I found it just a wee bit amusing that the abolitionist movement doesn't seem to to have a problem with adopting the term "speciesism" coined by the "dreaded" Peter Singer.

I have met one Vegan abolitionist that abused No 1 in a very public way so I do not take much notice  them saying they do not use animals as property.

They are nothing like the anti slavery movement and most of the leaders of the anti slavery movement used animals for transport, food, pets etc. But the two cannot be intertwined as there are just too many differences.

You cannot say it should be in the hands of the educated. There are more non academic people on the planet than academic. Everyone has a say. Experience can count for a lot.

Compassion should be shown at all times whether that be welfare or abolistionist.

And one final point. If Dan C has ever helped a stressed animal then he should understand where the welfarists are coming from.

Welfarists rely on money to get their job done so as money can run out they need to try and put laws into place to stop cruelty, breeding etc. So if he has ever helped an animal he should understand the welfarists need to campaign at a government level. I have done it to make desexing animals compulsory. I have done it on other issues.

To say people should sit back and drink beer whilst an animal suffers is hideous no matter how he meant  it. There are elements of this movement that are like any movement that cannot recognise the goodness in others and becomes intolerant to any other view than their own.

I am a vegan abolitionist but I also know of many who are and like me they will not join this movement.

They come across to me as fanatical, very ignorant and people who are unable to see the bigger picture. Fanatics in other words. People who can turn a blind eye to suffering because it is not abolitionist.

However you really do not have to agree with me.

Peter,

I completely support helping individual animals in need.  You are correct that I’m only opposed to trying to reform the morally deplorable institution of industrial animal agriculture.

ZZ,

As an abolitionist myself, I agree with you that there are (unfortunately) some abolitionists with very poor social skills.  However, that fact is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the 6 principles are cogent and should be taken seriously.

AP,

The micro situation of helping a particular stressed animal is an importantly different situation from the macro situation of attempting to abolish a vast and morally deplorable industry.  It similar to thinking that since one can build a plank or log bridge across a small stream only a half a meter wide without knowledge of engineering theory that one can build a huge suspension bridge over a vast body of water several hundred meters wide without knowledge of engineering theory.  In both comparisons, the first requires absolutely no knowledge of theory; the second requires advanced knowledge of theory.

Continuing in reply to AP,

That said, it doesn't take too much knowledge of theory to do vegan education (although vegan education does require good communication and moral debating/reasoning skills, as well as knowledge of how to be vegan, etc).

Though Dan or Veb have not directly answered what is wrong with supporting welfarism and abolition at the same time it seems from what Dan has just said it is basically a chosen strategy to invest all energy on abolition and not improve welfare in a “vast and morally deplorable industry”.
My understanding on why Gary recommends this is if the same energy decades ago were spent on abolition instead of reform of the industries we would of had more vegans. Now that is fair enough and we all are free to choose how we invest our charitable time but I don’t take what Gary is saying to mean welfarists should be sabotaged or criticized, abolitionist devotees simply don’t invest in these approaches. Just because you believe someone is being inefficient long term doesn't mean they should be called worthless.

I have before I heard of Gary L. Francione already decided to invest my charitable time and money only in vegan education; I do this without insulting any welfarists or omnivores.
Even in the street when someone wants me to donate to a medical or environmental cause I simply say “there are enough organizations trying to find a cure I believe my money reduces more suffering by investing in organizations that only focus on prevention”. If they ask me to clarify I will explain.
Even just inviting someone to join me for lunch is vegan education.
Just this past 7 days I have had 3 opportunistic occasions to educate omnivores; about animal testing (when I was seated next to a dog loving perfume saleslady), abattoirs (when someone asked me what the worse job would be) and diet (when someone mentioned they had high cholesterol). In none of these occasions did it result in those people not wanting to hear from me again. Do I have a script? No, It is all about listening to an individual and being creative with an answer.

I notice Gary trails with a Copyright notice on Vegan Abolitionist material, I do hope he rejects more people from using the Vegan Abolitionist banner when they seem to be using it as an outlet for anger, ego or to be rude to those that wish to take a different approach to the same destination.

I do not visit this list much and was totally unaware of this thread until last night. I am going to say a few things.

I am a close friend of AP's so I am biased. But I feel I am biased for a reason.

AP has done a lot more than what she lets on. I know in one 2 year campaign she saved thousands and thousands of ducks by legally challenging the NSw dept of education on their duck imprinting experiments. These ducks often ended in waterways after the experiment with no skills on how to look after themselves so they died a slow painful death. AP got it banned in every school across NSW.

