tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post2096180275089068170..comments2024-02-03T06:58:02.859-04:00Comments on My Face Is On Fire: So, Tell Me...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-91741032150423409012011-12-28T09:43:20.665-04:002011-12-28T09:43:20.665-04:00For me it is an expression of non violence and res...For me it is an expression of non violence and respect for all living beings.The Vegan Versionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104731032363373343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-33455933862040543002010-02-22T22:15:04.425-04:002010-02-22T22:15:04.425-04:00Veganism is a morally consistent commitment to non...Veganism is a morally consistent commitment to nonviolence and nondiscrimination.Ken Hopeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09232401774744224298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-68769538693771038702010-02-22T21:37:02.432-04:002010-02-22T21:37:02.432-04:00Veganism is the only decent and effective way to r...Veganism is the only decent and effective way to really end animal exploitation. The rest is babbling!Verahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16764408023803103335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-767400606498284992010-01-31T09:39:15.080-04:002010-01-31T09:39:15.080-04:00Veganism is an easy way to live with a clear consc...Veganism is an easy way to live with a clear conscience; that of respecting all life and acting in a non-violent way towards our fellow Earthlings and refusing to support those industries that do. It's about not participating in the rape of the seas and land, and protecting all species.<br /><br />I like your blog... it is very thought provoking for a newbie like me. xCharleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03948566007073098012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-23662321770150325892009-08-06T07:49:05.928-03:002009-08-06T07:49:05.928-03:00Babble:
Animals are not ours to use *at all*. That...Babble:<br />Animals are not ours to use *at all*. That's indeed very plausible, thank you. I read your first comment to this blog post again, and yes, it's all there.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09986334687348057578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-24119220551574046872009-08-06T04:28:47.444-03:002009-08-06T04:28:47.444-03:00Veganism is the rejection of violence!Veganism is the rejection of violence!Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-6298279526518651142009-08-05T04:22:52.686-03:002009-08-05T04:22:52.686-03:00Nathan:
Oh come on, now. If you're going to ...Nathan:<br /><br />Oh come on, now. If you're going to respond, please at least respond to points that I actually made! I never suggested that someone would read through your entire statement believing that you meant "respect" or "justice" (or whatever) in the particular twisted ways I mentioned. Did you read what I wrote?<br /><br />The point was that most people have skewed understandings of the terminology and so, as I wrote, "[t]he terms you've used, by themselves, are unlikely to be helpful to most people." My parenthetical examples were just that -- examples of some common misunderstandings. Nowhere did I suggest that your writing was consistent with those particular misunderstandings. The point was just that (to repeat myself again), the terminology is, in itself, unhelpful. So no need to make your "point about context".<br /><br />I do *completely* disagree, though, that a reader could learn something substantive about the meanings of 'respect' and 'justice' by reading what you wrote in your definition. Nothing you wrote is helpful in that regard. For instance, everything you wrote in your original definition is consistent with (multiple) consequentialist, contractualist, standard deontological, etc., readings of "respect", "justice", the foundation for veganism, and so forth. It is just plain incorrect to suggest that a reader would somehow learn that "justice for nonhumans means not being subjugated, and respect for nonhumans means the reverence/regard sufficient to rule out being exploited or murdered." No one could learn any such thing, because your definition blatantly leaves open plenty of other possibilities. It should be obvious why this is so. If it is not, let me know -- I can explain it to you.<br /><br />So my point remains. The terms you use are unhelpful in themselves, and no reader could learn anything substantive about the terminology from what you've written.<br /><br />(For the record, I don't think that a definition of 'veganism' needs to do as much as you're trying to make it do. So I'm not faulting you for defining 'veganism' in a way that leaves open certain questions. Instead, I'm just pointing out that it is useless -- and potentially very confusing -- to lean on all of this glitter, unexplained baggage and unnecessary complexity.)