Artwork

Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
Checked 2+ y ago
Dodano nine lat temu
Treść dostarczona przez Gary L. Francione. Cała zawartość podcastów, w tym odcinki, grafika i opisy podcastów, jest przesyłana i udostępniana bezpośrednio przez Gary L. Francione lub jego partnera na platformie podcastów. Jeśli uważasz, że ktoś wykorzystuje Twoje dzieło chronione prawem autorskim bez Twojej zgody, możesz postępować zgodnie z procedurą opisaną tutaj https://pl.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - aplikacja do podcastów
Przejdź do trybu offline z Player FM !
icon Daily Deals

More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers”

 
Udostępnij
 

Manage episode 152516854 series 1062069
Treść dostarczona przez Gary L. Francione. Cała zawartość podcastów, w tym odcinki, grafika i opisy podcastów, jest przesyłana i udostępniana bezpośrednio przez Gary L. Francione lub jego partnera na platformie podcastów. Jeśli uważasz, że ktoś wykorzystuje Twoje dzieło chronione prawem autorskim bez Twojej zgody, możesz postępować zgodnie z procedurą opisaną tutaj https://pl.player.fm/legal.

I often hear people say that the difference between “animal abusers” like Michael Vick and Andre Robinson, and non-vegans, is that Vick and Robinson inflicted suffering on animals because they enjoyed the process of inflicting harm on animals whereas non-vegans just enjoy the taste of animal products but don’t want to harm animals. This difference, it is claimed, makes it wrong for me to say that non-vegans are morally indistinguishable from people like Vick and Robinson.

That is unsound thinking.

First of all, there are lots of non-vegans who do enjoy the process of killing animals. They are called hunters. Those people are in all ways–morally and psychologically–identical to Vick, Robinson, and anyone else who enjoys the actual process of harming animals.

But what about the non-hunting non-vegans who just buy animal products at their grocery store?

In order to understand their status, consider the following situations:

Situation #1: John kills Sam himself and enjoys the process of killing Sam.

Situation #2: Mike needs Morty to be dead in order to get an economic benefit (Mike will inherit money) but Mike is sad about that because he likes Morty and he abhors violence. Nevertheless, he needs Morty to die so he pays Dan to kill Morty. Mike enjoys the results of Morty being dead but did not enjoy the process of harming Morty.

There may be a psychological distinction between John and Dan on one hand, and Mike on the other; there is no moral difference. This moral equivalence is reflected in legal norms: John and Mike are both treated as murderers.

Once you realize that animal foods involve suffering and death (and no one over the age of 4 can claim not to realize that), and that we do not need to eat animals to be healthy, continuing to pay others to impose suffering and death on animals makes you morally indistinguishable from Vick, Robinson, and others you regard as “animal abusers.”

**********

If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2014 Gary L. Francione

The post More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

  continue reading

10 odcinków

Artwork
iconUdostępnij
 
Manage episode 152516854 series 1062069
Treść dostarczona przez Gary L. Francione. Cała zawartość podcastów, w tym odcinki, grafika i opisy podcastów, jest przesyłana i udostępniana bezpośrednio przez Gary L. Francione lub jego partnera na platformie podcastów. Jeśli uważasz, że ktoś wykorzystuje Twoje dzieło chronione prawem autorskim bez Twojej zgody, możesz postępować zgodnie z procedurą opisaną tutaj https://pl.player.fm/legal.

I often hear people say that the difference between “animal abusers” like Michael Vick and Andre Robinson, and non-vegans, is that Vick and Robinson inflicted suffering on animals because they enjoyed the process of inflicting harm on animals whereas non-vegans just enjoy the taste of animal products but don’t want to harm animals. This difference, it is claimed, makes it wrong for me to say that non-vegans are morally indistinguishable from people like Vick and Robinson.

That is unsound thinking.

First of all, there are lots of non-vegans who do enjoy the process of killing animals. They are called hunters. Those people are in all ways–morally and psychologically–identical to Vick, Robinson, and anyone else who enjoys the actual process of harming animals.

