Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Gary Francione Interview
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
I wonder what Gary Francione would do if he had the kind of funding some of the AW groups have. It's clear he thinks they are squandering their donation money, or basically using it to keep themselves in business, but has he said what he would do with it if it were up to him?
Maybe it's not a fair question since he's not really about fund-raising himself. But it seems he's criticizing them for what they say and do as they contend with government and industry, not the fact that their efforts are directed there.
What does Francione think the AW organizations should be doing instead of what they are doing? There is no interface with the government or industry in which an abolitionist can credibly urge government to mandate veganism, or try to force industry to cease meat production. I know he believes the answer is to bring down demand, but how does he propose to do that on a meaningful scale? If he believed "animal people" should unite the clans and try to get the agriculture subsidies removed, that would make sense to me, but I've never heard him advocate anything like that. I haven't heard him say activists should ignore industry and government and throw every bit of their resources at persuading consumers, but that does seem to be what he's getting at. Except that he also seems to think Vegan Outreach, which is doing just that, is also doing it wrong. Has he written the text for his own style of leaflet, and tried to get volunteers to hand them out?
Maybe it's not a fair question since he's not really about fund-raising himself. But it seems he's criticizing them for what they say and do as they contend with government and industry, not the fact that their efforts are directed there.
What does Francione think the AW organizations should be doing instead of what they are doing? There is no interface with the government or industry in which an abolitionist can credibly urge government to mandate veganism, or try to force industry to cease meat production. I know he believes the answer is to bring down demand, but how does he propose to do that on a meaningful scale? If he believed "animal people" should unite the clans and try to get the agriculture subsidies removed, that would make sense to me, but I've never heard him advocate anything like that. I haven't heard him say activists should ignore industry and government and throw every bit of their resources at persuading consumers, but that does seem to be what he's getting at. Except that he also seems to think Vegan Outreach, which is doing just that, is also doing it wrong. Has he written the text for his own style of leaflet, and tried to get volunteers to hand them out?
Joined
·
7,853 Posts
A few years back, prior to veganism crossing over into the mainstream, I didn't agree with Francione on all that much. Now, apart from some differences about the role AW has to play in our culture, it is hard for me to see much difference between his views and my own.
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
Quote:
Yes, he has some. But his fail. Here's why: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/readability-rights/Originally Posted by Joan Kennedy
Has he written the text for his own style of leaflet, and tried to get volunteers to hand them out?
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Quote:
![]()
Someone wants hits!Originally Posted by ElaineV
Yes, he has some. But his fail. Here's why: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/readability-rights/
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
Quote:
It's hard to imagine why Francione would make his leaflets harder to read than his blogs. I can't imagine a college student having a hard time getting through one of his blogs. Disagreeing, maybe, but not misunderstanding.
You're right about that index; the best way to bring the index number down is to chop down the text into shorter sentences. I've used it when writing for specific reading levels. Before getting to know it in MS Word, I thought the biggest barrier to readability would be use of low-frequency "high vocabulary" words.Originally Posted by ElaineV
Yes, he has some. But his fail. Here's why: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/readability-rights/
It's hard to imagine why Francione would make his leaflets harder to read than his blogs. I can't imagine a college student having a hard time getting through one of his blogs. Disagreeing, maybe, but not misunderstanding.
Joined
·
4,030 Posts
Quote:
The fact that he hasn't even bothered to consider readability says a lot about what he values and about how he measures success.
I've pointed out before that Francione's criticisms of welfarism are - by his own admission - based on intuition not on any empirical evidence. The fact that he would spend so much time and energy promoting his untested, unproved theory is bad enough. But it's absolutely reprehensible that he would produce leaflets that completely fail at the primary purpose of advocacy - to be understood.
If it were acceptable for only a tiny percentage of people to understand animal advocacy then we wouldn't need animal advocates. The animals have their own voices and they speak up in opposition to their treatment. They are not voiceless. Just watch Farm to Fridge and hear the animals scream, cry, whine, beg for mercy...
The problem is not that animals don't have a voice, the problem is that they are not understood. Most people do not hear the animals' cries of pain as pain. They need another human being to explain it. And it needs to be explained in a way that makes sense to that person, a way that fits with their worldview, experience, education level, etc.
Yes, that's one easy way to make something easier to understand. It also has the benefit of increasing the number of people who will read it.Originally Posted by Joan Kennedy
You're right about that index; the best way to bring the index number down is to chop down the text into shorter sentences. I've used it when writing for specific reading levels. Before getting to know it in MS Word, I thought the biggest barrier to readability would be use of low-frequency "high vocabulary" words.
The fact that he hasn't even bothered to consider readability says a lot about what he values and about how he measures success.
I've pointed out before that Francione's criticisms of welfarism are - by his own admission - based on intuition not on any empirical evidence. The fact that he would spend so much time and energy promoting his untested, unproved theory is bad enough. But it's absolutely reprehensible that he would produce leaflets that completely fail at the primary purpose of advocacy - to be understood.
If it were acceptable for only a tiny percentage of people to understand animal advocacy then we wouldn't need animal advocates. The animals have their own voices and they speak up in opposition to their treatment. They are not voiceless. Just watch Farm to Fridge and hear the animals scream, cry, whine, beg for mercy...
The problem is not that animals don't have a voice, the problem is that they are not understood. Most people do not hear the animals' cries of pain as pain. They need another human being to explain it. And it needs to be explained in a way that makes sense to that person, a way that fits with their worldview, experience, education level, etc.
Joined
·
2,898 Posts
Anyone know when this interview was shot? Gary uses his 'moral schizophrenia' catchphrase. I know it has been pointed out to him that this is at best problematic. Many who live with (or are connected to someone who lives with) schizophrenia don't care for this usage.
Guess it's difficult to shoehorn a concept like respect for others' self definition into a Western legal philosophy of property rights though.
![]()
(see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/)
Guess it's difficult to shoehorn a concept like respect for others' self definition into a Western legal philosophy of property rights though.
(see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001925/)
Joined
·
7,853 Posts
Quote:
I think Francione frequently gets misunderstood on that point. As I understand it, he is basically saying that AW changes will happen in production regardless due to economic necessity rather than ethical concerns.Originally Posted by Cerulean
I'm a bit confused by the notion of nonhuman animals deserving the same consideration as humans, but not working to reduce their plights ASAP for some overarching ideology that may never be attainable.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
