flex24

Now i'm slowly getting angry, Barry. You're the one fueling the fight here. With the above sentence you imply you're better than the ones you sarcastically call "perfect people" - which means you do the same you accuse them of.

Good reasoning.

I knew that the butterflies weren´t killed specifically for the exhibition. As Daywalker pointed the problem is the support. Is like, for example, find a dead deer in the forest and take him to a family meal for eating him. He was dead, I know, but eating him is promote that we can kill them for sake of taste buds pleasure. Or like supporting a museum with dead animals (taxidermia). If you pay or support them, you encourage them to kill more animals in future (for it mean that the exhibition had success).Or more simply: a piece of cow in the supermarket is dead. If you dont buy it, the cow will not return to life. But you are supporting the meat industry.

By the way. I said what i have said because this is a vegan forum. Obviously in a typical non-vegan forum my claim would have been somewhat different.

flex24 wrote:

It is definitely a shame. dont know how can be posted that in a vegan forum. Teaching her daughter to be speciesist. What a shame.

If vegans do that. What can be done by not-vegans?

 

 

I e-mailed with Big and he made his point of view totally clear. For him it is not about how vegan/speciesist someone is (This discussion above takes place in every vegan forum, I guess).

From his point of view (and I agree with him in this matter) involving his daughter resp. the way he brings her up was a big mistake. This offensive language used above is not the kind of language usually used in this forum. The kindness and respect of the vbb&f-members towards eachother is more important than expressing ones anger.

 

Big again and again said that he did not want to offend anyone. He was nice and full of respect. Learn from him instead of calling him a bad father.

I apologize with Bigwii and I will consider his conseil (GET A LIFE!! and do something more productive) and also apologize with you.

Anyway I should say that his interpretation was very far. I have not said he was a bad father. In fact teaching someone to be speciesist is not to be a bad father (at least for me) because being speciesist is not a problem for the son or daughter but for the non-human animals. In my view being a good father is to do what the majority do (love their children) so I have never said Bigwii is a bad father.

Nevertheless I regret that instead of giving arguments for maintain one position many times people say: I disagree period. Respect my position.

I dont know if I have the true but I know that there is one true and that two humans with opposite views can´t not have reason at the same time. One of them must be wrong and maybe both. But if there is a negative to argue we will never know....

And finally you have reason when you say that Bigwii said that he didnt want to offend anybody. The problem is that I reply him that the offense is not for the people who post here but for the BUTTERFLIES. In fact, I have never feel offended in this forum.

1)

Malaria

Well, the link that you have provided confirm what i have said:

¨Malaria (Medieval Italian: mala aria — "bad air") and formerly called ague or marsh fever in English, is an infectious disease which causes about 350–500 million infections in humans and approximately 1.3–3 million deaths annually[1] — at least one death every 30 seconds.¨

It is clear that malaria is a disease or an illness (as i have said) and not a parasite.

3) Im only sayIng that modern taxonomy does not include Plasmodium in the animal kingdom but in the protist kingdom. Taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary so you can change the criteria.In general definitions are arbitrary.

4)

So the more human-like an organism is the more right to life it has? It's equally impossible for you to desribe what it's like to be a bat, cow, lion or microb without using yourself as starting point.

Giving an animal more rights because it shares characteristics with you is speciesism. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think you have not undestood my points. I have never said that the more human-like is a being he/she has more right to life. I have said that all sentient beings have to be considered equally in regard to valuing his/her interests.

The problem is that I can only say with 100% certainty that I am sentient and for the other beings (humans or non-humans) I can only infer.

A fish doesnt resemble very much a human but I consider he/she have equal right to life than a chimp because both are sentient beings and both can experiment the world in a conscius way.

Malaria is a parasite. It's an animal. So are bacteria.

Since you can't prove anything about the cognitive functions of other species (you don't know what it's like to be a malaria parasite or a cow) but still chooses one before the other (ie humans before malaria) you are in fact a speciesist. Just by living you choose your life before thousands of bugs that your immune system kills every day. You choose yourself before other creatures every day.

I thought that you mean to use non-humans animals as experimental models but with this quote you have clarified your opinion. Nevertheless I have some points:

1) Malaria is an illness not and parasite.