<br /><br />I've got very little interest in continuing this particular discussion. But if you'd like to continue it, I suggest e-mailing me. I'll continue it here if you'd like, but I don't see the point.Dave Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573772190463047215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-5510217119485559202009-08-05T02:58:58.599-03:002009-08-05T02:58:58.599-03:00David, I'll just make a quick point about cont...David, I'll just make a quick point about context. The second paragraph of the description I offered obviates the possibility of respect and justice (mentioned in the 1st paragraph) taking on the "twisted understandings" you rightly suggest some readers will bring to the table (that is, unless they never look past the 1st paragraph).<br /><br />So *whatever* readers believe respect and justice mean in the context of veganism, according to my description, it will at least be obvious they aren't consistent with the "exploitation and murder of sentient beings for any purpose" or "participat[ing] in using or killing individuals who happen not to be human".<br /><br />Moreover, given this context, many readers should be about to work out that justice for nonhumans means not being subjugated, and respect for nonhumans means the reverence/regard sufficient to rule out being exploited or murdered.Nathan Schneiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745670897961499850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-37186656763487806052009-08-04T22:34:20.792-03:002009-08-04T22:34:20.792-03:00Hey Martin,
I'm aware that folks will often ...Hey Martin, <br /><br />I'm aware that folks will often try to wiggle around terms like "exploitation" (i.e. "as long as they're raised humanely, it's not exploitation, right?"), which is why I specifically make a claim that I *start from* the position that animals are not ours to use *at all*, and I work from that.wchanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04202425011830667081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-11587186922056028412009-08-04T04:03:14.999-03:002009-08-04T04:03:14.999-03:00But taking twisted understandings of issues (like ...But taking twisted understandings of issues (like <i>respect</i> or <i>justice</i>) for granted, we also have to assume that very few will exactly get what we mean when we use terms like <i>unnecessary</i>, <i>exploitative</i>, or even <i>painful</i>. So, which words do remain for describing veganism in a truly objective way?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09986334687348057578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-91069085252078831702009-08-04T01:00:41.049-03:002009-08-04T01:00:41.049-03:00Nathan:
My point wasn't that you couldn't...Nathan:<br /><br />My point wasn't that you couldn't go through and explain what all of the terms meant to you when you wrote them. Assuming that you weren't just whipping words off without much thought, you can of course do that. (The fact that many of the words/turns of phrase are unnecessary glitter remains, though.)<br /><br />My point was that the paragraph was pretty meaningless to someone in my position and, as I think you acknowledged earlier, not super helpful to a nonvegan. I'm not sure what your intended audience is, then. <br /><br />But, in any case, you seem to think that it is fine that you don't define your terms. That seems a bit odd to me, since most people (vegan and nonvegan) have pretty twisted understandings of the relevant issues. (Many people think you can show "respect" for a nonhuman animal by using all of her/his body parts after you've killed her/him. Many people think that "justice" demands that we do science experiments on nonhuman animals.) The terms you've used, by themselves, are unlikely to be helpful to most people.<br /><br />I agree that it isn't worth arguing over your particular comments. But, in my view, there is a broader tendency toward unnecessarily complicated and "philosophical" writing in the developing abolitionist online community. I think it is a bad thing, so I thought I'd point it out in this case.Dave Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573772190463047215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-660932679656654942009-08-03T19:59:47.896-03:002009-08-03T19:59:47.896-03:00I am using a very rudimentary sense of the term &#...I am using a very rudimentary sense of the term 'holistic'. The ethical substance of veganism has implications for the entirety of human/nonhuman relations. Veganism is not a diet, and is not even just about consumption. These points can be relayed without the word holistic, and though I don't think confusion with "ethical holism" is a serious danger for most, I'll consider dropping the term.<br /><br />'Grounded in' is used in the sense of giving something "a firm theoretical or practical basis". 'Respect' references the feeling associated with granting someone due regard, or the act of seriously considering someone's interests. Amorphous, yes, but it helps frame the issue in terms of what is owed to sentient someones (i.e. helps place the locus of concern outside of ourselves, which is essential to countering humanocentrism).