But what about the non-hunting non-vegans who just buy animal products at their grocery store?

In order to understand their status, consider the following situations:

Situation #1: John kills Sam himself and enjoys the process of killing Sam.

Situation #2: Mike needs Morty to be dead in order to get an economic benefit (Mike will inherit money) but Mike is sad about that because he likes Morty and he abhors violence. Nevertheless, he needs Morty to die so he pays Dan to kill Morty. Mike enjoys the results of Morty being dead but did not enjoy the process of harming Morty.

There may be a psychological distinction between John and Dan on one hand, and Mike on the other; there is no moral difference. This moral equivalence is reflected in legal norms: John and Mike are both treated as murderers.

Once you realize that animal foods involve suffering and death (and no one over the age of 4 can claim not to realize that), and that we do not need to eat animals to be healthy, continuing to pay others to impose suffering and death on animals makes you morally indistinguishable from Vick, Robinson, and others you regard as “animal abusers.”

**********

If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself.

The World is Vegan! If you want it.

Gary L. Francione
Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University

©2014 Gary L. Francione

The post More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

  continue reading

10 odcinków

Wszystkie odcinki

×
 
For decades, I have been writing that the anti-fur campaign (among others) is sexist. For example, various groups have been using this sort of imagery for years now: (click to enlarge) But fur is no different from wool, leather, or silk. In my book, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Movement , published by Temple University in Press in 1996, I stated: [T]he fur campaign has from the outset been tainted by sexism. The trapping or ranching of animals for fur is certainly barbaric and immoral, but fur is no more or less morally obnoxious than leather or wool. The primary difference is that furs are worn by women, and wool and leather, although also worn by women, are worn by virtually all men. Fur became an early target of the animal rights movement, and from the outset the imagery was, not unexpectedly, sexist. An early poster shows a pair of women’s legs (no torso, no head, just legs) clothed in black stockings and spiked high heels. The woman is dragging a fur coat, which is trailing blood. The caption reads: “It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat. But only one to wear it.” All animal clothing is morally objectionable. All animal exploitation is morally objectionable. Reject animal exploitation. Reject sexism. Go vegan. See the connections. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. And the Aboliutionist Approach, as a foundational principle, rejects all discrimination, including sexism and any other form of discrimination (racism, heterosexism, classism, etc.). The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post Go Vegan. See the Connections. appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Still Doubting the Connections? Human and Nonhuman Rights as Inextricably Intertwined: In a Nutshell Some Thoughts on the Abolitionist Approach Do Abolitionists Have a Position on Human Rights? You Bet We Do! Human Rights and Animal Rights: Perfect Together…
 
I often hear people say that the difference between “animal abusers” like Michael Vick and Andre Robinson , and non-vegans, is that Vick and Robinson inflicted suffering on animals because they enjoyed the process of inflicting harm on animals whereas non-vegans just enjoy the taste of animal products but don’t want to harm animals. This difference, it is claimed, makes it wrong for me to say that non-vegans are morally indistinguishable from people like Vick and Robinson. That is unsound thinking. First of all, there are lots of non-vegans who do enjoy the process of killing animals. They are called hunters. Those people are in all ways–morally and psychologically–identical to Vick, Robinson, and anyone else who enjoys the actual process of harming animals. But what about the non-hunting non-vegans who just buy animal products at their grocery store? In order to understand their status, consider the following situations: Situation #1: John kills Sam himself and enjoys the process of killing Sam. Situation #2: Mike needs Morty to be dead in order to get an economic benefit (Mike will inherit money) but Mike is sad about that because he likes Morty and he abhors violence. Nevertheless, he needs Morty to die so he pays Dan to kill Morty. Mike enjoys the results of Morty being dead but did not enjoy the process of harming Morty. There may be a psychological distinction between John and Dan on one hand, and Mike on the other; there is no moral difference. This moral equivalence is reflected in legal norms: John and Mike are both treated as murderers. Once you realize that animal foods involve suffering and death (and no one over the age of 4 can claim not to realize that), and that we do not need to eat animals to be healthy, continuing to pay others to impose suffering and death on animals makes you morally indistinguishable from Vick, Robinson, and others you regard as “animal abusers.” ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Andre Robinson, King the Cat, and Our Confused Thinking About Animal Ethics More on Andre Robinson, Kicking Cats, and Consuming Animal Products A Note About Michael Vick CNN Interview on The Andre Robinson/King Case The Santería Case: Michael Vick, Part 2…
 
I posted an essay from this site on Facebook concerning Andre Robinson, the man who kicked the cat named King, and who faces anticruelty charges in New York. The point was simple: What Andre Robinson did was terrible but was no different from what non-vegans support and participate directly in every single day. I got comments which indicated that many people simply missed the whole point: (click to enlarge) These people apparently do not see the problem with maintaining that we can respect the fundamental rights of nonhumans at the same time we treat nonhumans and things and impose suffering and death on them to satisfy our palate pleasure or fashion sense. I got dozens of comments (most of which I deleted) calling Robinson names, such as: (click to enlarge) I wonder if these people regard their non-vegan relatives or friends, or themselves, if they are not vegans, as “assholes,” “Knob Heads,” “cruel fucker[s],” “mother FUCKER[S],” “fucking pieces of shit,” “fucking cunts,” etc. or whether they refer to non-vegans in ableist terms, such as “retarded” morons. (click to enlarge) I wonder if she thinks that all her non-vegan friends and relatives (or she herself if she is not vegans) are all “pricks” who will get their “karma.” There were dozens of these sorts of comments. And I got many wishing him harm and expressing violence, such as: (click to enlarge) I wonder if these people think such things with respect to non-vegans. And I got overtly racist comments–on, including: (click to enlarge) Please note that the last comment had a reference to the Ku Klux Klan. Absolutely shocking. This overt racism has characterized other high visibility animal cases involving other people of color, including Michael Vick, Kisha Curtis, and the children who tortured the cat in Patterson, New Jersey. We should all be upset by what Robinson did to King. But we should also remember that what he did was in no way morally different from what non-vegans directly support every single day. And however upset we are with anyone, we should never use racially charge language to voice our criticism. And it is sad that so many people are so conceptually challenged that they cannot see that there is no morally significant difference between Andre Robinson and anyone who consumes nonhuman animals. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione ADDENDUM, November 9, 2014 I did another post on Robinson on November 8. In addition to the endless parade of ignorant name calling and expressions of violence, there were more racist, homophobic, and misogynistic comments, such as: (click to enlarge) The post The Unfortunate Racism of Some “Animal Lovers” appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: More on Andre Robinson, Kicking Cats, and Consuming Animal Products Andre Robinson, King the Cat, and Our Confused Thinking About Animal Ethics More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” CNN Interview on The Andre Robinson/King Case The Vegan Society: “Corporate Partners” With “Sustainable” Animal Agriculture…
 
Gavin Dingman, an 11-year old from Michigan, killed an albino deer. Many people are upset about this, with some even making death threats to Gavin. It is tragic when any healthy animal is killed for “sport” or any other purpose. And it is tragic that we teach our children that violence is “fun.” But those non-vegans who are critical of this ought to do some serious self-reflection. You see, there is no moral difference between what Gavin Dingman did and what any non-vegan supports and participates in. Our moral schizophrenia where animals are concerned is profound. We have seen it in the context of Michael Vick , Andre Robinson , Kisha Curtis , Mitt Romney , and others. We have seen it in the campaigns that seek to portray groups of “others” as the culprits. It makes no sense for “animal lovers” to complain about hunting if they are not vegans. There is no morally coherent difference between killing an animal you eat and paying someone else to kill an animal you eat. So what Gavin Dingman did was tragic. If you agree, then please stop being confused and hypocritical and go vegan. Otherwise, you’re just attacking an 11-year old kid for what you yourself support and do. And any “animal lover” who makes death threats to anyone is just using animals as an excuse to express their misanthropy. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post Moral Schizophrenia–Again, and Again, and Again appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Moral Concern, Moral Impulse, and Logical Argument in Animal Rights Advocacy Moral Behavior and Moral Significance Mary Bale, Michael Vick, and Moral Schizophrenia Yet Another Example of Moral Schizophrenia Moral Schizophrenia: Alastair Graham, the “Michael Vick” of Scotland…
 
