tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post5983586203579527288..comments2024-02-03T06:58:02.859-04:00Comments on My Face Is On Fire: Finally: Abolitionist Animal Rights at AR2013Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-3360845468627948382013-08-22T19:08:56.186-03:002013-08-22T19:08:56.186-03:00one way to drive any being crazy is mixed messages...one way to drive any being crazy is mixed messages.welfarism starts to convince me against abolitionism??and then i am against their supporting of "wellfare"animal industries.but gary has a clear message that does not tax my sanity.the wellfarists might not know it but they are using innocent beings (non human and human)who cant sense their hypocrisy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16648709684195319218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-29586542733442058282013-07-16T10:06:57.540-03:002013-07-16T10:06:57.540-03:00Dear All:
Sorry my essay has not been published y...Dear All:<br /><br />Sorry my essay has not been published yet; some things came up but I am back at work!<br /><br />It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the real divide is between those of us who promote veganism as the moral baseline and those who promote "happy exploitation" either as a way of getting to a vegan world or as good in itself (e.g., "what would the animal want").<br /><br />The rights/welfare distinction remains the theoretical backdrop, but the practical divide at this point is between the vegan/"happy exploitation" groups. <br /><br />On another note, I just got Jean Kazez's book from Amazon. She has a quote from Temple Grandin on the front *and* the back. Yes, I can see why she supports "humane" concentration camps.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-79332653868581576932013-07-16T01:39:50.329-03:002013-07-16T01:39:50.329-03:00Hi,
I feel this discussion has been very informat...Hi,<br /><br />I feel this discussion has been very informative and I encourage further discussion here.<br /><br />I am delighted to read well articulated and respectful comments from all perspectives.<br /><br />I particularly look forward to Gary's upcoming essay.<br /><br />Gary stated, "for many years, the regulationists have just ignored any dissenting views and have pretended that those views don't exist." While this is true, I have seen a far more insidious tactic taken by many regulationists/husbandry modulationists. That is, when talking about abolitionists who criticize regulationists problematic (for the animals) campaigns, I have frequently seen regulationists denouncing abolitionists as divisive. On several levels, this tactic of doing this is wrong. It is dishonest; that is wrong. It is designed to discredit the abolitionist position with its dismissive tone; this is wrong. It stifles discussion or in the very least diverts it and is in my view a form of an ad hominem attack; this is wrong. Finally, it is divisive itself because of all of the above; this is wrong.<br /><br />I really do wish that those regulationists who have in the past slandered abolitionists as being divisive, please stop this wrong headed approach....it really does the animals more harm than good.<br /><br />Thank you for allowing me to express a concern that has been bothering me for years now.<br /><br />Warmly,<br />Louie Gedommissinglinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313410698146026036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-38062996547284072652013-07-16T00:30:17.104-03:002013-07-16T00:30:17.104-03:00Some people posting here have said that Bruce Frie...Some people posting here have said that Bruce Friedrich has been deliberately misrepresenting the position and approach of the big animal welfare groups with his claims that they spend the vast majority of their time promoting veganism and are abolitionist, as well as deliberately misrepresenting the position of Gary and other actual abolitionists. Others, including Gary, have said that Friedrich is sincere but wrong in his claims that these organizations primarily promote veganism and are abolitionists philosophically and in his misrepresentations (too numerous to list here) of the views and tactics of abolitionists. <br /><br />I was among those who accused Friedrich of dishonesty--how could it have escaped his notice how often the animal organizations with which he is familiar, or has worked, have promoted vegetarianism, "Meatless Mondays," and welfare reforms as opposed to veganism? How can he honestly claim that Vegan Outreach has ever promoted veganism as a moral baseline? <br /><br />However, Friedrich's motivation for making misleading and inaccurate claims isn't what is relevant; it is the fact that they are misleading and inaccurate that is the most relevant issue. So I agree with Gary that we should stick to discussing the latter. The most important thing to get across is that Friedrich is simply wrong on a wide variety of matters, some of which involve misrepresentations, for whatever reason, of what others have