2) Bacteria are not animals (You say ¨so are bacteria¨)

3) Malaria is caused by a protist (Plasmodium) nor by an animal. Protists are nor animals.

3) The problem is not if they are animals or not but if they are conscius beings (sentient beings) so the previous points are only informational

4) I don´t know how is to be a cow nor a chicken nor my mother, nor my teacher, nor Michael Jordan. But we can infer based on science and philosophy if any individual is a sentient being. Moreover, it doesnt matter how it feels to be a determined sentient being. The fact is that it is a sentient being. If I masturbate i fell pleasure, if a cow eat grass she feels pleasure. Maybe you dont get pleasure masturbating but have other sources of pleasure. If you are sentient you have the possibility of having good an bad experiences. And a sentient beings looks for the good ones and avoid the bad ones.

5) Plasmodium are not sentient beings (they are unicellular) so there are no problem with killing them (as plants or fungi).

6) Science is not sure if mosquitoes are sentient beings as are cows, chickens or fish so here should be considered human interest (because is of life and death). But this is no speciesist. If you are going to kill me I kill you first so if a mosquitoe is going to kill me I kill him. It is self-defense.

7) With regard to the lot of bacteria and protozoa mi inmune system kills I repeat:

a) They are not sentient beings

b) It is self-defense (Even if they were sentient)

This is why I don't use the term vegan. There's to much stuff connected to the word.

It isn´t so difficult as you say. I define vegan as putting in practic an antispeciesist mentality. So i consider equally the interests of any sentient being whatever his/her species. If i wouldnt assist to a dead-humans exposition (killed for that exposition) so i do the same with butterflies. The fact that I can not live without doing harm indirectly is completely different to pay directly for using non-human animals as resources.

Moreover, the indirect harm that I supposedlly do to other sentient beings is not in based in species. In the same way I could do indirect harm to human beings because the fucking system dont offer me another alternative.

Do you have to be a non-speciesist to post on this forum?

I think that in this forum anybody can post : speciesist, murderers, racists, rapists, meat eaters, non-speciesist, lawyers, etc. The problem is not who post but what they post. And if I see that somebody is posting something that promote an unequal consideration of any sentient being I consider I should reply because speciesism is completely incoherent and arbitrary (the same as racism, sexism or xenophobia).

This to me would be the consequence of being a non-spiesicist.

The killings of bugs is not product of speciesism because we dont decide in function to species. For example if I buy clothes and in the manufacture were harmed a group o black humans, that it is not a racist attitude.

In the other hand, it is clear that paying for a exposition of murdered butterflies it is a direct exploitation.

For giving another example: it is different that I pay for meat than to pay for fruit and the person who sells the fruit eats meat or maybe exploit non-human animals for collecting the fruit.

By consequence then, if you are a non-speciesist (vegan) you are opposing a cure for malaria?

False. Being a non-speciesist mean to give equal value to the interest of all beings (more strictly sentient beings because they are the only beings who develop interests) without considering the species they belong. So if a cure for malaria could be found without using sentient beings as resources, there is no problem. But if a sentient being is used as a resource or mean for human ends the activity is not fair because it is based in species and species it is a irrelevant criteria for deciding whose interest should be considered at first. In science the species criteria is always used because with humans there is not involuntary experimentation (at least that is not accepted in theory).

To those that were offended by me posting photo's of me and my daughter visiting a local live and framed butterfly exhibition...I'm very sorry as absolutely no offense was intended.

Well, the offense is not for the people who post in this forum but for the butterflies murdered (I dont have complete security that butterflies are sentient beings but there are good scientific evidence that they are. So we have to act in consequence).

The problem with the butteflies is not how they were killed but why they were killed. Do you think it is ethical to kill someone without pain for making money exhibiting them? A sentient being has interest in life because he/she can enjoy it (by definition of sentient being).

It is definitely a shame. dont know how can be posted that in a vegan forum. Teaching her daughter to be speciesist. What a shame.

If vegans do that. What can be done by not-vegans?

flex24, is there any way to get your blog translated? I'd love to read it; it looks good.

Well, it is one of my next projects but now I think is difficult (Maybe if you know someone who is completely bilingual could translate the texts and I will open a English version).

Also you could take it as an encouragement to learn spanish

By the way, there are two Spanish blogs that have an English version:

www.thinkvegan.net

www.veganactivist.net

But the Spanish version of both blogs is far more complete

All I am saying is I think it is easier to slowly lead people in to it then to force it one them all at once

Well, im not talking about forcing in any moment. I´m not talking abiut FLA. Moreover, we could not force if we wish so. Each one will change by himself. As they were educated in a speciecist society, we too and you see that we have changed. Talking about equality is neither forcing nor being violent. Radicalism is coherence and as the name say it means ¨going to the root of the problem¨.

For example in my country there are 78.1 % against bullfighting. And vegans??? i don´t know. Maybe 0.2%?

That is a great damage. People lives believing (as me in certain time) the bullfighters are murders and meat eaters or egg eaters are not.

Now I know that neither bullfighters neither omnivores are murders, they are only people educated in a speciesist way. But the other 78%? They will continue thinking bullfighters are the evils and they are the saints.

Why??' Because in my country are continously campaigns against bullfighting. And of course many of the campaigners are not vegans. They say that torturing a bull is bad in the arena but for his food is very good.

Of course, im working to change that, but people that is now in the movement have to cooperate also.

Some times I think it actually does more harm then good to AR to promote hard core vegan ideals, because I think too many people think its “weird” or “too extreme” or something like that.

That is because nobody talk about that. It would be very normal if since 1970 people would have promote antispeciescism and veganism as abolitionist principle.

I have heard a lot of times that people could see us as crazy freaks but they never say when we should start. Maybe in two hundred years when the number of non-humans animals murdered each year be three times more?

If you have good arguments, people will understood you.

People that say they are with animal rights are sometimes omnivores, ovo-lacto vegetarian. Animal rights is anything now. That is because nobody explain things as they are (well, now things are changing. All time lost would be recoverd).

Any step toward having the general public view animals as having the ability to suffer and feel pain, and wanting to minimize that I believe is a step in the right direction

All people know that non-human animals suffer and feel pain. Also it is important to remember that they not only can suffer but enjoy his life.

We can talk about equality and veganism using images, videos or emotional arguments (obviously always with rational arguments first). There is nothing special with bienestarist reforms.

Also, getting a few antispeciecist vegans is much much better than a lot of people that thinks animals are resources but we should give them a few cm more of room.

It would be a chain reaction. Antispeciescist vegans will get more antispeciecists vegans.

On the other hand omnivorous reformists will get more omnivorous reformists. I dont look abolition in any place here....

I really can't argue, because I agree with you for the most part flex24. I will say that some people will not consider animals as having rights and their only exposure to this way of thinking (ie, animal rights) comes from HSUS and PETA, which to get any leeway have had to deal with reform because abolition is out of the question for people, the media and the powerful organizations behind all the lies. Even if I do wish different organizations would take a different stance, I will do whatever I can to help the plight of animals in the best way I can at this moment.

Well if you agree, it is better that consider working promoting veganism and equality. I know that PETA or HSUS would never change its tendencies but you really can.

I don´t know if there are some organization in USA that have abolitionist strategies but you could in any case initiate your own organization. It is easy and funny, only you have to look for a few people that are antispeciscists vegans. You dont have to earn a lot of money or a very famous organization. The promotion is better at a local level, getting vegan after vegan, one by one.

I´m sure that way you will do much more in the same time.

Until abolition is an option what about the animals currently in the system ? Are they to be casualties slaughtered in the most painful way possible ?

The problem is that advocating those reforms:

1) Will show people that isn´t interested in non-human animals that the problem is how we treat them instead of ¿why they are exploited at all?.

Moreover, they will consume animal products (meat, eggs, leather, etc) with more tranquility because they believe that the animals are well-treated.

Historically it has been showed that bienestarist reforms only got perpetuating the injustice.

2) As i have said previously those reforms get only minor improvements. We can note that in thirty years of reforms we have get 25 squared cm more for laying hens.

3) All efforts we do in getting minor improvements could be directed toward promoting animal equality and and veganism. As i have said that would save much more animals.

I myself direct my efforts to doing so, and now there are few organizations that do that. That is the reason because in thirty-five years instead of decrease animal explotaition, it has increased.

Here are a few examples of abolitionist organizations:

www.liberanimales.org (Perú)

www.igualdadanimal.org (Spain)

www.defensanimal.org (Spain)

www.abolitionist-online.com (I think it is USA).

http://www.anima.org.ar/ (Argentina)

www.rightsforanimals.org (Spain)

If the ¨monsters¨ as PETA or HSUS that has a lot of economical resources would change its strategy, the situation would be very different.

If all were so, there would be much less people that surprise so much when they hear that some ¨crazy¨ says that human interests and non-human animal´s interests should be considered in a egalitarian way. Much more people would be vegan of course.

While that may be true, what about the animals currently in the system, who are being slaughtered as we speak ? We can't stop their deaths right now, but don't they deserve some mercy ?

What happens is that making bienestarist reforms will in the majority of cases get only minor improvements in the quality of life of the birds.

If you compare the damage to the movement as a whole of promoting a reforming mentality with the real improvements, you could easily realize that the strategy is a very bad one..

On the other hand, much more animals are saved by making a vegan (specially an antispeciecist one) than looking for reforms.

All could be good intentions. But we should analize strategy and that one is not a good one.

Again I invite you to read Gary Francione interview:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1)

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2)

P.D. They dont deserve mercy, they deserve justice.

Its still a step toward promoting the fact the bird are living beings with feelings. The world might become vegan some day but that is still far off in the distance. I don’t think it’s far to make the animals we can’t save suffer also.

It is a step for promoting the mentality that birds are objects or resources. Bienestarist reforms are the worst that could have happened to the animal rights movement. If many human animals are not vegan now is because very few (if any) are promoting animal equality and veganism as an abolishing principle instead of wait that the law looks for better condition for non-human animals. All our efforts should be directed for abolition and education. It is the best way to maximizing results with the same resources and time.

Maybe it is better that you read Gary Francione interview:

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1)

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2)

KFC is not worst than any other industry that use non-human animals as resources.

Go vegan!!!!

Humane slaughter??? Let´s promote veganism and antispeciescism.

Reforming injustice is perpetuating injustice.

congratulations Alexander. Im very happy that you have kicked the ass off all those meat eaters. You make theme eat grass!!!

1) I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY DO U FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OF INCLUDING YOUR ADDRES. IT IS A VERY SECURE WEB. THOSE PEOPLE WONT USE YOUR DATA FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN FINISH BULLFIGTHING AND MAYBE SEND U SOME INFORMATION.

2) THE SUFFERING OF THE BULLS (OUR EQUALS) IS MUCH GREATER THAN YOUR ¨SUFFERING¨ OF FELLING UNCOMFORTABLE. LETS GO SIGN THE PETITION, THINK IN THEM.

3) ALSO I WANT TO SAY THAT BULLFIGHTING CAN BE A EXTREMELY CRUEL TRADITION BUT IS NOT WORST THAT THE EATING MEAT TRADITION. EATING MEAT TORTURES AN MURDER MUCH MORE COWS AND BULLS THAN BULLFIGHTING. SO GO VEGAN!!! ALL OF YOU

I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALREADY BANNED.

I HAVE JUST SEND THE LETTER.

I SEE ONLY THE SAME PEOPLE HERE, ARENT WE MORE THAN 200 MEMBERS??????? SEND IT!!!

WHAT ABOUT B12 ADDED IN CEREALS OR TO SOY MILK?

DO U THINK IT IS A SOURCE AS RELIABLE AS PILLS?

FOR EXAMPLE I SOMETIMES WONDER IF THEY REALLY ADD THE VITAMINS AS THEY SAY.

BY THE WAY, DO YOU THINK IS WISE TO SUPPLEMENT MY DOG WITH B12 OR TAURINE IF SHE IS GOING TO GO VEGAN? NOW IM LIMITING HER ANIMAL SOURCE PRODUCTS INTAKE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE HER COMPLETELY VEGAN. IN MY COUNTRY THERE AREN´T BALANCED VEGAN FOOD FOR DOGS: ALL HAVE LAMB, BEEF OR CHICKEN.