<br /><br />Framing the issue as a matter of justice helps align veganism with movements against human oppression, and is foil to the problematic emphasis on 'cruelty', 'compassion', 'mercy', and so on. I can see how 'aimed at' might cause confusion when juxtaposed with 'externally focused', which, again, I am using, to push the locus of veganism from human to nonhuman. It's a compressed way of saying that veganism isn't about benefiting us (our health, conscience, or environment), but doing what is right by not exploiting persons who aren't homo sapiens.Nathan Schneiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745670897961499850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-84040934696802461612009-08-03T19:59:37.390-03:002009-08-03T19:59:37.390-03:00David, I'll assent that the first paragraph of...David, I'll assent that the first paragraph of my description might try to do too much with too few words. I agree that Gary is an excellent communicator and educator. Emulating his efforts at simplicity and clarity is definitely important. The abolitionist approach is still very young, and I think our future is bright.<br /><br />As for the paragraph in question, I suspect many "standard people", who lack your knowledge of philosophy, would simply skim over it and come away with key words like: moral, political, respect, justice, sentient, and duties. Not a bad primer for the second, fairly standard paragraph. Seems perhaps a bit much debate for one paragraph of a blog post comment, but here are replies to issues you raised...<br /><br />I mean 'straightforward' in the sense of "uncomplicated and easy to do or understand". Perhaps every moral commitment could be described as straightforward. Even assuming this is true, emphasizing it seems worthwhile.<br /><br />By 'political' I am referring to what it means to embrace the ethical substance of veganism in a society overwhelmingly permeated by speciesism. The ethic demands a dramatic restructuring of all social relations, including economic and cultural matters. The daily practice is a political act by virtue of embodying our rejection of exploitation, and inevitably violating the norms and expectations held by those around us. [continued...]Nathan Schneiderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745670897961499850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-68156760628210180682009-08-03T10:38:23.258-03:002009-08-03T10:38:23.258-03:00It is a moral imperative.
It is the elimination o...It is a moral imperative.<br /><br />It is the elimination of slavery.<br /><br />It is necessary.Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11995135920609851921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-45960919443238321192009-08-03T08:36:27.731-03:002009-08-03T08:36:27.731-03:00Singer's claim that we can be flexible vegans ...Singer's claim that we can be flexible vegans is a sophistical absurdity. Similarly, when Mark Bittman claims that he is vegan for only part of the day, he self-evidently violates the conditions of that concept's intelligible application. It's as absurd as saying that a racist is anti-racist when he isn't telling racist jokes. Or, that a racist who tells racist jokes, but who opposes lynching, is anti-racist regarding lynching.<br /><br />If someone consumes animal products, no matter in what quantity and no matter at what time of the day, they are not a vegan in any coherent, non-sophistical sense of that notion. I think that Singer and Bittman have coopted the concept of veganism for political purposes.<br /><br />I think that we should interpret the concept of veganism as Gary does, namely, as a rejection of the consumption and use of animals based on a recognition of their inherent value; as an application of the principle of abolition to the life of the individual; and as a general commitment to ahimsa or nonviolence.James Crumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-86921822177540695822009-08-03T04:13:46.714-03:002009-08-03T04:13:46.714-03:00Veganism is EASY! Especially nowadays. It is a d...Veganism is EASY! Especially nowadays. It is a decision that can be made RIGHT THIS MINUTE and last for the rest of your life! The actual implementation takes a little research and help from other vegans, but it is something we all can decide to do, instantly.Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-44612226106683893382009-08-03T00:33:48.419-03:002009-08-03T00:33:48.419-03:00Hahahah. Actually, my disdain for (avoidably) com...Hahahah. Actually, my disdain for (avoidably) complicated writing extends to my philosophical interests. So you'll never catch me reading Heidegger. :-0Dave Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573772190463047215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-16129992127924946282009-08-03T00:26:41.337-03:002009-08-03T00:26:41.337-03:00:-D:-DMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15800153451645970774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-43896486765081081382009-08-03T00:23:30.498-03:002009-08-03T00:23:30.498-03:00David,