Here is an essay I wrote on the Andre Robinson that was published on October 10, 2014 in the New York Daily News. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione ADDENDUM: Here is my New York times essay on the subject. Here is a brief CNN interview I did on the Robinson matter. ADDENDUM, October 17, 2014 Unfortunately, some animal advocates continue to use unfortunate and racially charged language to criticize Robinson. For example, on a Facebook page devoted to the King matter, someone commented on Robinson’s “pimpish ‘I’m the man’ attitude”. (click to enlarge) That is shocking. When I pointed it out, another animal advocate responded that she disagreed that the comment was racist, stating: “perhaps the person shouldn’t have used the word ‘pimpish’ but you did not see his demeanor nor his mother’s in court.” (click to enlarge) “[P]erhaps” the person should not have used “pimpish”? Sorry, there’s no “perhaps” about it. The use of “pimpish” is unquestionably racist in this context and should be condemned clearly as such. And how is Robinson’s demeanor–or his mother’s conduct– in court relevant to the propriety of calling him “pimpish”? That is a rhetorical question. It isn’t. We should all be upset by what Robinson did to King. But we should also remember that what he did was in no way different from the violence that we support every single day if we consume animal products. And however upset we are with anyone, we should never use racially charge language to voice our criticism. The post More on Andre Robinson, Kicking Cats, and Consuming Animal Products appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Andre Robinson, King the Cat, and Our Confused Thinking About Animal Ethics CNN Interview on The Andre Robinson/King Case More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” The Unfortunate Racism of Some “Animal Lovers” Some Thoughts for Mother’s Day 2012…
 
You don’t need a theory of animal rights to get you to veganism. You don’t even need to believe in human and nonhuman equality to get to veganism. If you believe–as most people believe–that: (1) animals matter morally; (2) because animals matter morally, we cannot justify imposing “unnecessary” suffering on them; and (3) pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as “necessity,” then you are already committed to stop eating, wearing, or using animals in any situation in which there is not compulsion or real necessity, such as being on the desert island or the lifeboat with no access to plant foods. Veganism is not in any way “extreme.” What is “extreme” is saying that you believe that animals matter morally but acting in your life as though they were merely things. So what are you waiting for? Follow through in your conduct with what you say you believe. Go vegan. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post Veganism: It Follows From What Most People Already Believe appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Vegan Society Ambassador Fiona Oakes: Veganism is not “for everyone” and “it’s not probably for very many people.” No, Ethical Veganism is Not Extreme Veganism and Nonviolence Manager of VegFestUK Tim Barford: “Many people . . . get very ill” on a Vegan Diet You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: Vegan Society “Ambassador” Claims That Promoting Veganism as a Moral Baseline “Damages” Animals…
 
In this article , HSUS happy exploitation czar Paul Shapiro complains that the American Humane Association American Humane Certified Label , which will be on Butterball turkeys this Thanksgiving, is inadequate: Paul Shapiro, vice president for farm-animal protection for the watchdog group Humane Society of the United States, gave an even harsher assessment: “It’s an industry-friendly standard that doesn’t really differ from what the industry is already doing” Apparently, the American Humane Certified label is not as good as the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards used by Whole Foods. HSUS CEO/President Wayne Pacelle sits on the Board of Directors of the Global Animal Partnership, which developed the 5-steps of happiness. And the American Humane happy label is not as good as the Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label that HSUS supports/endorses. And it’s also not as good as the Humane Choice Label of Humane Society International, an arm of HSUS. But it gets even more confusing. The American Humane Certified Label standards which HSUS finds inadequate, was developed by a Scientific Committee that includes Temple Grandin, who was given an award by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for being a “Visionary”: You know, it’s so darn difficult to keep all of these happy labels straight. I’ve written about these labels many times before (see 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 for a few). And no less a luminary than Peter Singer, “father of the animal rights movement,” on behalf of himself and every large “animal protection” organization, including HSUS, PETA, Compassion Over Killing, Mercy for Animals, Vegan Outreach, etc., expressed “appreciation and support” for the “pioneering” happy exploitation program of Whole Foods. Why, with all these happy labels endorsed by all these “animal advocates,” it’s apparently the case that the only animals who aren’t being exploited in a happy way are those who have the American Humane Certified Humane label. So American Humane had better get on the (butter)ball as the animals whose corpses bear their happy label are not as happy as the animals whose corpses bear the labels of these other “animal advocates” even though American Humane has Temple Grandin, a PETA “Visionary,” developing their happy standards. You can’t make this stuff up. ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post My Happy Exploitation Label is Better Than Your Happy Exploitation Label appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: A Most Misleading Label Animal Welfare Regulation, “Happy Exploitation,” and Speciesism A Response To PETA’s Position On “Happy” Or “Humane” Exploitation The “Happy Exploitation” Partnership Partners in Exploitation…
 
On October 4, 2014, I did a brief interview on the Michael Smerconish Show on CNN concerning the Andre Robinson case . You can watch the interview here . ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione The post CNN Interview on The Andre Robinson/King Case appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: Andre Robinson, King the Cat, and Our Confused Thinking About Animal Ethics More on Andre Robinson, Kicking Cats, and Consuming Animal Products Interview on Brian Oxman Show More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” My Interview On Philosophy Bites…
 
The New York Times Room for Debate examined the issue of “Enforcing the Legal Rights of Animals,” and included discussion of the Andre Robinson case. The abolitionist perspective was represented. You can read the debate in it’s entirety here . Gary L. Francione Professor, Rutgers University The post New York Times Debate on the Legal Rights of Animals appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: New York Times Debate on Carriage Horses Debate on Animal Rights with Libertarian Philosopher Tibor Machan Debate: The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research: A Moral Justification? Professor Francione Delivers Keynote Speech at the 2013 DePaul University College of Law Event, “Animals as Food: The Legal Treatment of Animals in Contemporary Agribusiness and Factory Farming”/October 30, 2013 Commentary #21: “The Animal Rights Debate,” the Abolitionist Approach Discussion Forum, and a Response to Nicolette Hahn Niman…
 
Andre Robinson kicked a stray cat, at the Brevoort Houses in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. Someone captured it on video . Robinson was arrested. The cat, now named King, was rescued and adopted. The Brooklyn District Attorney has announced that he plans to prosecute Robinson for animal cruelty. And now, many people are calling for his imprisonment and the online invectives being directed at Robinson are intense to say the very least. The reaction to what Robinson did is understandable and laudable. It is nothing short of terrible that anyone would harm a defenseless animal. After all, we all believe that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Although we may disagree about when it is necessary to impose suffering and death on animals, we all agree that whatever pleasure Robinson got from kicking the cat cannot constitute necessity. Or do we? We kill and eat more than 58 billion animals a year worldwide, not counting fish. We don’t need to eat animals. No one maintains that it is necessary for optimal human health. The conservative Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics acknowledges that “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” The American Heart Association and Mayo Clinic agree. Animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. It takes many more pounds of plant protein and many times more water to produce animal foods than to produce plant foods. Animal agriculture is a major cause of global warming and is responsible for water pollution, deforestation, and soil erosion. And the animals we consume as food—including those used to make the supposedly more “humane” products sold at upscale supermarkets—are subjected to terrible suffering and horrible deaths. Indeed, the animals we use for food suffer just as much — if not more — than King, whom Robinson so callously kicked. The only justification that we have for that suffering is palate pleasure. We enjoy the taste of animal foods; we find them convenient. There is no necessity for this suffering and death. So how are we any different from Andre Robinson? We aren’t. There is no morally coherent difference between little cat King and the chicken or pig or cow or fish that most of us will eat today. The FBI has announced that it will track “animal abuse” as a separate crime, the New York City Police Department has taken over responsibility for “animal abuse” complaints, and the Brooklyn DA is using the case to make a statement to “folks who think that they can just abuse any type of animal.” This is all laudable but it is nonsensical. We are a society that abuses billions of animals for no good reason whatsoever. We excuse ourselves by pretending that people like Robinson are “abusers” and the rest of us are really “humane” and care about animals. We do this repeatedly. Remember football player Michael Vick ? People hate him to this day for engaging in dog fighting. Vick liked to sit around the pit watching dogs fight. The rest of us like to sit around the summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who have been treated every bit as badly as Vick’s dogs. Remember Kisha Curtis , who gained international condemnation for throwing her emaciated dog, Patrick, down a trash chute in Newark, New Jersey? Patrick is still used as a symbol by those who claim that we must pursue “animal abuse” more aggressively. All of these cases have resulted in an overwhelming online response and a good deal of it involves the expression of overtly racist comments, just as stories about the eating of dogs and cats in China or Korea, or the killing of dolphins in Japan, result in comments that “those people” are barbaric—made by people who have no problem exploiting pigs, cows, chicken, and fish. And every day, Animal Care and Control in New York City kills healthy cats—often 30 or 40 a day. The Robinson case presents an opportunity for us to examine our fundamental views about animal ethics. Otherwise, this is just about fetishizing dogs and cats, or demonizing those whom we arbitrarily designate as “barbaric.” ********** If you are not vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is about nonviolence. First and foremost, it’s about nonviolence to other sentient beings. But it’s also about nonviolence to the earth and nonviolence to yourself. The World is Vegan! If you want it. Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University ©2014 Gary L. Francione ADDENDUM: Here is the interview I did on the Michael Smerconish Show on CNN. It was aired on October 4, 2014. Here is my New York times essay on the subject. Here is my New York Daily News on the subject. ADDENDUM, October 17, 2014 Unfortunately, some animal advocates continue to use unfortunate and racially charged language to criticize Robinson. For example, on a Facebook page devoted to the King matter, someone commented on Robinson’s “pimpish ‘I’m the man’ attitude”. (click to enlarge) That is shocking. When I pointed it out, another animal advocate responded that she disagreed that the comment was racist, stating: “perhaps the person shouldn’t have used the word ‘pimpish’ but you did not see his demeanor nor his mother’s in court.” (click to enlarge) “[P]erhaps” the person should not have used “pimpish”? Sorry, there’s no “perhaps” about it. The use of “pimpish” is unquestionably racist in this context and should be condemned clearly as such. And how is Robinson’s demeanor–or his mother’s conduct– in court relevant to the propriety of calling him “pimpish”? That is a rhetorical question. It isn’t. We should all be upset by what Robinson did to King. But we should also remember that what he did was in no way different from the violence that we support every single day if we consume animal products. And however upset we are with anyone, we should never use racially charge language to voice our criticism. ADDENDUM, November 2, 2014 I posted about this case this morning on Facebook. Amongst the comments: Please do not tell me that there is not a racist overtone to the campaign against Robinson. (click to enlarge) The post Andre Robinson, King the Cat, and Our Confused Thinking About Animal Ethics appeared first on Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach . Related posts: More on Andre Robinson, Kicking Cats, and Consuming Animal Products CNN Interview on The Andre Robinson/King Case More on Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, and “Animal Abusers” The Unfortunate Racism of Some “Animal Lovers” Martin Luther King, Jr.: His Dream and Our Reality…
 
Loading …

Zapraszamy w Player FM

Odtwarzacz FM skanuje sieć w poszukiwaniu wysokiej jakości podcastów, abyś mógł się nią cieszyć już teraz. To najlepsza aplikacja do podcastów, działająca na Androidzie, iPhonie i Internecie. Zarejestruj się, aby zsynchronizować subskrypcje na różnych urządzeniach.

 

icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals

Skrócona instrukcja obsługi

Posłuchaj tego programu podczas zwiedzania
Odtwarzanie