ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

OdEa wrote:because single-issue campaigns make a sort of hierarchy that let people think: "if they are campaigning against fur(for example),

Maybe, it does make people think that way, yes. I can accept that a a hypothesis. Not as empirical evidence unless you can back your statements with serious studies from psychologists, historians, sociologists, etc. Please note that I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong.

it means that fur is worst than any other sort of animal exploitation" then I don't believe it is consistent with an abolitionist approach.

I'm not really sure about what you are saying. I will assume that you are referring to Gary L. Francione's abolitionist approach. If that is so, your statement is incorrect. Even Gary is willing to accept that single-issue campaigns can sometimes play a crucial role on an abolitionist approach if they carry a clear abolitionist, vegan message. So I assume what you are saying is a contradiction. But it's ok, anyone can make mistakes.

I think it already have been discussed in an other topic.

Yes, of course. The "single-issue campaigns" issue has been discussed for years now. Very tiresome discussion actually.

kamaleon wrote:who are all these people appropriating the term "abolitionism" from?

when we speak about abolitionism we don't speak of the abolition of the human slavery...nor the abolition of bullfights.
I don't see why its not clear that abolitionism is about the abolition of the property status of non-human animals.

I'm ever so sorry to have to point this out to you again. But you just made another contradiction
If "abolition" doesn't encompass abolition of all sorts of animal exploitation like the particular cases "human slavery" or "bullfights" then you are contradicting yourself.
To use your own words (well... are they really yours? ) if abolition of the property status of non-human animals does not imply the abolition of the above practices then you sure as hell got me confused

Anyway, I'm sorry, but you did not answer my question. I'll repeat it: Who are all these people appropriating the term "abolitionism" from?

When you are abolitionist you are abolitionist of all sort of animal exploitation,

Ok, so I was right, you did mean all sort of animal exploitation... which leaves me even more confused

and its a language abuse when people against bullfight says they are abolitionists...

I don't see why...
People who fought for the abolitionism of slavery in the U.S., weren't they abolitionists? Yes or no?

is it logical to say that an omnivore is an abolitionist?

Well... that depends. Which abolition are we talking about here?

Also a guy who support the meat abolition mouvement can be vegetarian and use animal tested products...

A guy, or a woman, or even a trans-gender individual, yes of course! I'm not really sure again of what you are saying. So is the abolitionist message supposed to adress vegans only? I'm sure as hell happy if there are vegetarians that are receptive to and supportive of the message. Or freegans. Even omnivores! Were you born a vegan?

Gary L. Francione wrote:Dear Colleagues:

Dear Gary:
Should I assume I am one of your Colleagues? I sure am willing to accept that I am, otherwise I might think that you are being impolite if you are addressing them and not me. Knowing that I have engaged in a discussion with you, I would definetly expect you to adress me back.

I am not particularly interested in engaging "kamaleon" because it is a waste of time.

I see. I am compelled to admit that you are indeed being impolite. I will kindly ask you to reconsider your decision. Otherwise I will be forced to think that you are not a honest individual that is open to debate. As the honest and strongly ethical person that I am sure you are, and that is willing to listen to someone else's points of view, even if they're not in accordance to your own, I would definetly expect a honest discussion with arguments rather than a refusal to reply. I'm sure you wouldn't want others to think the contrary about you, would you?

Let's go back and say fair play, shake hands and forget you ever said that, ok?

As you can see, we are lapsing back into the Olivier/Benio "there is no position" position that is supposedly held by groups in France that aren't really groups that have any position so you cannot criticize their positions because they don't have any as a group

I believe this claim is a strawman phallacy. I can't remember saying there are no groups. I'm saying that there are groups with clear positions - whether you disagree with their positions is a different matter. I'm saying there are informal collectives also - whether you disagree with their positions is a different matter. I'm saying there are individuals - whether you agree or disagree with their positions is a different matter.

But you portraied "the antispeciesist utilitarian group" - these are your words, not mine. And no, there is no "antispeciesist utilitarian group". What do you want me to say to you? There just isn't one. There are many individuals, collectives and even organisations that deal with the antispeciesist (as is the popular term around here) issue. Sometimes there are clear positions, sometimes there aren't. Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we hate each other. What's so complicated to understand about it?

and "abolition" means whatever anyone thinks it means, etc.

Gary, would you be so kind to explain what it means then? Because I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore. Is it your vision of abolition you're referring to?

According to the online Merriem-Webster dictionary of the English language, there are traces of the word abolition going back to 1529.

I'm sure it wouldn't even cross your mind that you could ever claim copyright for that word, would it?