said and done.Jeff Meltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01837173567644868275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-7710241993793895652013-07-15T03:27:17.657-03:002013-07-15T03:27:17.657-03:00For those of us who have been following the debate...For those of us who have been following the debate, where does it go from here? <br /><br />The debate at the conference didn't cover any new ground and it seems as if the number of differences between the two groups is insurmountable <br /><br />Despite Friedrich saying that we agree on a large percentage of issues/ideas, the debate and this continued comment section illustrate nothing could be further from the truth <br /><br />Are we now just vying for new vegans? I mean, I know there are ethical and practical ramifications for the continued support of welfarist campaigns, but it's like talking to a brick wallPiercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686179590312386105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-80497474559284589312013-07-13T09:40:31.708-03:002013-07-13T09:40:31.708-03:00Dear All:
My essay, now titled, "Human Right...Dear All:<br /><br />My essay, now titled, "Human Rights, Animal Rights, and Why the Welfarist/Regulationist Position is Deeply Speciesist" is coming along very nicely. I should have it done this weekend for a Monday publication.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers University gfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-82997597583149049682013-07-13T00:38:17.904-03:002013-07-13T00:38:17.904-03:00Dear Elizabeth:
It's fascinating. We have som...Dear Elizabeth:<br /><br />It's fascinating. We have some folks claiming that Prop 2 is a miracle because it dramatically increases production efficiency. We have others claiming that it is a miracle because it decreases demand for shelled eggs as a result of increased production costs. We have still others claiming that Prop 2 is a miracle because it does not do much to decrease demand for shell eggs but does significantly decrease the demand for powdered/liquid eggs because of increased production costs. <br /><br />We have some animal advocates claiming that that Prop 2 is great for the egg industry: "[i]t is little surprise that cage-free production is the fastest growing and most profitable segment of the industry." We have some animal advocates saying that Prop 2 is destroying the egg industry.<br /><br />We presently have HSUS involved in a joint effort with United Egg Producers to get national "enriched cage" legislation that will eviscerate what HSUS claims as the primary benefit of Prop 2: the requirement of cage-free conditions. And the "enriched cages" proposed by the HSUS/UEP legislation is recognized by even conservative European welfare groups claim as failing to provide adequate animal welfare.<br /><br />This business of animal welfare is so very confusing. But I fear that this business has nothing to do with animals.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers University<br /> gfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-76266015666261495522013-07-12T23:24:58.399-03:002013-07-12T23:24:58.399-03:00Hi folks. I think that I'm going to be shuttin...Hi folks. I think that I'm going to be shutting down comments on this thread if there there can't be a better show of respect.<br /><br />I've deleted the last one from Stephen (you were being a jerk, pal) and am not posting an even more rude follow-up comment he's sent. <br /><br />I'm glad that for the most part, the discussion has remained civil, but have no interest in people using this post and discussion just to get personal digs in at other people.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15800153451645970774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-70144798003051207642013-07-12T19:32:48.612-03:002013-07-12T19:32:48.612-03:00Stephen - I am not a statistician but your argume...Stephen - I am not a statistician but your argument is seriously flawed in at least one glaring point - vegans not only don't use eggs - they don't use ANY animal products. If 1 million American's went vegan, then not only would the demand for the eggs of 1 million chickens ('free range' or no) go down, but also the demand for 1 million peoples' demand for all other animal products..<br /><br />Let me suggest to you this, Stephen: why don't you use your clever statistician brain to calculate how many people would be going VEGAN if instead of people spending the last however many years it has been trying to get these welfarist reforms to happen, were instead spending their time on vegan education, and think how many people will be going vegan or already gone vegan, and think about THAT effect on the demand for animal products, and that effect on the overall social paradigm of thinking about other animals moral persons rather than resources we can use as long as it is done 'humanely' (and is economically beneficial to producers). <br /><br />But that is not your agenda is it Stephen? I feel sorry for you that you have a such a poverty of ambition Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-11233747179702852242013-07-12T19:32:44.550-03:002013-07-12T19:32:44.550-03:00Stephen - I am not a statistician but your argume...Stephen - I am not a statistician but your argument is seriously flawed in at least one glaring point - vegans not only don't use eggs - they don't use ANY animal products. If 1 million American's went vegan, then not only would the demand for the eggs of 1 million chickens ('free range' or no) go down, but also the demand for 1 million peoples' demand for all other animal products..