Some of the people who have been in the movement a long time will all speak highly of her work. People like Peter Singer, Christine Townend, Glenys Oojges etc.

I will also tell you a bit more. AP and her father and one of her brothers stood up for aboriginals in West Australia in the 1960's. AP has been active with Amnesty International and spent much of her weekends in the 70's volunteering at the childrens hospital in Sydney. She spent time with children from country farms and the pacific islands that had no one visit them.

So why am I telling you this. Because compassion crosses all barriers. A truly compassionate person does not just work for animals. They also recognise the suffering of humans. I have never known Ap (and many others like her) turn a blind eye to any suffering if they are in a position to help.

AP also represents 2 overseas groups and one group went public saying they wish they could clone heer because of her achievements. So I am biased.

But when people like Gary Francione seem to make a sport of putting others down and his drongo followers do the same there is no wonder the real activists feel angry.
AP and people like Peter Singer, Christine Townend and others are right when they say you can work for both abolition and welfare.

I went to America last year with AP. At lunch one day we sat with a group of people who started to talk about Gary. These were people with huge achievements. Not one spoke highly of Gary. In fact most felt his fanatic approach and his constantly putting others down will cause the public to see us in a bad way.

If we can fast forward 20 years I guess we would still see Gary and his vegan abolitionists still running the real achievers down. People like the welfarists or those who do both will still be achieving.

Ap has written a lot and her story will soon be featured in a book but even I felt Dan was being Pompous (to use AP's words) when he said she should know he has written something.

This kind of anger will get these people no where and it will achieve nothing for those that suffer the most.

And another thing because AP still takes an active role in history she most likely knows the American Anti slavery movement better than these people do and she most likely can see why that approach won't work.

However you do not make others that work differently to you the scape goats for your own failures.

I am pleased to see most on this list as being reasonable people.

DH,

Actually, Richard Ryder coined the word “speciesism”, not Peter Singer.  Further, and ironically, Singer is a speciesist since he holds the ridiculous notion that sentient nonhumans have no interest in the continuation of their lives.  That view is utterly absurd.

ZZ,

You will NEVER improve industrial animal agriculture.  It has been tried for as long as industrial animal ag has existed and it continually gets worse and expands.  Attempting to improve industrial animal ag is like spitting into the wind.  Have fun.

if:

dogmatism involves the convergence of three highly interrelated sets of variables:

• closed cognitive systems
• authoritarianism
• intolerance

then:

then perhaps the vegan abolitionist approach could be seen as a dogmatic and closed belief system

MikeyM
That is exactly what it is.

Dan, you still haven't approached the both/and as opposed to either/or position. I respectfully submit that more is accomplished through respectful dialogue and trying to see that more is accomplished by a multiplicity of paths towards a goal.

To take a political analogy, the Bush administration held a typical black/white, for us/against us position and had no time for dialogue or the big picture with disastrous consequences for humanity. Obama has just been awarded a peace prize for not doing this.

Hi Dan,

My last post said "... invest my charitable time and money only in vegan education"

and you reply with "Attempting to improve industrial animal ag is like spitting into the wind.  Have fun."

This is exactly why I say educators need to listen understand and give an appropriate answer. Not only will not listening result in failure to communicate it may even insult.

Have you ever thought to consider the only people that are giving you positive feedback about your blogs are people who are already ethical vegans. Hardly your target audience.

MikeyM, Interesting observation, I also note that all the vegans I knew before they became a Gary devotee were already dogmatic and the type of personality that would infer an omnivore was a pedophile in their initial conversation. So it seems Gary does not create dogmatic people but attracts them. Of course this is a personal observation only and I have not done a comprehensive survey of his followers.

**Actually, Richard Ryder coined the word “speciesism” ** Dan C

I stand corrected.  But thanks to Peter Singer, 30 years ago Animal Liberation groups sprang up in every state in Australia.  He fired up the average person in the street - not just intellectuals - and it brought the horrors of factory farming to a public which had no notion of its existence.    People became familiar with vegetarians and vegans.  I only knew of one vegetarian up until I was 40.  We now have vegan and vegetarian restaurants, vegan cookbooks galore, and other restaurants who at least know what to serve a vegan (in most cases).  I haven't seen anything remotely similar from the abolitionists and I guess that's why the constant "putting down" of Peter Singer really irks me.

DH said "I stand corrected"
No calling you dogmatic DH :)

Hopefully more people can stand corrected.