Knowing that, I will kindly remember you that maybe others might have a word to say about abolitionism too. Whether you agree or disagree with those views is a different matter, and you'll find that people might actually be interested in "wasting" their time discussing it with you.

Maybe I should remember anyone reading this that this is ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum - Vegans exploring the abolitionist approach to Animal Rights - not ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum - Vegans exploring the Gary L. Francione's abolitionist approach to Animal Rights.

Now that we got that clear, maybe we can finally start swapping some interesting ideas about deontology, utilitarianism and only after that we will be able to determine if they are compatible with abolitionism or not

Gee - you might even realise that some people actually agree with you on some key issues, should you care to listen to what they are!

For the record, however, it was not I or "someone close" to me who said that Antoine Comiti was not a vegan. It was Antoine Comiti:

Francione: I am assuming that Antoine, Estiva, and David are vegans, is that correct?

Comiti: No, I'm not: I do not, in all circumstances, boycott all animal products (neither do I refuse to sit in a taxi that has seat with leather, nor refuse to pay taxes although that helps subsidize animal agriculture, etc.).

See http://meatabolition.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -meat.html

Ok, fair enough. So Antoine did say he was not a vegan. Thanks for clarifying that!

Please, by all means, let me comment on that - knowing that I do not even know him - but I suspect I understand his reasoning. So what I'll do is that I will try to explain it to you.

Antoine is not sure he could ever claim to be a vegan. Knowing that animals are used in basically all aspects of human existence, he isn't sure he could ever honestly consider himself a vegan. I realise you have referred to those as "moral hazards". The question is: where do you draw the line, or better yet, where is the line that makes people feel comfortable in calling themselves vegans? You don't establish the line at the same place as Antoine. That's fine! If my assumptions are right - neither you, neither I am vegan, any more or any less than Antoine.

Actually, what the heck do I know - I don't even know Antoine. He might even be an omnivore for all I know! Shame on me for putting words in his mouth.
But I sure can understand that some people can think like that. Whether this is something you are able to grasp or not, is a different matter. You see, the world is not like Mani described centuries ago. Things are not either black or white. Maybe they're like that to you - that doesn't mean that is reality.

So because we cannot live a perfectly moral life (taxis have leather seats and we pay taxes), we have no obligation to be vegans. Great thinking.

GLF

Wrong conclusion. The good one is: we have the obligation to be vegans. Are we vegans according to Gary L. Francione's definition (which I sure as hell have no clue what it is)? Probably not.

kamaleon wrote:I'm not really sure about what you are saying. I will assume that you are referring to Gary L. Francione's abolitionist approach. If that is so, your statement is incorrect. Even Gary is willing to accept that single-issue campaigns can sometimes play a crucial role on an abolitionist approach if they carry a clear abolitionist, vegan message. So I assume what you are saying is a contradiction. But it's ok, anyone can make mistakes.

where did you see that I was speaking of single-issue campaigns WITH a clear abolitionist, vegan message? (did you ever see a french single issue campaign with a clear abolitionist vegan message???)
anyone can make mistake...

kamaleon wrote:To use your own words (well... are they really yours? )

no I don't have capacity to think and make sentence by myself...so I only write with copy/past....
but you, you seems to have skills in manipulating what people said.

OdEa wrote:where did you see that I was speaking of single-issue campaigns WITH a clear abolitionist, vegan message? (did you ever see a french single issue campaign with a clear abolitionist vegan message???)

Nowhere, because you never mentioned single-issue campaigns WITH a clear abolitionist, vegan message. You mentioned single-issue campaigns, period. Don't twist things around, please.

anyone can make mistake...

On the other hand, if you carry on doing them on purpose, then they cease to be mistakes I'm afraid...

kamaleon wrote:To use your own words (well... are they really yours? )

no I don't have capacity to think and make sentence by myself...so I only write with copy/past....
but you, you seems to have skills in manipulating what people said.

Not at all! The expression "abolition of the property status of non-human animals" is obviously borrowed from Gary L. Francione. What exactly am I trying to manipulate here?

Wasn't this a thread about a parade in New York?

There will be plenty of vegans, vegan food, and vegan music.
Cheryl Hill Band
Pamela Rice
Karen Davis
Vegans have nothing to be ashamed of and should be proud. JMHO
May 18th
http://www.veggieprideparade.org/
Come on out and join us and be a part of history. Or you can stay at home, behind your puter with your pacifist vegan ideology and throw stones at those who are promoting awareness in positive ways.

AnimalFriendly wrote:Wasn't this a thread about a parade in New York?

Considering how few vegans there are in the world the debate is a bit like being in a life boat at sea with an impending storm and arguing vigorously over the color the boat should have been painted.