Comments Ellie has made

  • Hi Ruxandra,

    I think I felt the same way about other groups as you do about Vegan Outreach, when I realized they weren't acting on behalf of animals.  Imo, it's a good idea to write VO about their support for Whole Foods, when this obviously doesn't support veganism, their stated purpose.  

    I've wondered how these things happen.  Do one or two groups at the top of the mainstream hub decide what most other groups should do?  And well intentioned, but misguided activists just follow?  

    After all, the company of "in" groups can be a powerful connection, if that's their goal.  And attracting members can be a strong incentive, but at the bottom line they either use their time and money for animals, or they betray them.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Speaking of misguided activism,

    here's a specific example of how activists help abusers:

    As many of us know, John Mackey is the CEO of  Whole Foods Market.  Although Mackey says he's a vegan, and claims to care about animals and the environment, his company earns millions of dollars from the sale of living beings who are killed for the taste of their flesh.  Astute businessman that he is, Mackey knows how to promote his products-- not just by appealing arrangements in stores and the usual advertising, but by tapping into the booming market of what's come to be known as "animal welfare".

    To this end, Mackey created Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation, which gives consumers the chance to "help animals" by eating "compassionate" meat.  Although the Foundation states it is "a dynamic hub for ranchers, meat producers and researchers", and these producers will set and judge it's standards-- not to worry, because we're told "they care".  No matter that farming and killing animals is inherently cruel.  

    Just to prove it, Mackey asked for animal husbandry activists-- aka "animal welfare" or "animal rights" groups-- to back his Foundation.  The list of collaborators is long-- they include:

    Animal Rights International (ARI)

    Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)

    Animal Place

    Animal Protection Institute (API)

    Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)

    Bay Area Vegetarians

    Christian Vegetarian Association

    Compassion Over Killing  (sorry Ruxandra)

    Doris Day Animal League

    East Bay Animal Advocates

    Farm Sanctuary

    Humane Society of the United States  

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals  

    Mercy for Animals

    Northwest In Defense of Animals

    Vegan Outreach

    Viva!USA

    And to this day, none of the above groups have withdrawn their support for the Animal Compassion Foundation, even though they claim to promote vegan/vegetarianism.  The only group that refused to endorse it on behalf of the well being and rights of animals is Friends of Animals.  

    Following are links to the action taken by Friends of Animals with regard to the Animal Compassion Foundation.  As Priscilla Feral (President) explains, "An interest in other animals' welfare doesn't mean paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to concoct new ways of relating to them on farms before baking, broiling, stir-frying or sautéing them. A day of 5% discounts on the store's vegan products would be far more appropriate."

    http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/whole-f ...

    http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2005/january/respons ...On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Ruxandra,

    As you've clarified it, I agree with you.   The idea is not to turn our backs on cruelty.  Even in my very average life, I've had to intervene against violence and cruelty on behalf of humans and non-humans, more than I care to remember.  

    What you're saying about helping women in these situations is, I think, similar to rescuing animals.  When it's honest and gives priority to animals, I support it 100%.    

    As you said, it's very different from activism which promotes alternative abuse as "compassionate", and which collaborates with abusers.  

    I can't even count the number of people I've met, on and off-line, who are proud of eating "free-range" meat and dairy.  I mean they actually believe they're doing animals a favor by eating them!  This can only come from the activism you and I oppose, where activists become advertisers for the meat industry.

    And I think the misogyny and anti-vegetarian messages re: PeTA's ad are very sad.  Selling sexuality is no way to promote the vegan ethic, but I was naively unprepared for the hostility that goes with it.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Bruce,

    If animal welfare improvements lead to animal liberation, why has more than a century of this activism only led to more efficient and profitable ways of commodifying and killing animals?  Why is meat consumption increasing?  

    The reasons to me are obvious.  Animal welfare requires non-human beings be seen as products, and this is precisely why groups like PeTA and HSUS can make deals with animal enterprise.  It also allows conscientious consumers guilt-free meals.

