compassionategirl

Hi Jason!!!

hey College, I just skimmed it - it is excellent. Only thing that I didnt see was the fact that the Humane Slaughter Act excludes some animals altogether (like chickens, I think). This is think is definietly worth mentioning. otherwise, your presentation is going to KICK ASS and maybe, just maybe, one audience member will be more open to veganism after he heras your speech!!

hey college, If your friend is so concerned about starving people, including children, tell him that his meat diet is contributing to world hunger, and that you, whom he accuses of caring less for people than he does, adopt a diet that is more conducive to feeding more people!! Here are some quick stats: While tens of millions die annually from starvation related causes and close to a billion suffer from malnutriytion, 37 percent of the world's harvested grain is fed to animals being raised fo slaughter. IN the US< that figure is 66 percent. Converting grains to meat wastes up to 90% of grains' proteins, 96% of their calories, and all of tehir fiber. SSInce it genreally take sfar mroe grains to feed a meat eater, worldwide meat consumption greatly increases demand for grains. As demand grows, cost increases and the world's poor become increasingly unable to afford food of any kind. So, clearly, if your friend is GENUINELY concerned about starving people, including children, he should GO VEGAN. Feel free to copy and paste this in an email to him. If he shrugs this information off or discounts it or ignores it, then you know that he was being insincere and that his accusations to you were just another way for a meat eater to (erroneously) justify/rationalize his selfish choice. But certainly, THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE KEPT IN ALL OUR MINDS SO THAT WHEN WE ARE ACCUSED OF RIDICULOUSNESS LIKE NOT CARING ABOUT HUMAN PROBLEMS OR NOT HAVING OUR PRIORITIES RIGHT, WE CAN SHARE THE "REAL STORY" with these people and shut them up with their stupid, uninformed accusations!! Peter Singer has a great quote about meat eaters who accuse us of caring less about people. It might be on Rob's quotes page but it goes something like this: "When people say human problems come first, I cannot help but wonder just what it is that they are doing for the human race that compels them to support the ruthless and wasteful exploitation of farm animals." Converting grains to meat is inefficient. With the grain it takes to make ONE steak, 12 people could eat a plant based diet. SO each time your friend enjoys his meat dinner, tell him that his meal choice has just denied 11 other "starving children" food! I really have such a distaste for ignorrant people who knock veganism without even being informed first. Give him a book called "Diet for a Small Planet" (note that this is a differnt book from "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins) challenge him to read it and then ask him after he reads it if he still feels that vegans care more about animals than anything else.

he sounds like a basically decent guy.

cool what kind of doctor are you daywalker?

thanks for posting that!

lastly, like i said, we arent really ending our campaign against Yum once yum adopts the changes any more than we have "ended" our campaign against McDonalds, because any vegan outreach campaign is BY DEFINITION anti-McDonalds, etc. this is a simple but often overlooked point.

are you closet Canadian?

I HAVE ACTUALLY READ THIS ARTICLE BEFORE, AND HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR PROFESSOR FRANCIONE. HIS VISION IS CERTAINLY WHAT WE ARE ALL WORKING TOWARDS. BUT I DISAGREE WITH HIS IMPLICIT UTILITARIAN VIEW OF SACRIFICING CHICKENS IN THE HERE AND NOW FOR THE GREATER ANIMAL GOOD IN THE FUTURE. I DONT THINK WE CAN IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TAKE A RIGID THEORETICAL STANCE WHEN THE COST TO MILLIONS OF ANIMALS IS ONE OF VERY REAL PAIN AND SUFFERING. Theory and philosophy should give way to a little welfarism in cases where liberation is simply not a realistic option. this is where francione and i disagree. and as a final note, if confronted with these three choices: exploitation, humane exploitation, abolition - a true welfarist would choose humane exploitation, as Francione suggests. But an ar person with welfarist sympathies is different than a welfarist. An ar person with welfarist sympathies would, in this three choice scenario, without hesitation and with utter joy choose liberation. Where this ar person's "welfarist" sympathies come into play is in circumstances where the choice is only between humane treatment and inhumane treatment. In that case, I cannot in good conscience choose the latter, or not make a choice at all, because both choices are inconsistent with my ar agenda. And when i come to that conclusion, I am trying to put myself in the shoes of an animal who is being scalded alive. sorry for all the spelling mistakes but i had to type this fast as i gotta go peace

it looks like we are on at the same time and keep missing each other's previous post.

Just to keep this thread clear, there seem to be two separate issues that are being discussed. 1)welfarism (like boycotting Yum! until they implement decent changes) 2) PETA "stunts" like lettuce ladies, running of the nudes, etc etc. And as far as stunts, like I said, some are stupid, others hit the nail right on the head, like the "Holocaust on your plate" campaign. What I would like to see is more use of commercial air time - why not air some animal rights message in the middle of the season finale of popular shows like "Friends" or something that a viewing audience of millions? I think they did one commercial during the superbowl, but again, it was a stupid one. I remember one commercial many years ago that aired here locally. IT was a slient video footage of a little fox, trapped in a legal hold trap. It showed him struggling, then giving up and just laying there, trying to lick the pain he was experiencing away. It wasnt very graphic at all. But the image of that helpless trapped animal was very powerful. It was followed by the following. " YOu can help him. Call The Association for the Protection of Fur Bearing Animals at 1-800.... to find out how." SO I agree with you to a certain extent that if peta invested more money in things like this the message would get to a wider audience in a more solemn and effective form. But I suspect that the tv networks dont even want to give peta any airtime because of the vested interests fighting to silence peta. But, the issue of welfarism and helping the animals that will not suffer less is one that different from the above, and really has nothing to do with peta. If it was any other organization campaigning to improve the lives of animals in the here and now, I would obviousy feel the same way.

