ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

THX-1138 wrote:If there was a holocaust committed against humans, most people would probably say that taking up arms and committing violence would be morally acceptable. I know this sounds rather radical and absurd on face value, but even killing would be morally legitimate. Would killing a Nazi in order to save a Jew destined to be exterminated by morally acceptable? I would say yes, and so would most people.

Then comes the issue of practicality, since committing violence is impractical in the sense that it won't solve any real major problem and since it will most likely harm the overall goal, one should not engage in these forms of acts. And since its not practical, it is morally wrong. Though it is not inherently wrong.

I can't help but wonder if these two paragraphs contradict each other? The first one says violence is morally acceptable and legitimate, the second one that violence is morally wrong. Could you please explain?

Was it impractical (as the second paragraph states) to fight Nazis in WWII, and did the violent action against Nazis not end the systematic abuse and slaughter of Jews and other ethnic minorities?

In just war theory, one of the stipulations is that war is only acceptable if there is a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, it is futile. Being that violence on behalf of animals, and by violence I mean violence against humans, such as guerilla or terrorist tactics, really has no chance of succeeding since there are so few AR advocates. In WWII on the other hand, was much different, there clearly was a reasonable chance of success especially since Germany was at war and the genocide that was committed was against individuals that could potentially fight back. So, the two cases are completely different.

THX-1138 wrote:In just war theory, one of the stipulations is that war is only acceptable if there is a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, it is futile. Being that violence on behalf of animals, and by violence I mean violence against humans, such as guerilla or terrorist tactics, really has no chance of succeeding since there are so few AR advocates. In WWII on the other hand, was much different, there clearly was a reasonable chance of success especially since Germany was at war and the genocide that was committed was against individuals that could potentially fight back. So, the two cases are completely different.

Alright. Thanks for clearing this up for me

This isn't comprehensive, but I think actions that are deliberately conceived to provoke fear or cause physical or psychological damage might be considered violent. I disagree that showing people disturbing pictures or video is violent. Sharing the truth may discomfort some, but there is nothing about it that is meant to instill fear or cause damage. Any psychological harm people experience watching videos like Meet Your Meat is perfectly natural, and is only intensified by their personal contribution to the suffering and exploitation that they are witnessing.

AnimalFriendly: Your definition is interesting. Gives much food for thought. Thank you.

Where exactly would the followers of these principles written by Gary Francione draw the line between non-violence and violence?

This question originates from welfarist thinking. It is the welfarist who believes that he may define violence as he pleases. There is no "line to be drawn". It is for the convenience of the welfarist that they have a movable line which wanders about redefining what is violence and what is not depending upon what suits the welfarist.

Violence is real, not an abstract, subjective concept. Abolition is the process of ending that real violence against all animals. Abolition is non-violence -- no violence, zero violence. Everything else is violence.

It is not in the interests of Abolitionists to allow welfarists to frame the dialog. The idea that you do not know what violence is arises from welfarist conditioning that welfarism is not violence. Welfarism is violence. To the extent that there is anything other than complete non-use and non-ownership of animals, there is violence against those animals. (Humans are animals.)

It is not in our interests to pursue nonviolence. That is allowing the welfarists to frame the dialog. It is in our interests to purse Abolition. Nonviolence is an automatic and inevitable side-effect of our single-minded focus on Abolition.

"Non-violence" is another bad word. Do not allow the welfarists to change the subject. If they want non-violence, then they must embrace Abolition, not the other way around.

I think there is a difference between "force" and "violence." Violence is essentially force directed at another living being. Force can be used constructively and violently. I agree with someone's sentiments earlier that the currently animal exploitation system is inherently violent. We use force to imprison, torture and kill animals. But force can be used to liberate. To break open cages and enclosures to free animals from their enslavement.

And I think this is where the societal misconception comes in; and it is intentional. The powers that be would have the masses believe that ALL force is violent. Breaking and entering to save a life is a violent action and hence deemed as a terrorist action. And I think it's a lot of bullshit that people are saying "we're emotionally traumatised because someone broke into our laboratory and saved the animals." And even if they are, maybe they'll realise just a fraction of the torment that cause the animals to endure!