<br /><br />Let me suggest to you this, Stephen: why don't you use your clever statistician brain to calculate how many people would be going VEGAN if instead of people spending the last however many years it has been trying to get these welfarist reforms to happen, were instead spending their time on vegan education, and think how many people will be going vegan or already gone vegan, and think about THAT effect on the demand for animal products, and that effect on the overall social paradigm of thinking about other animals moral persons rather than resources we can use as long as it is done 'humanely' (and is economically beneficial to producers). <br /><br />But that is not your agenda is it Stephen? I feel sorry for you that you have a such a poverty of ambition Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-80143722119272892122013-07-12T17:22:00.713-03:002013-07-12T17:22:00.713-03:00Adam:
As I understand it, some people are claimin...Adam:<br /><br />As I understand it, some people are claiming that the "enriched cage" scenario (which is all they will get under either Prop 2 or the HSUS/UEP deal), demand will be affected significantly because consumers of liquid/powdered eggs (as opposed to consumers of shell eggs) have a more sensitive elasticity and will consume many fewer eggs even if the price of egg products is moderately increased, thus resulting in fewer hens kept and killed. I do not know if that is true and, even if it is, how it fits with overall egg supply and demand. <br /><br />But, in the end, it's a matter of whether you think that we should promote "happy" eggs. I don't. But then, I know that you agree.<br /><br />By the way, I frequently promote the *excellent* resource that you and Sandra Cummings created, www.vegankit.com. With that one piece of superbly-done grassroots advocacy that you make available without charge, you have, without doubt, not only saved countless animal lives but you have educated countless numbers of people.<br /><br />Imagine what we could do if the large groups went in that direction rather than, for example, encouraging people to write to Walmart and tell Walmart to do the "right" thing, where the "right" thing is selling crate-free pork. Imagine, an "animal group" telling people that the "right" thing is crate-free pork! Anyway, think of where we'd be if animal groups stopped being ashamed of using "vegan" and stopped using "veg," "veggie," and "vegetarian" instead, and started making clear that if animals matter morally, there is one and only one coherent response: go vegan. <br /><br />Think of it!<br /><br />Gary<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers University<br /><br />gfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-30131783698238493182013-07-12T15:55:30.898-03:002013-07-12T15:55:30.898-03:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03647198428780707207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-84141665577785607372013-07-12T15:19:35.470-03:002013-07-12T15:19:35.470-03:00"If Prop 2 were to --reduce the number of lay..."If Prop 2 were to --reduce the number of laying hens being maltreated-- in any manner by 10,000, 100,000"<br /><br />Last time I checked, these hens are still reduced to machines to pump out as many eggs as possible with minimal economic costs to their "care". A hen under those conditions is still mistreated in my book.<br /><br />That is a condition set by economic demand by consumers. Prop 2 on steroids with missiles can't change that.<br /><br />This is another empty assumption on your part. Because these reforms are phrased as reforms, they mean the mistreatment of any affected hen no longer exists.<br /><br />Let us also ignore the politics of actually getting a passed proposition to have effect, be enforced, prevention of loopholes, etc.<br /><br />Prop 2 is for us. It makes us feel better, it makes us believe that the animals are being taken care of. We don't need to go vegan or tell others to go vegan because some law will make everything better.<br /><br />I wish I could be comforted by this delusion as well, but I've seen countless clones of Prop 2 before Prop 2 even existed. It's a repeat of failed history.Adam Kochanowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13190729335643458295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-886880990868053112013-07-12T15:09:30.794-03:002013-07-12T15:09:30.794-03:00Stephen