Precisely.

AS shocking and appalling as these investigations are, they STILL dont make it on the evening news. Have you ever seen a NEWS documentary on meet your meat? So what is the point of having these exposes if you cannot get anybody to air it or to watch it? When the media doesnt deem the contents of these investigations newsworthy? You need to do something that WILL get media attention so you can at least engage people in debate and et them watching these undercover investigations. And unfortunately, the media would rather pay attention to running of the nudes, or people making out in the street corner with the slogan "vegetarians make better lovers" instead of focus on meet your meat.

When was the last time we saw the cruelties within a slaughterhouse or a chinchilla fur farm make the evening news? Or the bull fights in Spain make the evening news? Animals are being raped for their fur, but what is deemed to be more important by the lcoal news here is the opening of a new shopping mall in north Toronto. While the facts of animal cruelty themselves are no longer deemed newsworthy anymore, people running naked make the evening news. This is a sad indication of the superficiality and lack of substance of our society, but what else is new. I agree that some of these campaigns like people running naked are stupid. But what else is PETA to do if the BARE COLD HARD FACTS of animal cruelty simply dont interest the media anymore. How else are we to get people's attention. yes some people are diots and will forever miss the point behind the "running of the nudes". But hopefully, for ever moron out there, there is one reasonable sensible person who will question the reasoning, the motivation for and purpose behind the running of the nudes and other "stunts" and, in the process, learn something about animal cruelty that they would not have otherwise heard about.

I agree with everythong else you said except for what I have quoted above. YOU havent really answered my question. I know that we would hope as chickens that those who come after us "dont", as you put it, and that such a plce will cease to exist asap. That is why vegan outreach exists. To take care of the demand side by increasing the number of vegans. But as a chicken that would will simply not get the chance to see emancipation, what would you prefer. Would you prefer to be scalded alive, or would you prefer to be gassed where you are painlessly put to sleep and murdered painlessly. I know that either way you DIE which sucks, but if the only two choices for the chickens in the here and now are scalding alive or painless gassing (called controlled-atmosphere killing), wouldnt you think they would want the method that causes them lesser pain and suffering? of course they would. it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. So that is why campaigning against Yum for the implementation of these changes like controlled-atmosphere killing instead of scalding alive is NECESSARY. As Richard said, we have to be realistic and practical and realize that not enough people are going to go vegan overnight. And because of that unfortunate reality, we need to do what we can to ensure that the animals that will inevitably be Yum victims suffer less than they otherwise would. So both vegan outreach and "welfarist" campaigns are necessary to address both the immediate and long term futures. I dont see how anybody could disagree with any of the above. However, I do acknowledge that the pitfall of forcing these companies to improve their animal welfare policies might just be that it causes some meat eaters to simply feel better about eating at these places. But I am not prepared to throw these birds that will sadly not be rescued into boiling water (quite literally) just because some people might feel better about eating at these places. That is a chance that we are just going to have to take, for the sake of saving these birds from what it feels like to be drowned in scalding water. If we can just really fathom what that may feel like for a minute, I think we would be more symathetic to the campaign against Yum. Imagine how it feels to be drowned in scalding water. The other day a splash of boiling water splashed on my hand and I thought I was going to die from the pain. I cannot imagine being a terrified helpless chicken, not knowing what is goin on, and being DUNKED To drown in boiling water. I guess I am rejecting the utilitarian view of "sacrifice these immediate chickens" now for the greater chicken good in the future. It is easy for us to say that when it isnt our own asses drowning in the scalding water. WE are pressuring Yum to adopt more humane and less painful killing methods, while we continue to work on vegan outreach so that the successors of these chickens will hopefully never see what the inside of a farm or slaugherhouse look like. Please dont interfere with our Yum campaigning by supporting this flagrantly unethical, animal hating company.

All together?

I you mean OUT of ten, those are pretty high ratings!!!!

Thanks i am only laughing because this reminds me of the time when I asked Kollision what 'lol' stood for and he said something like "how can you post all the thoughts and info that you do and not know what lol means?" then he told me what it meant. Then I said "Oh, I thought it stood for "lots of love"!!!! . Then he said " YO got to be kidding me then his shock turned into hysteria and he couldnt stop laughing!! " okay so now i am the one doing the laughing and the " YO got to be kidding me." imo stands for "in my opinion."

Sorry if I sounded like I was "judging" - that wasnt my intention. I just find your whole family situation FASCINATING: YOU have a dad that is a professor in animal agriculture, you have a brother that is a cattle rancher , and yet one daughter and two sons went the exact opposite route - vegan and animal rights. I bet that makes for some pretty intense and interesting conversations/debates at family gatherings . That is why i wanted to know about your dad. HAve you ever talked to your dad about his opinion and animal rights and veganism? What about the cattle ranching brother? What does he say about your views? What does he think about Howard Lyman? I know you cannot speak for them, but I assume that you have asked them these very questions at some point in the past. I would be very curious to know what their thoughts are. Have you influenced them at all into loving animals more? Do they ever check out this site? Any chance that your brother will follow the example of Howard Lyman etc, etc. etc. peace

self-explanatory

Hey Rob, I am curious - why was your dad vegan for a while, and why did he change his mind? How does he feel about animal rights, etc etc. The quote that Brendan quoted and the one that you said was your favourite - the question about "Should we know better" that he poses. I am curious as to how he himself would answer that very question that he himself poses. peace