AT LEAST SHE LOVES SOY MEAT AND PREFERES A LOT IT THAN THE ¨BALANCED¨ CLASSIC MEATY FOOD.

YES I THINK SO. HOWEVER IM GOING TO WRITE A LETTER TO THEM. AND I HOPE ALL OF YOU DO THE SAME SO THEY TAKE MORE INTEREST.

HOWEVER I HAVE A BETTER IDEA THAT I HAVE JUST THOUGHT.

WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE A PETITION (AS THOSE FOR ANIMALS). IF WE CAN COLLECT A HUNDRED SIGNS OR MAYBE A LITTLE MORE, I THINK THAT WE CAN CONVINCE THEM.

SO I HOPE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS WEB READ THIS AND CREATE A PETITION IN THIS WEB FOR ALL OF US TO SIGN.

I HAVE RECENTLY READ IN AN M&F ARTICLE THAT THE AMINOACID TAURINE IS ONLY IN MEAT. WE CAN PRODUCE IT (IS NOT ESSENTIAL) BUT THEY THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A WISE DECISION TO SUPLEMMENT

TO RISK GROUPS: VEGANS AND VEGETARIANS, HARDCORE ATHLETES AND SICK PEOPLE (I DONT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT DISEASE)

YOU CAN FIND IT IN MAY 2002 ISSUE (PAGE 42)

REMEMBER THAT ALSO IS IMPORTANT FOR CATS AND DOGS

im suscribed to Muscle and Fitness and i think it is an excellent magazine but thanks to it i have always thought that a bodybuilder without meat wasn´t a bodybuilder. I always said to people taht they should eat meat and other stuff like that.

I think thet M&F gives a lot of promotion to meat and to the big opressors Mc donalds an KFC and others beacuse they always show the less fat options of this corporations.

I would like they have at least a special section for vegan bodybuilders.

I was thinking in sending them a letter but considering that im not northamerican, its difficult that my opinion were taked into account. do u have another way?

WHAT DO U WANT I TRANSLATE? I SEE NOTHING...

IN PERU AND I SUPOSSE SPAIN, THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT IDENTIFIES US AS CITIZENS (ONLY IF YOU ARE OLDER THAN 18 OR 21 IN SOME COUNTRIES).

YOU SHOULD PUT THE NUMBER OF THIS DOCUMENT. SOMETHING LIKE 638223344.

ALSO YOU CAN PERSONALIZE YOUR LETTER:

ONLY GO TO POINT 2 ¨LEE Y ACEPTA SI ESTAS DE ACUERDO¨ IT MEANS ¨READ AND ACCEPT IF YOU AGREE¨

BUT I HAVE READ THAT FORMS OF B12 FOUND IN VEGETABLE SOURCES AREN´T THE ACTIVE FORMS OF THE VITAMIN. FURTHERMORE I READ THAT THAT VEGATABLE B12 FORMS CAN COUNTERACT THE ACTION OF THE GOOD B12.

BECAUSE OF THAT I WOULD NOT RISK MYSELF TO BE VEGAN WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE SUPPLEMENT OF B12 AND I THINK ALL OF YOU ALSO SHOULDN´T.

REALLY IM NOT VEGAN RIGHT NOW I EAT SOMETIMES EGGS AND RECENTLY I STOP EATING FISH.

I THINK THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION BUT WE CAN NOT OVERLOOK OUR NUTRITION AND LACK OF B12 CAN PRODUCE NEUROLOGICAL PROBLEMS.

I HAVE NOTED THAN SOME OF YOU HAVENT SIGNED THE PETITIONS IN SPANISH AND CATALAN. MAYBE YOU DONT KNOW THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS.

HERE ARE THERE:

NOMBRE=NOM= NAME

APELLIDOS=COGNOM=SURNAME

POBLACION=POBLACIÓ=CITY OR STATE (YOU CAN ALSO ADD YOUR COUNTRY)

D.N.I= IDENTITY NUMBER (YOUR DOCUMENT)

ENVIAR= SEND

DONT FORGET SEND THE LINKS TO YOUR FRIENDS!!!