Thanks ZZ - but as you realise - my comment was in response to Dan C.

Should have done my homework, shouldn't I? Or my dementia is running faster than I am!! Actually I had read Peter Singer long before I read Richard Ryder, so maybe that's where I got the idea.

Following one person in the movement is no different to people who follow someone who says they are god's representative.

They follow these people blindly and cannot see the shades of grey in between. They do not even question it. They just believe they are on the right path and just follow.

It is something I cannot understand. Yes it is harder to question things and harder to take the time to delve deeper. It is harder to forgive mistakes made by others. But a greater peace of mind comes with thinking for yourself.

People who get into these situations end up hating anyone who does not agree with them, they end up separating themselves from anyone who does not agree with them, they start to blame others for their own failures etc.

It is destructive. However most of garys followers that I have met are the same. It has gone on for some years and whilst overseas the groups have been facing these problems we have not seen it in Australia.

In some ways it is good Veb posted this link as many are seeing there can be destructive elements even in the animal advocacy movement.

Again if people want to be like Dan, then that is OK. But do not criticise others that are effective, do not blame others for your own failures and do not foster a culture of hatred.

You will be the one in the long run destroyed by it.

I really don't understand these people whether Ar people, religious people etc.

Gary has a small following. Even most of the vegan abolitionists that I have met don't want anything to do with him. I suppose there is not point in bothering with these people as neither side will ever see eye to eye.

I just checked my email as I had asked a friend in the thick of this in the USA what she thinks of it all.

She just said these people have not achieved anything as far as she knows. She has not read of one victory score because of them. She also went on to say the movement needs many different approaches to attract many different people. Therefore in her opinion no one approach is the only approach and the most sensible approach to her is a mixture of abolition and welfare.

It is the most humane approach. And she is in the thick of all this debate about Gary.

I personally have never understood this approach that it has to be one or the other and to a certain extent they are intertwined.

I don't agree with the abolitionist approach because it is a fanciful ideological notion that does not work in the real world for the simple reason that it is fundamentally incapable of doing so.

This does not mean, however, that it is a worthless idea by any means - it has a lot of value as a symbol of what we should be aiming for - just that it is too impractical to ever achieve the aims it embraces.

The reason is that abolitionism is critically wounded by the fact that it uncompromisingly ignores fundamental elements of human nature and existence generally. There are no absolutes in nature, there are no absolutes in human society, and there are no absolutes in human thought. Rather, there are sliding scales of varying magnitudes and natures, along which can be found in a continuous spectrum all manner of people, ideas, and practices.

No matter how successful we may be in convincing some people to stop eating and abusing animals, it is an inalienable fact that there will always remain a significant number who will refuse to admit we even have a point, let alone care about making any effort to meet us halfway in compromise. The abolitionist approach serves only to further entrench opposition to our aims and ideals, and has a better chance of mobilising opposition than of winning significant numbers of 'converts'.

In contrast, taking a more moderated approach that recognises the existence of the continuum, and which encourages people just to do what they can (as opposed to doing what we tell them!), far more people will take many more steps in the right direction. Sure, they may well continue to eat and use animal products, but for every ten people who take one-tenth of a step, that's one more person than the abolitionist approach would have gained for the cause. It wont eliminate animal consumption, but it will certainly do a lot more to reduce it, and that's a win that the abolitionist approach will only ever be able to dream of achieving.

The abolitionist approach would essentially require that a restaurant not serve any meat products whatsoever, whereas the moderate approach would simply encourage them to make more veg*n meals available. I would not be able to get my friends to go to an abolitionist restaurant at all, and thus they would only ever consume animal-based meals when dining out. But at a moderate restaurant, where they don't feel threatened, they get the chance to see the great veg*n meals I'm eating, and may well try some themselves when we go out to eat on future occasions. Okay, they'll still be eating meat when they're at home (maybe?) but when they're out with me they'll be eating veg*n instead, thus reducing their consumption of animal products and thereby playing a part in reducing overall demand, which in turn reduces the number of animals forced to suffer to provide human food.

As an ideal, I support the abolitionist approach wholeheartedly, make no mistake about that. But I also recognise that in the real world, abolitionism is doomed to fail no matter what approach we take with it, and I further recognise that pushing on with it in ignorance of this fact will only alienate omnis and damage the cause we all hope to promote. So with due recognition for realities of our world, and with the wellbeing of animals close to my heart, I make the only rational and supportable choice that is available, and embrace the moderate approach in my daily life. Furthermore, I do so with the knowledge that if not for the availability of a moderate approach, I would still be an omni myself - as I daresay would be the case for many who so fervantly berate any who do not embrace the abolitionist cause as they have done themselves.

