The page says that 'All pigs deserve to be free from cruelty.'
But banning sow stalls won't achieve that. Asking people to get behind a ban on sow stalls accepts the idea of animal exploitation.
There's no simple message - become vegan - that builds in a cumulative voice each time a message reaches the public. Each campaign covers different grounds - banning circuses, banning sow stalls, banning battery eggs etc
Asking people to become vegan - and the act of people becoming vegan - rejects the idea that we accept animal exploitation.
i agree, but i also think that there are so many people out there who are just not going to even consider going veg. it would be wonderful but i think at this moment in time unrealistic and thus i feel that these campaigns are better than nothing. people are still going to exploit animals but the less cruelty involved the better. i also think these campaigns get cruelty in the public eye and the public can then become more educated-i know a lot of people who shut off as soon as they hear the term vegan.
Ditto. I believe all forms of animal exploitation are absolutely wrong, and we should encourage people to become vegan. But I believe equally in harm minimisation. If the omni majority ate half as much meat, and boycotted the "most" cruel industries (of course there is no such thing as "cruelty free" meat), that would save millions of animals' lives every year. Baby steps towards a more compassionate society are better than the status quo.
sure a lot of people aren't going to go vegan. but does that mean explaining the reasons to be vegan will have absolutely no effect?
especially if we say it over and over, rather than cooperating with industry to continue their work!
and what about the people that would become vegan? the pound of flesh report released earlier this year says that over 50% of Australians would consider it.
how do we approach this? by telling folks that eating 'humane' animal products - which as you suggest Dan, don't exist - are ok.
does that mean we tell people it's ok to exploit animals, as long as we do it better? i don't think either of you would accept this, but that's the underlying message.
why is it unrealistic to say what's right? you both believe using animals is wrong, so why are you willing to go against your own positions and support a position that uses them?
yes, the less cruelty the better, but campaigning for 'better cruelty' goes against what vegans say they believe in.
when Australia discusses human rights with, say, China, do we tell them that killing less people would be ok? or that not beating them before killing them would be acceptable?
harm minimisation, as in drug use, doesn't apply in animal use. there's no 'harm minimization' of animal death. animals don't get to choose what behaviour they'd like to take part in.
how much more weight would the vegan message have if vegans banded together to promote a vegan message rather than diluting their voices in various different directions?
who says that promoting veganism wouldn't save as many lives - if not more - than promoting welfare? who says that reducing, say, the consumption of 'red meat' doesn't increase the consumption of milk, eggs, chickens, fish...? who says that same reduction doesn't *increase* the overall amount of animal products used, since people feel better about eating them?
all the while people may be unaware of the reasons that using animals is harmful and unnecessary. shouldn't it be the goal of vegans to try to get this message through to them, and leave welfare measures for people like the RSPCA that are actually concerned with them?
im not saying dont explain the reasons to go vegan - i think a lot of people who arent vegan eat the way they do due to ignorance (as you say, 50% would consider veganism).
the other side of the statistics show that 50% of Australians would not consider veganism - which is where i think harm minimisation is being better than nothing.
i am not willing to go against my own beliefs but i am also not willing to allow sow stalls, caged farming etc to continue just because i dont want people to eat meat and thus dont want to get behind 'harm minimising' because it sends the wrong message.
as i mentioned in my last post, harm minimisation doesn't apply to animals used as food in the same way it does to drug users.
you can't 'minimise' the harm of death, and animals have no choice as to whether they end up as food or not (as with drugs ie to use a drug or not).
rachel, you say you're not willing to go against your beliefs, but later in the same sentence say the opposite. you can't be both: either you believe animals shouldn't be used, or you don't. i'm saying this in good faith, not to insult you - it has real meaning.
you can't on one hand say something is wrong, but then say 'oh, but we'll make these exceptions'.
working within an industry frame does NOTHING to present a view that animals shouldn't be exploited. instead it works with industry to perpetuate the idea that it's fine.
as to sow stalls and cage farming, cage farming is continuing and is the most popular form of egg production in australia.
as to sow stalls, they'll also continue, even in tasmania where a supposed ban will come into effect in 7 years. (legislation in the ACT banned cage eggs there over 10 years ago, but they're still there.)
neither of these measures in any way affects animals being exploited. whereas more vegans would've made some impact not only in one area, but across the board.
plus, if people become more concerned about animals use (rather than welfare), why wouldn't these concerns spill over into welfare?
no you cant minimise death, but you can remove the cruelty leading up to it.
slowly building the public awareness to me seems akin to scaffolding - a teaching technique - where you give a lot of support and slowly move away until they are able to understand for themselves. it is a successful technique. i believe that by giving people info about the cruelty involved and campaigning against that first you can then build on that awareness to ensure people can clearly see animals as a living breathing feeling personality who has the right to life.
im not taking anything as an insult, this is two people with differing opinions.
people are recognising the horrors of cage farming and refusing to buy the products. where did you get the information that it is still the most used practice? i vaguely recall safeway vowing to reduce the number of caged eggs on their shelves and i know that the local coles has dropped them dramatically and placed them in the harder to sell spots.
i just think that slow and steady is more beneficial than dropping everything we know onto people. i personally became vegan through the welfare campaigns. i didnt know about the cruely in eggs and dairy etc. i didnt want to know. i didnt eat meat and thought that was enough. i then discovered the hell chickens go through so started buying free range. i then decided id check it out for myself some more and discovered the male chicks. i did the same for dairy. but before that i thought veganism was unnecessary. my partner is becoming vegetarian. if i push him with what happens in the dairy industry he backtracks with his vegetarianism and starts to block things instead of opening up. this is why i believe these campaigns are making a difference and that it is best to move slowly.
i think i may have rambled here by im half asleep!
are there any animal industries that have removed the cruelty leading up to killing? in a sense, it's intensified, since there are more animals killed. not to mention the cases of outright cruelty you find documented in videos, even in supposedly 'reputable' companies.
by accepting welfare, you're saying 'I may not agree with this, but it's acceptable.'
but you're right, some people may cotton on that using animals is wrong, but a whole lot might not. they might say 'let's go organic' or 'buy free range'. it's hit and miss.
take a look at the whole 'sustainable' animal product movement with the likes of michael pollan, lierre keith, joel salatin...
but they still grind, gas or suffocate chicks, take calves and kill them... this explains further: www.humanemyth.org
you said you didn't want to know about the cruelty in milk and eggs. but what about people that do?
and when you did find out, why did you buy free range rather than give up eggs altogether? did you believe you could still be ethical and eat eggs? did that come from people promoting the idea of 'humane' animal products?
as to your bf, if you believe that killing animals is wrong, shouldn't he be listening to you? but if he's not, does that mean he's more important than the lives of other animals?
maybe you could watch this together - 10 minutes isn't much to ask: