That's true, I could have worded that better. It's an all or nothing view versus one that includes incremental change, that isn't a very snappy title thoughOriginally Posted by ElaineV
This thread is mis-titled. It is not rights vs welfare. It's about what are effective paths towards rights? Might some paths include welfare reforms?
Exactly what I was trying to start a discussion about. Is pushing for incremental change an effective way to improve living conditions for animals and educate people about animal rights or does it actually hinder the process and make people feel more comfortable continuing to kill and eat animals since they can argue they aren't being treated badly?Originally Posted by Josh James xVx
I'm not really interested in either term. I'm interested in how simple actions humans make every day can make the world tangibly better or worse for other living animals, and more importantly how I can effectively educate others on this subject to make more compassionate choices as well.
Read "Change of Heart" by Nick Cooney. It's received rave reviews from activists of many stripes. It's about how to apply over eighty years of human psychology to activism.Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl
Exactly what I was trying to start a discussion about. Is pushing for incremental change an effective way to improve living conditions for animals and educate people about animal rights or does it actually hinder the process and make people feel more comfortable continuing to kill and eat animals since they can argue they aren't being treated badly?
The HuffPo piece I linked to has some convincing sounding arguments from both sides, both in the article and in the comments, and the more I read the less sure I feel about where I stand.
This is very well put, sorry to snip it all out, but didn't want to cause unnecessary scrolling. As I've just been asked to help with a 'meat free' initiative at my university, this is probably the tack I'll be forced to take anyhow, so it's good to see some grounding for it. I can't expect the sports guys to even pay attention if I wave a veganism leaflet in their face, but I think reducing meat consumption might be a good angle to approach them from, and leave vegan leaflets on the table for people to pick up.
I mostly agree although I'm more optimistic. I think that there will be some major shifts within my lifetime.Originally Posted by Nishani
Slow incremental change from generation to generation is the way society has always evolved when it comes to important issues within the culture. I can't think of a single issue that has changed very rapidly. Just as an example, women's rights and gay rights all took many years to come into effect and even now, many people within those groups are still fighting for equality to some degree, so I don't know why people would think animal rights would be any different.
I have an underlying theoretical support for abolition, but practically, I know that incremental change is the way it will happen. I know that things are changing , I can see it happening now, but I fully expect to be dead and gone before most people in our society cease eating animals and have reached a stage of enlightenment where they know it is wrong to treat animals as a commodity.
Agreed, I'd prefer to make that my focus as well, I feel a lot more comfortable encouraging my friends and family and the world in general to eat more vegan food.Originally Posted by ElaineV
I tend to see legal reform more as a symbolic marker of a society's consciousness rather than as a good in and of itself, which is why I don't have much problem with welfare reforms. I see them as giant education campaigns that inspire ethical development. So I'm not threatened by them. That said, I prefer to spend my own time and money doing more straight-forward vegan education.
a big + 1 and everything in between!Originally Posted by Sevenseas
I think framing this issue in terms of abolition vs. incremental change is misleading...
...So it's a disagreement over strategy, and over sociological facts, and over politics -- not a fundamental philosophical disagreement about morality, as Francione would have you believe.
*excited* really? Do you possibly have a link for that? a simple google search was ineffective.Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Yeah I don't find his anti-single-issue-campaign views very plausible. Or, rather, I find them plausible for some very specific campaigns that only protest a very specific type of cruelty, but not when the targeted industry or animal product is larger in scope or cultural significance, such as circuses, or fur, or whatever. Even Francione had to begrudgingly admit recently that he just-might-possibly support some campaigns against the use of horses for carriage rides in New York.
Yes, it's in this podcast, where he is interviewing a woman from a vegan advocacy group who also does anti-carriage campaigning. I would say it's closer to the end of the podcast than the beginning, but you'll have to listen to the file for yourself if you're interested:Originally Posted by Cedre
*excited* really? Do you possibly have a link for that? a simple google search was ineffective.
We've been trying to ban horse carriages here in Victoria and there's been quite a kerfuffle amongst the AR groups, specifically due to Francione's anti single issue campaign views. Really tragic!
cheers, thanks! Big help!!Originally Posted by Sevenseas
Yes, it's in this podcast, where he is interviewing a woman from a vegan advocacy group who also does anti-carriage campaigning. I would say it's closer to the end of the podcast than the beginning, but you'll have to listen to the file for yourself if you're interested: