals are like us they are never enough like us to translate into an obligation on our parts to stop exploiting them What I call the similar minds approach involves a game that animals can never win They ll never be enough like us A final issue Does a focus on sentience itself establish a hierarchy of the sentient over the non sentient No because sentience is a necessary as well as sufficient characteristic for a being to have interests preferences desires or wants in the first place A rock is not sentient it does not have any sort of mind that prefers desires or wants anything A plant is alive but has no sort of mind that prefers desires or wants anything It is interesting to note that the animal movement itself perpetuates the notion that chickens the animal most exploited in terms of sheer numbers lack all of those special cognitive characteristics and may continue to be used as a resource by humans if we do so humanely And although the list of seven animals discussed here includes animals other than the ones that animal advocates usually fetishize it still excludes chickens and our main source of dairy cows How convenient If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/only-sentience-matters/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive

  • "Pets": The Inherent Problems of Domestication - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach
    pleasing to us We may make them happy in one sense but the relationship can never be natural or normal They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them We cannot justify such an institution even if it looked very different from the situation that now exists My partner and I live with five rescued dogs including dogs who had health problems when we adopted them We love them very much and try very hard to provide them the best of care and treatment And before anyone asks all seven of us are vegans You would probably not find two people on the planet who enjoy living with dogs more than we do And we both encourage anyone who can to adopt or foster as many animals of whatever species they can responsibly have But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of pet ownership to an end We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts and although we enjoy caring for them it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit I understand that many people will be bewildered by my argument about the inherent problems with domestication But that is because we live in a world in which we kill and eat 56 billion animals a year not counting fish and where our best justification for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products Most of you who are reading this right now are probably not vegans As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat animals the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as pets is not likely to resonate I understand that So take a few minutes to read some of the many other essays on this site that discuss veganism such as The Problem With Single Issue Campaigns and Why Veganism Must Be the Baseline And then reconsider the issue of pets I also discuss the issue of pets in two podcasts Commentary 2 Pets and Commentary 4 Follow Up to Pets Commentary Non Vegan Cats If you are not vegan please go vegan Veganism is about nonviolence First and foremost it s about nonviolence to other sentient beings But it s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself If you are able to adopt or foster any nonhuman animals please do Domestication is morally wrong but they are here now and they need our care Their lives are as important to them as our lives are to us The

    Original URL path: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/pets-the-inherent-problems-of-domestication/ (2016-05-02)
    Open archived version from archive



  •