Blue Penguin said.
The reason is that abolitionism is critically wounded by the fact that it uncompromisingly ignores fundamental elements of human nature and existence generally. There are no absolutes in nature, there are no absolutes in human society, and there are no absolutes in human thought. Rather, there are sliding scales of varying magnitudes and natures, along which can be found in a continuous spectrum all manner of people, ideas, and practices.

Exactly. There are no absolutes and at this stage there is no hope of that happening. We are all aiming for abolition but some are just a bit more practical.

Thanks Blue Penguin.

A classic example...I've had a friend staying this week who has tolerated eating vegan for the privilege of a week in Noosa, but who is indifferent to animals and totally ignored my cat. Now there is no way that this person would ever be concerned about animal welfare and the only means to appeal to cut back meat would have to be via health path or maybe environment path. I think very many people have no interest in animals, and so abolitionist arguments would fall on deaf ears. But if their doctor told them to cut out meat that would be different.

One of the reasons I asked Dan for an example of the welfarists holding back abolition is because there is no example of that. So the welfarists do not hold back the abolitionists. And why is there not an example of that. Because no government has ever even considered going abolitionist because the populations do not want it at this stage.

The welfarists are not holding back abolitionist. The public and the population are. The welfarists are doing the best they can to make life better for animals in an uncaring society. So scape goating the welfarists is a cop out.

Another thing is that they say the plantations holders brought in a series of welfare reforms so they would not have to abolish slavery. That may be so but it is not the factory farm lots and chicken egg producers that are asking for reforms so they do not have to go abolitionist. Here in Australia they do not even want changes for welfare.

It is the welfarists asking for reform - not the slave owners. Welfarists with no personal gain. Welfarists that leave the abolitionists to fight their fight so they can get on with making things better in the mean time. You cannot even compare the 2 situations. There is no proof that any government has even considered going abolitionist. That is the problem not the welfarists.

veb said "If you read any abolitionist blogs, for example, the message is simple and often repeated - creative vegan education. Teach people about why and how to be vegan. That's it. Simple and concise."

I hope no offence is taken, veb, but I also hope you can appreciate the irony that what you see as a core aspect of abolitionism is in fact the starting point of the welfare approach that abolitionists spend so much time denigrating.

Why? Because the point at which everything must start is education. Without education, there can never be any progress towards any goals of any nature. But does education get you from A-Z in a single step? No, hardly ever - in fact, many people who start at A wont get anywhere near Z at all. What does happen is that even those who get from A-Z get there in a process that involves stopping at varying numbers of points along the way, and some of the others will stop at D or K or P or W, as is always the way with humans and their activities.

Thus you have very neatly, and in only a single sentence, shown a subconscious awareness of the substantial value of the more moderate welfarist approach, which starts with education and supports people to progress as far along that pathway towards Z as they can individually manage. Kudos to those who make it to Z of course, but let's not diminish the valued contribution to lessening the sufferring of animals made by those who at least made some degree of progress along the same path - it's better than leaving them all stuck at A because they know in their heart that they just wont ever get to Z, so why bother if there's no in between.

10 gold stars to you, blue penguin!

Thanks, DH. I wonder how long it will take before welfarists and abolitionists stop fighting for long enough to realise that they're both working to the same ends, and would benefit from sharing the same methods? Abolitionism is the end point we should aim for, but welfarism is the means by which we can encourage people to start moving in that direction.

If we were all 100% welfarist, then we would probably end up not pushing as hard as we should, and would never go as far as we might have done otherwise. But if we were all 100% abolitionist, we'd scare of so many people who think it's just too much to do in a single step that we'd end up doing more harm than good. As with so many other things in life, the best course to steer is somewhere in the middle, taking the best that both sides have to offer, and going much further than we would if we took sides.

All,

Welfarism is an animal product consumers' cause.  Of course they want to feel better about slaughtering and consuming the bodily fluids and burnt offerings of the innocent.  The welfarist movement is going strong, and all of you who are on "the animals' side" are going right along with the nonvegans' cause.

All I'm asking is that, IF (yes, IF) you are a vegan, then take up the vegans' cause, which is to insist on vegan education and nothing less than vegan living as a minimum standard of decency toward beings who are worthy of just as much respect as innocent children.

Welfarism is pro-violence.  Help stop the violence instead of apologizing for the violence.