It's not clear to me why it is sudden...Stephen<br /><br />It's not clear to me why it is suddenly upon Gary to do an analysis you apparently need to back up your own argument?<br /><br />I see where you're going with your defense of P2, but you're making a lot of generous assumptions there. Such as...<br /><br />1. Prop 2 states X, Y, and Z as goals of it being passed, therefore, X, Y, and Z will definitely happen upon it being passed.<br /><br />2. X, Y, and Z are reforms the industry would not make itself as an economic imperativeAdam Kochanowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13190729335643458295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-53993736453782563652013-07-12T15:00:21.686-03:002013-07-12T15:00:21.686-03:00Last time I heard Jean Kazez describe abolitionism...Last time I heard Jean Kazez describe abolitionism, it was something to the tune of "Abolitionists want to keep animals suffering so more people will rally to the cause" <br /><br />I don't recall Jean ever withdrawing that straw man argument.Adam Kochanowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13190729335643458295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-28146417242676662422013-07-12T12:27:06.679-03:002013-07-12T12:27:06.679-03:00Stephan:
If you could prove to me that "lett...Stephan:<br /><br />If you could prove to me that "lettuce ladies" handing out veggie dogs, or images of women masturbating with vegetables, both of which have been defended by "animal people" for resulting in people going vegan, caused 1 million people to go vegan, I would still not support sexist/misogynistic campaigns. <br /><br />Now, if it were the case that sexism/misogyny actually did have such an effect, I would at least understand better *why* people support that sort of thing instead of being in a state of perpetual bewilderment as to why welfarists support what I see as reducing the number of lashes from 42 to 40 (and that is, in my view, a most generous analogy). But I would still never promote welfare reform.<br /><br />As I say, it's a zero-sum game. I choose to be clear in trying to educate the very many people who really do care about animals morally that if animals have any moral value, we cannot justify eating, wearing, or using them--however "humanely" we may do so. That's a fundamental difference: welfarists want to tell people who care: "if you care, doing less than going vegan is morally acceptable." I don't. I have a great deal more respect for the intelligence and moral integrity of ordinary people. And I regard animal life and human life as having equal moral value for the purpose of using neither exclusively as resources, however "humanely."<br /><br />Is this answer is not clear to you, then I apologize but I really cannot say it more clearly than that.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-87080909517103813682013-07-12T11:35:25.411-03:002013-07-12T11:35:25.411-03:00Thanks, Gary, for your sensible answer to my first...Thanks, Gary, for your sensible answer to my first question.<br /><br />I don't think you understood the second question however. I asked for your estimate as to how many fewer laying hens there would be if demand stayed constant. And your responses to me and Elizabeth Collins suggest that you thought I was asking how, for example, mortality rates would be affected if demand went down.<br /><br />To rephrase and perhaps clarify the question... Increasing space per hen results is lower mortality of hens, greater feed consumption per hen, greater egg production per hen. I presume you are familiar with the literature on that. I would have expected that in evaluating the consequences of Prop 2 you would have wondered and analyzed how many fewer hens would therefore be raised and slaughtered in California after Prop 2 if demand were to stay constant (rather than dropping due to the higher prices).<br /><br />You haven't done such analysis? The results would not be of interest to you? If Prop 2 were to reduce the number of laying hens being maltreated in any manner by 10,000, 100,000, a million or more that would not be relevant to your arguments against it? Or you just misunderstood my question? If, as Elizabeth suggests, it would be a waste of your valuable time to estimate that, please accept my apology for asking, though I would be glad for any explanation of how not just the number of lashes but also number of individuals lashed is unimportant or irrelevant in this context.<br /><br />Thanks,Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03647198428780707207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-83856125853199768352013-07-12T10:54:20.976-03:002013-07-12T10:54:20.976-03:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03647198428780707207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-69024440308908014622013-07-12T09:40:09.492-03:002013-07-12T09:40:09.492-03:00Elizabeth Collins:
Unfortunately, many animal adv...Elizabeth Collins:<br /><br />Unfortunately, many animal advocates who claim to care about these issues won't bother to read anything more complicated or lengthy than a Facebook comment or a Tweet. Moreover, we live at a time where anyone who has a keyboard and an internet connection considers herself or himself as having expertise and a viewpoint worth sharing.<br /><br />In any event, Stephen can "wonder" all he wants about what will happen if and when Prop 2 takes effect. He may also "wonder" about mortality rates if demand goes down because "lettuce ladies" are handing out veggie dogs.<br /><br />Oh, well.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-67460114114005816752013-07-12T09:31:22.812-03:002013-07-12T09:31:22.812-03:00Stephen:
Given that a good chunk of the egg indus...Stephen:<br /><br />Given that a good chunk of the egg industry supported Prop 2 when many egg producers thought it would require cage-free conditions which, as you may know, is a big issue) I think we have to acknowledge that the economics of the egg industry are complicated, as I tried to explain in the book. <br /><br />As far as whether elasticities will change with respect to certain consumers (e.g., institutional users of liquid or powdered eggs)as competitive vegan substitutes become available, I would imagine that some, but not all, of those users would choose a cheaper vegan substitute. I have been told by certain regulationists that they are supporting the HSUS/United Egg Producer "enriched cage" bill because it will decrease the institutional demand for non-whole eggs. We would, however, have to look at egg production as a whole to know demand impact. <br /><br />But let me address what I see as your next question: I would *not* support welfare reform *even if* it made demand go down with respect to certain users. You see, I am not a consequentialist. That is, I do not believe that what is right or wrong is determined by consequences, or by certain consequences that are selectively focused on. For example, even if sexist and misogynistic campaigns would decrease demand for animal products, I would not promote sexist, misogynistic campaigns.<br /><br />I hope that's clear. <br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-50756155680413552422013-07-12T02:57:15.058-03:002013-07-12T02:57:15.058-03:00"Also, I wonder whether you may be able to pr..."Also, I wonder whether you may be able to provide your best rough estimate of how many fewer laying hens there will be in California if demand remains constant after implementation of Proposition 2? I'm wondering how best to quantify that consequence of reduced mortality and higher productivity."<br /><br />Stephen, can't you do that for yourself instead of trying to get Professor Francione to do your work for you? If you want to investigate and quantify stuff like that because you don't want to spend agree with unequivocal nonviolent vegan education, then I reckon you should do it yourself and not try to ask Professor Francione to spend time on it. If you do believe in unequivocal nonviolent vegan education, then here's a hint: what you request above is utterly irrelevant to that, since abolition recognises that all immorality is immoral, and promoting immorality is immoral whether you are promoting 'slightly less' of it or not. Promote veganism, anything less is the torture and slaughter of animals. If you want to quantify torture and slaughter then go for it. I mean, if Professor Francione is keen then by all means, but I think he has done enough of that kind of thing and I resent seeing people asking him to repeat over and over and over again, and take heaps of his time, or to spend time quantifying torture. Do it yourself. If you want to know how often he has been forced to do it (by welfarists) then read all his books. That's my suggestion. Anyway I am sure this comment is not welcome but I thought I would share just the same.Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-32822491378566853412013-07-12T02:57:10.698-03:002013-07-12T02:57:10.698-03:00"Also, I wonder whether you may be able to pr..."Also, I wonder whether you may be able to provide your best rough estimate of how many fewer laying hens there will be in California if demand remains constant after implementation of Proposition 2? I'm wondering how best to quantify that consequence of reduced mortality and higher productivity."<br /><br />Stephen, can't you do that for yourself instead of trying to get Professor Francione to do your work for you? If you want to investigate and quantify stuff like that because you don't want to spend agree with unequivocal nonviolent vegan education, then I reckon you should do it yourself and not try to ask Professor Francione to spend time on it. If you do believe in unequivocal nonviolent vegan education, then here's a hint: what you request above is utterly irrelevant to that, since abolition recognises that all immorality is immoral, and promoting immorality is immoral whether you are promoting 'slightly less' of it or not. Promote veganism, anything less is the torture and slaughter of animals. If you want to quantify torture and slaughter then go for it. I mean, if Professor