    Let's also be honest about activism.  PeTA and HSUS have never promoted welfare improvements as "less vile".  If they did, they wouldn't encourage most activists to support their campaigns.  And both PeTA and HSUS promote so-called "humane euthanasia", which is wrong on both counts.  They may not call every regulation "humane", but they promote them as if animals will somehow enjoy their lives if these measures are in place-- and as if reformed farming is not cruel.  

    Will gassing chickens be so much better?  Will their legs break when they are crammed into a truck and into the gas chamber?  Will veal calves live in a room like "free-range" chickens, where they can still barely turn around?  Can small family farms supply a nation of meat eaters?  

    In my view, it's very unrealistic to think millions of animal consumers can be supplied without mass production.

    So I don't think these are substantial gains by any means, and that's to say nothing of the impossibility of enforcing them.  

    You say opposition to animal welfare is based on purity of vision.  I think it's based on realizing how little these measures improve animal lives, and that animal rights requires they cease to be seen as products.

    The paternalistic movement which advocated better treatment for human slaves is not regarded highly these days.  Was it a stepping stone to abolition?  I doubt it because paternalists believed Africans were suited to slavery, just as most people believe animals are suited to being exploited.  

    However it came about, abolition had to reject this paternalism in order to end human slavery.  Better treatment of slaves did not bring freedom.

    Unlike advocacy for human prisoners, animals rights challenges the foundation of dominion, as the abolition of human slavery did.  The only way to liberate non-human animals is to support their right to be free of human dominion.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • About cruelty and compassion......

    Yes indeed, Ruxandra, I feel strongly that animal rights is not about extreme cruelty.  As horrible as it is, focus on the worst treatment of animals is almost always about modifying animal husbandry.

    It's not about animal rights because it doesn't challenge the use of animals.  And when it singles out one perpetrator, I think people like to believe animals are treated better by others, which is probably not true.  

    The undercover investigation of Tyson farms comes to mind. Plenty of people were shocked by the cruelty, but that didn't stop most of them from eating chicken.  If they cared, they bought a different brand, but who's to say that brand is not just as bad, or worse?  

    I've even thought, well, maybe at least it puts animal industries on alert, but if they're worried about undercover investigations, I bet they'd be extra careful about who they hire.  Anyway, it's impossible to monitor how billions of animals are farmed and killed. That's why I think regulations and investigations can't work, even from the animal welfare perspective.

    Also, I think you're right about terms like "cruelty" and "compassion"-- what they encompass is more important.  True compassion toward animals would not be considered cruelty to humans in their place.   But if it's the usual "compassion" of speciesism, then I think we wind up just promoting lesser degrees of cruelty.  

    In fairness, what I remember about Compassion Over Killing goes back at least 4 years, so I might be wrong.  The important thing is I don't see anything that suggests they support "compassionate killing" now.  

    Are you familiar with the Asilomar Accords?  To their credit, Compassion Over Killing is not a signatory.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Hi Ruxandra,

    Glad you agree, though I'm not sure about what :)

    I'll try to compare your example of women's rights to explain what I mean.  Protection from abuse is part of these rights, but when a woman is threatened, we wouldn't leave her in that situation.  We wouldn't try to improve a marriage, for example, if she's being battered. To help her means getting her out of it.

    That's an extreme example, but I think it's comparable to welfare (really animal husbandry) campaigns, in that animals remain farmed, or used in other ways.  

    So if the goal is to free them, as we would free abused women; and given all the problems and hypocrisy of regulations, I don't see how such campaigns support that goal.   Some people think we can do both, and others think these campaigns harden animal use into law.  

    I agree "humane slaughter" is a testament to speciesism.  About Compassion Over Killing, from what I remember reading years ago, they said they "hate killing", but if it's going to be done, it should be "humane".  I couldn't support it because I felt animals don't need better ways of getting killed.  They need not to be killed at all.  

