ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

We sincerely invite PETA to join the team pro-abolition!

I posted a blog entry which closely examines and analyzes this law:

http://sfvegan.org/2008/07/california-h ... allot.html

Great entry, Barna! Thanks for providing the actual text; I had to click around on the site for some time before getting to it. Most of the links that should provide it only give you more advertising copy. I loved your conclusion:

It is extremely disingenuous of the supporters to use the slogan "Vote to prevent animal cruelty!" to promote Proposition 2. As a more fitting slogan, may I suggest:

"Vote to minimally reduce cruelty at certain times to certain animals in certain situations, while reinforcing and encouraging the production and consumption of animal products and giving legal protection to rodeos!"

This is something I was thinking about quite seriously.

Because yesterday, one of my contacts on facebook (Vegan) invited me to vote for HSUS in a 'favourite cause' poll on facebook. the group with most votes gets some donation amounting to thousands of dollars - or so the thing claimed.

I told him that I don't support groups that promote happy meat. But I had to think for a while before deciding this because none of the other groups in the poll was an animal interest group. So, it wasn't a matter of choosing the group whose activities are maximally conducive to the abolitionist purpose, as James wrote in an earlier post. It was a question of whether or not to support the ONLY animal issues group on there .. So, I was a little ponderous.

eventually, I decided not to because of the same old argument - HSUS probably do more harm in the long term. But, just the fact that it was a choice between voting FOR an animal interest group against others, rather than a choice between an abolitionist group and a welfarist one got me thinking. Should I help HSUS get extra funding? Looking at in isolation (cos this is not concerned with abolitionist groups in any way), will this extra funding do harm to animals in the long term?

I thought it would, and decided against voting for HSUS.

Kevin_Pietersen wrote:eventually, I decided not to because of the same old argument - HSUS probably do more harm in the long term. But, just the fact that it was a choice between voting FOR an animal interest group against others, rather than a choice between an abolitionist group and a welfarist one got me thinking. Should I help HSUS get extra funding? Looking at in isolation (cos this is not concerned with abolitionist groups in any way), will this extra funding do harm to animals in the long term?

I thought it would, and decided against voting for HSUS.

If we didn't support HSUS then we wouldn't be "doing nothing." Quite the contrary. The abolitionist argument against welfarism is that it (1) makes exploitation more efficient, and (2) increases social acceptance of animal use. It follows from this that welfare corporations condition the problem of animal exploitation; they are part of the latter's financial and ideological support-system, the life-blood of which is the public's support. This means that principled nonparticipation and noncooperation, that is, the withdrawal of support, both financial and ideological, from welfarist corporations, is doing something for abolition.

I blogged on an issue like this: http://abolitionistanimalrights.blogspo ... shift.html

Yes, HSUS is extraordinarily useful to the animal agriculture industry not only by giving it free publicity, but also by disseminating info to its own practitioners. It takes awhile for economic analysis reports to filter through to all the operations, but if mainstream media broadcasts stuff like

The reduction in carcass defects increases boning yield and deboned meat quality. CAK has been shown to reduce bruising by as much as 94 percent and bone fractures by as much as 80 percent. Conservatively assuming that CAK increases yield only 1 percent, a plant processing 1 million broilers per week with an average dressed carcass weight of 4.5 pounds and wholesale price of $0.80 per pound would increase annual revenue by $1.87 million after adopting CAK.

it's much easier to get Joe or Jane Farmer involved. from HSUS report cited in Gary's blog entry PETA and KFC: “no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated”

Still have trouble believing my eyes: an "animal protection org" talking about "carcass defects" and "deboned meat quality"?!

You were right not to vote for HSUS.

Are any abolitionists campaigning *against* Prop. 2, telling people to vote no? Either anyone on this list or any prominent activists?

Doris

Doris Lin
About.com guide to Animal Rights
http://animalrights.about.com/
Become an About.com Guide: http://beaguide.about.com
About.com is part of the New York Times Company

INteresting question!

I've thought about it, but I decided against it on the grounds that it's not the best use of my resources.