What do think of the clarity and simplicit...David,<br /><br />What do think of the clarity and simplicity of Heidegger's Being and Time? Do you think he could have cut out some jargon?<br /><br />;-)unpopular vegan essayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01334555481308676471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-48761861045130181782009-08-02T23:57:34.025-03:002009-08-02T23:57:34.025-03:00Oh, and, yes, of course I agree that many welfaris...Oh, and, yes, of course I agree that many welfarists are dishonest. (I wasn't suggesting otherwise. All I said is that I'm sure that "plenty" are honest, as well.)Dave Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573772190463047215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-27519272193533903702009-08-02T23:27:57.497-03:002009-08-02T23:27:57.497-03:00Dan:
I'm not being uncharitable. I genuinely...Dan:<br /><br />I'm not being uncharitable. I genuinely don't know what it means. Now, because I know that he identifies as an abolitionist, I can read meanings into his words. But I could do the same for virtually any 'definition' provided by a self-identified abolitionist. That wouldn't make the definition, itself, helpful or good.<br /><br />Simplicity and clarity are more important to our movement than (I think) most people think. And, unfortunately, I think that they're both too often absent from abolitionist writing.Dave Langloishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08573772190463047215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-16694254333241814732009-08-02T23:18:30.222-03:002009-08-02T23:18:30.222-03:00David,
Although I agree that Nathan's definit...David,<br /><br />Although I agree that Nathan's definition could be trimmed in some of the ways you suggest without losing much meaning, and even helping more people understand it, I found it quite easy to understand as he wrote it. <br /><br />It's pretty easy to pick out words and take an uncharitable reading of them, providing many different possible interpretations of the words and throw up our hands in despair that it's all too confusing and meannglss. I more charitable approach would be to assume the meaning that makes the most sense given the author's general outlook. Then, if something still seems amiss, ask the author for clarification or make a suggestion for improvement.<br /><br />On best v honest, I agree that best has the advantage of removing psychological factors. I do question the honesty of many welfarists, however, in the sense that epistemic rationality often (usually?) takes a back seat to instrumental rationality. I think such dishonesty is quite common, even if such dishonesty is barely noticed by those who engage in it (ie people often unwittingly decide what they want to believe and go backwards to construct premises to support the desired belief).unpopular vegan essayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01334555481308676471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-41427130638894234202009-08-02T22:35:20.150-03:002009-08-02T22:35:20.150-03:00Yeah, I totally misread that (Re: Other than your ...Yeah, I totally misread that (Re: Other than your own). What, you mean the universe *doesn't* revolve around me? Hehe.wchanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04202425011830667081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-13624489838214054522009-08-02T22:31:40.632-03:002009-08-02T22:31:40.632-03:00Babble, just to avoid (my) confusion, you do know ...Babble, just to avoid (my) confusion, you do know that I mean my "other than your own" comment in response to Prof. Francione re: Ginny's (now deleted) having stated that she doesn't read other abolitionists' blogs, right?<br /><br />I think it's good to be discussing this thing called veganism, too, both because it's just beginning to be co-opted like mad in mainstream media, but also because I've been interacting with far too many vegans over the past while who still seem convinced that veganism is indeed a "personal" choice and that it's ideal (as some of the welfarists like to promote) for vegans to focus on their <i>own</i> consumerism but to mind their "manners" and shut up about it and hope that somehow everyone else catches on. I have a hard time accepting veganism as not including education and outreach.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15800153451645970774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-55181822297792093552009-08-02T22:19:45.457-03:002009-08-02T22:19:45.457-03:00Re: other than your own...
Yeah, I know. I'm...Re: other than your own... <br /><br />Yeah, I know. I'm inevitably going to weight bit x over bit y in any given "easy" definition, for any of a number of reasons. Talking through these kinds of things is important (for me, anyway), because I want to make sure I'm not glossing over something *really* important. <br /><br />Speaking for myself, I wouldn't use moral personhood in a bite-sized definition, because when I've done similar things in the past, folks' eyes glaze over. <br /><br />Thanks for posting this, actually. I think it's not a bad idea to really work through some of these things in order to be able to be effective when we're "out in the world."wchanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04202425011830667081noreply@blogger.com