    But I see they support veganism, rather then killing.  Hooray!  So I guess the issue for me is whether they're still trying to modify animal use, as I'm one of those people who don't think it supports animal rights.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Hey Gonzo,

    ...... if you can impeach him, go for it!  Caring about other living beings doesn't mean we care less about humans, the environment, the Iraq war, world hunger, the genocide in Darfur, and anything else worth caring about.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • About intentions and cruelty.....

    Ruxanda, sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but I think the least likely to stay with a plant based diet are faddists, those who go vegan because their friends did, or because they admire a celebrity who's vegan, at least temporarily.  

    Avoiding cruelty to animals is ethical, but in the way it's usually understood, it's all about not causing animals pain.  So the focus is on only one part of an animal's experience, when there's so much more.  

    When people see animals as commodities, which is how these campaigns require they be seen, then they can use animals if they believe they're treated humanely.  The "certified humane" label is making millions.

    And I've read a number of articles by former vegetarians (even Molly Katzen who wrote the Moosewood Cookbook) who now eat meat and dairy products from "compassionate" farms.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • My 2 cents again....

    I think a group that implies it can be compassionte to kill animals for food or other  convenience is not an animal rights group.   If Compassion Over Killing exposes the free-range myth, great!  Just wish they'd change their name, because it's an oxymoron from the animal rights perspective.  Just like "humane slaughter".

    The problem is the multi-million dollar groups which are making deals with even richer corporations, that turn animal advocates into animal husbandry activists.  That includes PeTA.  

    If these groups were honest, I think they'd admit "humane" regulations don't work, can't work,  and they also give tacit approval to animal use.

    From an animal rights perspective, it's not a question of cruelty, but the animal's interest in not being exploited.  To compare that to women's rights-- you can't rape a woman nicely.

    And no offense, Karen, but Steve Best, for all his education, and misguided support of the ALF doesn't seem to understand that.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Paul,

    If PeTA's wants to display health and vibrance, there's no need for nude celebrities.  PeTA is obviously selling sexuality, but it seems we'll just have to disagree.

    If a viewer is interested in more than sexuality, they can download the link you mentioned, though I don't see it on the printed version, and I wouldn't be surprised if many viewers don't bother to check it out if they can.  

    Still, I think it's worth considering the right reasons for adopting a vegan diet.  From what I've seen, it's people who go vegan because of the conditions on factory farms, who are most likely to resume eating animal products when they can buy the "free-range" or "certified humane" labels.  

    This is an animal welfare approach which fails to address the animal's interest in not being exploited to begin with.  Once visible cruelty is removed, these people can't imagine animals have an interest in not being farmed.  

    In fairness, I couldn't download the sound on the Meet Your Meat video as my speakers aren't working, but it does appear to take this approach.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Thanks, folks......

    Thanks for your answers, Paul and Ruxandra.  Yes, I think some people might opt for veganism if it's seen as the "in" thing, but the problem with fads is they don't last long.  If young people (and this ad is directed at young people) want to emulate movie stars, when the novelty of one wears off, they can just as easily follow another who happens to like hamburgers.  

    I agree it's possible they might consider ethics somewhere down the line, but when the attraction to such ads is self-centered, I think the chances are unlikely.  And if they ever do become advocates, I think self interest can be a problem, as I described above.

    I also agree it's easier to make light of some causes, which is why advocacy for the least valued beings on this planet should not be trivialized.   If non-human animals are so insignificant as to require Hollywood glitter, what does that say about them?

    And of course a plant food diet will not make you sexy either.

    So what are all these disagreements really about? For me, I think if thousands of years of oppression are ever to be undone, animal advocacy has to be based on uncompromising respect for animals.    On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • About motives.........

    I don't think anyone is blaming Bruce Friedrich for PeTA's ad, but since Bruce and other posters support it, the argument is with them.  

    As for asking Alicia Silverstone, her motives were not in question here, but I think it's fair to say that like PeTA, celebrities thrive on publicity too-- and I wouldn't expect either to admit it.

