Promoting Violence In Soft Tones With A Smile On His Face (Part 2)


Doesn't belong in a nonviolent movement10

In part 2, I discuss the promotion of violence within certain animal advocacy circles and how the small few who promote violence often contradict themselves and are deeply misanthropic.

Please check out Ep 14 Part 1, where I share an essay titled “On Militant Direct Action.

Disclaimer: Please note I do not endorse individuals, opinions, links mentioned in the podcast or on external sites.

Links to information contained:

On Militant Direct Action

A Comment on Violence

More on Violence and Animal Rights

A Commentary on Violence 

(NOTE:  Friends I have been trying to rectify what appears to be a glitch with the comments section. Until now I thought the comments section was available to the public as the settings on my site indicated they were, but I found on today that it’s not. I will try and fix this soon if possible. )

Please join me again next time 🙂

2,107 total views, no views today

Share

Promoting Violence In Soft Tones With A Smile On His Face (Part 1)

Doesn't belong in a nonviolent movement12In podcast Ep 14 Part 1, I share an essay titled “On Militant Direct Action.

In part 2, I discuss the promotion of violence within certain animal advocacy circles and how the small few who promote violence often contradict themselves and are deeply misanthropic.

Please join me for part 2 which will be posted shortly.

Disclaimer: Please note I do not endorse individuals, opinions, links mentioned in the podcast or on external sites.

Links to information contained:

On Militant Direct Action

A Comment on Violence

More on Violence and Animal Rights

A Commentary on Violence 

1,751 total views, no views today

Share

“Meat Free Week Australia” Helps The Animals?

Meat Free WeekIn episode 13, I take a brief look at yet another new gimmick “Meat-Free Week Australia” (just one in an increasingly long line) and the problems associated. I share an excerpt by Prof. Gary Steiner about anthropocentrism and a couple of works about the “humane” myth.

Disclaimer: Please note I do not endorse opinions, links, individuals or ads on external sites.

For more info:

Recommended books

Gary Steiner on Anthropocentrism

The Myth” of Humane Animal Use

The Meaning of “Humane

Thanks for listening. Please subscribe to my podcast. Join me next time :)

1,384 total views, no views today

Share

And The Award Goes To…..

You win
Please subscribe to this podcast 🙂  In this episode,  I discuss a couple of quotes which talk about why promoting veganism is not “elitist” and I speak about the position “every little bit helps” and where this comes from and where it is leading us.

Blog posts of interest:

Some thoughts on The Meaning of the Word “Vegan

Excerpt

“Ethical veganism,” which I use interchangeably with “abolitionist veganism,” goes beyond a vegan diet and rejects direct animal consumption or use of any kind. An ethical vegan has a vegan diet and rejects consuming animal products but also does not wear or use any animal products. An ethical vegan rejects the commodification of nonhumans as property. An ethical vegan is committed to the abolition of animal exploitation. Moreover, ethical vegans recognize that an animal-based agriculture harms other humans as well as non-humans and sees the connection between human rights and animal rights. Ethical veganism is the moral baseline of the animal rights movement. Ethical veganism represents a commitment to non-violence in one’s daily living.

Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginners Guide)

Recommended Books

Quote from blog post by James Crump “Doesn’t Every Little Help?”:

One counterargument to the claim that vegan advocacy is maximally conducive to veganism goes something like this: granted, welfarism cannot lead to abolition; but how do you know that vegan advocacy can? But this is like asking: why should we promote a clear, coherent, and unequivocal (vegan) message as opposed to an unclear, incoherent, and equivocal (welfarist) message? Furthermore, imagine all of the animal movement’s institutional resources had been spent not on welfarist reform and “happy” meat campaigns, but instead on clear and unequivocal vegan education. Does anyone seriously think that had the animal movement done this there would be fewer vegans today?

Someone who is undeterred by my rhetorical questions, who thinks, that is, that it may be preferable to present an unclear and incoherent welfarist message as opposed to a clear and coherent vegan message, will probably fall back on some version of the “if you ask for 100%, then you get nothing” defence. But as Gary Francione points out, what reason do we have to believe that if we promote veganism we will get nothing? For if people are concerned about the animal issue, then, even if they don’t go vegan, they will do something; and if they are so unconcerned about this issue that they would do nothing when presented with a vegan message, then what reason is there to believe that they would do something (89%?) if presented with a “happy” meat message? Moreover, as Francione points out, if we present people with a vegan message, then, even if they don’t feel ready to go vegan straightaway, we will at least give them something to which they can aspire. But if we tell them that they can be “conscientious omnivores”, that they can discharge their moral obligations to animals by eating “happy” meat and “cage-free” eggs, then that is all they will do.

Thus, in opposition to the vacuous mantra: “If you ask for 100%, then you get nothing”, I would say: “If you do nothing, then you get nothing”. In other words, if we do not campaign for abolition – if we do not clearly, lucidly, and uncompromisingly advocate it to the public – we will never get abolition.

 

Please read my disclaimer about individuals, links, or sites mentioned in this podcast:

Intro music can be found here.

Please subscribe to my podcast. Thanks for listening 🙂 Till next time.

1,137 total views, no views today

Share