Francione is keen then by all means, but I think he has done enough of that kind of thing and I resent seeing people asking him to repeat over and over and over again, and take heaps of his time, or to spend time quantifying torture. Do it yourself. If you want to know how often he has been forced to do it (by welfarists) then read all his books. That's my suggestion. Anyway I am sure this comment is not welcome but I thought I would share just the same.Elizabeth Collinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07364910521855672878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-55585397873785062692013-07-11T21:56:34.906-03:002013-07-11T21:56:34.906-03:00Thanks, Gary, for the reference you provide me to ...Thanks, Gary, for the reference you provide me to your detailed examination of the economics of farmed animal welfare reforms. <br /><br />I see you recognize that increasing space for laying hens on balance adds rather than subtracts costs for the farmer, results in higher costs to consumers. In examining the consequences, you allude to a lack of demand elasticity. Do you think that may change particularly in respect to institutional purchase of liquid eggs, as vegan substitutes like those of Hampton Creek become cost competitive?<br /><br />Also, I wonder whether you may be able to provide your best rough estimate of how many fewer laying hens there will be in California if demand remains constant after implementation of Proposition 2? I'm wondering how best to quantify that consequence of reduced mortality and higher productivity.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03647198428780707207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-91252556413488485342013-07-11T09:43:09.198-03:002013-07-11T09:43:09.198-03:00Jeff:
Jean Kazez appears to be trying to join Rob...Jeff:<br /><br />Jean Kazez appears to be trying to join Robert Garner as a theoretician of the welfarist/regulationst movement. It is clear that Singer has failed to respond to the challenges to that paradigm and there is a real gap here. Garner,and now Kazez, are stepping up. <br /><br />Although Kazez is an able scholar, she is not, as far as I can tell, making any new arguments and you are quite correct to say that she mischaracterizing the abolitionist position. Specifically, she, like all welfarists, portrays the abolitionist position as some version of "not wanting to help animals now." What she ignores is that the abolitionist position maintains that we should not pursue a program of welfare reforms that: (1) do not provide significant increases in protection in any event; (2) further enmesh animals in the property paradigm; (3) are designed to make people more comfortable in continuing to consume animals; and (4) rest on the notion that animal life has a lesser moral value than human life. <br /><br />Although Singer and Garner acknowledge that they regard animal life as having lesser moral value, at least as a general matter, it is not clear (at least to me) exactly where Kazez stands here. Her discussion of human examples of reform suggests some confusion here in a number of respects. In any event, what started out as a blog essay is getting longer and may turn into a very long blog essay or perhaps a blog essay and an article. But I hope to get something out in the next few days.<br /><br />I do, however, think that the issues are getting joined.<br /><br />Gray L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1528521735436082423.post-72653484360070709562013-07-10T21:58:44.468-03:002013-07-10T21:58:44.468-03:00Dear Dominik:
I apologize if I gave the impressio...Dear Dominik:<br /><br />I apologize if I gave the impression that I think that Bruce planted any questions in any deliberate way. I have no reason to believe that. There were clearly people from welfarist/regulationist groups in the audience and those people had an incentive to try to voice their support of Bruce.<br /><br />I have no reason to believe that Bruce had anything to do with Nick Cooney depriving someone who had been waiting to ask a question her/his opportunity so that Cooney could make a speech about how billions of animals have supposedly been saved because of welfare campaigns, and then ask Bruce a question about the relationship between welfare reform and veganism.<br /><br />I was surprised that neither Bruce nor Cooney made clear to the audience that Cooney, like Bruce, works for Farm Sanctuary. I think that should have been disclosed to the audience. But that's not a big deal.<br /><br />Finally, there was clearly rude and unprofessional behavior with respect to certain people who were hooting and heckling. But then, my suspicion is that those are some of the same people who have said that they will withdraw support from the Conference if I am invited back. I understand, but am disappointed, that they are so threatened by my ideas.<br /><br />Gary L. Francione<br />Professor, Rutgers Universitygfrancionehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12413808121945436353noreply@blogger.com