    Justice for women is an afterthought, but if nudity is supposed to convey feminine freedom, as some posters contend, the ad is hardly a pace setter.

    I'm still wondering why some people think it's ok in relation to non-human beings, when it would be unthinkable for other causes.    On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • About nutrition

    You can grow crops with green manure just as successfully as using animal manure.  Omega fatty acids are found in nuts and other plant foods, as is B12.  I think the old adage is true here-- where there's a will, there's a way.On PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 77 Responses

  • It's about the animals

    Not necessarily, VegSwimer.  Women have found a way to be powerful in dresses that touched the floor.  That nudity is accepted, doesn't change the reaction all that much, either.  Often, and certainly in the case of PeTA's ad, a naked woman is still a sex object.  

    But more than that, what do naked celebrities do for the animals?  If it were so affective, why are celebrities not stripping to end the genocide in Darfur, or for other causes?  No one is questioning the right to be nude.  It's a question of why it's done, and what's  accomplished.

    You said:  "factory farms deny animals everything that is natural and enjoyable to them, condemning them to tortured lives in filthy, cramped cages, stalls, and sheds, where only a steady diet of drugs keeps them alive long enough to be prodded to the slaughterhouse. Our purpose is to stop animal suffering like this..."

    Reality check here-- as long as animals are bred, used, and killed, they will suffer.  I recently saw a photo of chickens on a "free-range" farm, hundreds practically standing on top of each other in a room.  No wonder they're still debeaked. I'm sure they still walk on their own feces, and like their caged cousins, they'll get killed in short order.

    The same is true for other animals, and for regulations that mean nothing in terms of mass production.  Reforming factory farms certainly won't end animal suffering.  In fact, it often encourages meat eating, which is why animal industries are willing to cooperate.

    But some activists need to feel they can make a difference, even when it doesn't exist.  This is the self-centered activism I'm talking about-- it's about making activists feel good-- not the animals.  The bar is set so low as to appeal to animal enterprise that it's easy to claim "victories", and attract membership in the groups that promote these tactics, but the animals are not winning.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • About the ethic......

    Ruxandra said:  "other than catching someone's attention for all the wrong reasons, how is seeing a naked female body convincing anyone to give up meat on ethical grounds, to have respect for their fellow beings?"

    Precisely, it's an ad that appeals to human vanity and an interest in the opposite sex-- the living beings it purports to represent get lost in the publicity.

    It's easy to dismiss objection as 'prudish', but it means the difference between self-centered activism and making the interests of non-human animals the priority.  

    This is part of the reason why "animal rights" has become an umbrella term, to the point where it's meaningless.  It's been co-opted to suit the activists, not the animals.  So-called "AR people" who try to modify animal husbandry corrupt the ethic that speaks for non-human beings.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Ellie

    There are disagreements in every movement, but justice for non-humans cannot be everything to everyone.  Like human rights, animal rights are based on respect, not on regulating how or where animals are bred, raised, and killed. Groups that modify animal husbandry (including PeTA) are animal welfare groups.     On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Ellie

    PeTA can show vegans/vegetarians are healthy without marketing flesh.   That Silverstone may be intelligent and sincere, and that she's an adult who made a choice is all besides the point.

    I don't think the ad will prompt men to give up meat.  It may reassure young women they can be vegetarian and sexy, but I think that's a very egotistical approach to animal rights-- one in which the animals are very secondary.

    Giving up meat and other animal products should be based on an ethic, not how sexy it can be.  On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Why is PeTA's ad sexist?

    It's sexist because it promotes the stereotypical role of women as sex objects.   On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses

  • Clothesless?

    Marketing women as sex objects evokes the same mentality as marketing non-human animals for food, clothing, and other resources.  PeTA should know that.  Clotheless?  You mean Clueless.On From Population to PETA posted 2 years, 2 months ago 101 Responses