A thought against animal welfare

[John4216]

Medical research aside though I do believe there is no good reason for animal research to continue on cosmetics or household products, something that obviously is workable given the EU legislation on the matter that comes into force soon and bans it all, yay!

I agree. Cosmetics and household products could have been and should have been something that was dealt with awhile ago.

 

[John4216]

I am guessing you did not read Susans post about this thread. Please go back and read her post and you will see why I will not respond to your post more than what I am here. Hopefully they will just delete your post and this one.

 

[John4216]

Advocating animal testing AND censorship! Wooooo!

No it is because she asked us not to engage in the inflammatory postings that you are doing and still doing. So please continue to show your true colors.

 

[John4216]

I'm not going to close this thread ... but I would like to see the direction of it turned. I'd like to see it turn into a discussion about how animal rights activists and animal welfarists can combine their different philosophies to work towards the same goals.

I will just stick to what the moderator requested out of respect for her and the others on the forum. If you can't do this also then why are you still posting?

 

[Susan9608]

Do you know what it means to be passive-aggressive?

You were being passive-aggressive in your last post, and I was being passive-aggressive in my last sentence.

Let's not do this, shall we? I'd hate to have to lock this thread and have all this great information on animal rights AND animal welfare drift off into oblivion because of it.

But one must also recognize that by being vegan, not buying products that have been tested on animals, not buying ANY products whatsoever from any corporation that tests even SOME of its products on animals, actively promoting animal causes, etc., although admirable and certainly better than conforming to society's expectations to harm animals, doesn't have the power to truly effect change.

I have to disagree with you there. There have been many causes that have been advanced in this very manner. Every cause has to start some where. Unless you're suggesting a violent overthrow of all institutions that utilize non-human animals for any purpose, then I don't see any other way to go about achieving an end to the subjugation of non-human animals. And I'm personally not ready to throw in the towel and say it will never happen. I believe it will.

but I cannot in good conscience endorse moderate policies just because I'm afraid to alienate those who disagree with me.

I don't endorse moderate policies out of fear of alienating those that disagree; I endorse whatever means/methods out there that might equate with a decrease of suffering for non-human animals. I do this because I believe it to be a stepping stone along the path towards NO suffering inflicted upon non human animals by humans.

I'm sorry I didn't have any ideas to contribute on how to "combine forces" for the betterment of animals.

My suggestion would be to quit fighting those that have a more moderate approach to life but want essentially the same outcome, and save all of that passion for those who have NO concept of animal rights OR animal welfare.

second, my personal sense of morality won't allow me to go down that path.

So what path do you take? You've already stated your own behavior is not perfect ....

It's been said ... I believe by me ... that no one can lead a blameless life. Even if all the problems of the world were created by human beings and are, in fact, the total and complete fault of the humans of the world, the fact remains that we're still here. Unless you're advocating some sort of mass, simultaneous suicide of every human being on the planet, people are here and will remain here, probably for quite some time. So my personal feeling is that the people who are here have an obligation to minimize their effect on the planet and minimize suffering as much as they can.

If you know of a better way, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Maisiepaisie]

Medical research aside though I do believe there is no good reason for animal research to continue on cosmetics or household products, something that obviously is workable given the EU legislation on the matter that comes into force soon and bans it all, yay!

It is already banned in the UK. Big animal testing companies such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever do their dirty business abroad. It would make more sense to ban such products from being sold in the UK but that won't happen anytime soon. If these companies would stop seeking extra profit by continually developing new formulations there would be no need for testing. Don't we have enough amazing shampoos and cleaning products already? Me personally I wouldn't use their stuff even if it wasn't tested as its loaded with chemicals. I prefer more natural toiletries and cleaning products.

 

[John4216]

It is already banned in the UK. Big animal testing companies such as Procter & Gamble and Unilever do their dirty business abroad. It would make more sense to ban such products from being sold in the UK but that won't happen anytime soon. If these companies would stop seeking extra profit by continually developing new formulations there would be no need for testing. Don't we have enough amazing shampoos and cleaning products already? Me personally I wouldn't use their stuff even if it wasn't tested as its loaded with chemicals. I prefer more natural toiletries and cleaning products.

I agree. What is worse is that they really do not need to "test" the new formulations as there is usually no new chemical compounds in it that have not already been tested in the past. I wish the US would follow the UK's example and ban it.

 

[John4216]

Something I think that many people can do especially at this time of the year in the US anyways is something that I did awhile ago. With many States, Counties, and Towns having fairs and street festivals at this time of year you will see games that are giving pets away as prizes. One thing anyone can do is send a letter or better yet go in person to speak to their town council or county or state official and ask them to stop this practice.

My town has a fair in which bunnies were being given away and here is a link to the ordinance I wrote and presented to town council who passed it and now no animals are given away as prizes at either the street fair or the county fair (which is held in town). Just in case the link does not function it is 505.19 in there.

(broken link removed)


I think this is just one example of something anyone can do no matter where they fall on the AW-AR spectrum. It stops the sufferring here which reduces the overall suffering. It is not perfect but at least no more bunnies are suffering or any other animal. And considering I live in a heavy farm community this is big progress.

 

[John4216]

Here is a list of some things I have done so far to try to help out. Besides the one I discussed about the changing the law (which I had help from members of this site in doing) I have also (trying to keep this about piggies in the spirit of the website):

1). Printed out the care pamphlets, made copies and gave them to my Vet to hand out and lay in her office.

2). Went to bookstores and slipped copies of the caresheet in to GP care books.

3). Handed out care leaflets in petstore parking lots.

4). Put care leaflets on the car windshields in the parking lot of petstores.

5). Went to the library and put care sheets into the books about GP.

6). Offered to provide care sheets to local pet supply store (they do not sell pets) and feed store.

7). Posted care sheets on bulletin boards (not the electronic ones) for people to read or take.

8). Talk to and try to guide anyone I meet who has GP's into going to this site.

9). E-mailed various places that have had incorrect information on their sites and asked them to change it

10). I care for and spoil my piggies as much as possible so they can have the best quality of life possible.

 

[Susan9608]

it's hard to contemplate how sacrificing a single squirt of honey mustard on a sandwich I buy on average about twice a month at Subway is going to propel the animal rights movement to the next level. I don't get cheese, but I'm not sure if the bread is vegan. Assuming the bread is vegan, the honey mustard is the only part of the sandwich from an animal source. Sometimes I get it, and sometimes I don't. It depends on how I'm feeling.

It's interesting to me that you said this. A key employee with PETA once said something along these lines:

The number one thing that we do wrong—and I am speaking from many years of doing this myself—is that we place personal purity ahead of being as effective as possible for animals. We lose sight of the fact that veganism is not an end in and of itself but rather a means of ending cruelty to animals. Being vegan is not about being perfect and causing no cruelty at all—it’s about decreasing suffering as effectively as possible.

He goes on to talk about how animals don't need personal purity - what they need is *advocacy* - it has to be about the animals or, as he says, veganism will become "just one more narcissistic cultural fad."

And he also talks about the issue of not causing barriers to be put up with non-animal rights, non-animal welfare people. This is what he says:

So the issue of personal purity becomes one of basic math: Adopting a vegan diet means you’re not supporting the torment and slaughter of dozens of animals every single year. Helping just one more person to go vegan will save twice as many animals. But the reverse is also true: If you do something that prevents another person from adopting a vegan diet, if your example puts up a barrier where you might have built a bridge, that hurts animals—so then it becomes anti-vegan, if vegan means helping animals.

To me, this all supports the idea of supporting each other in all of our attempts to reduce the suffering of non human (and human) animals. To me, this all means that we should put our energies towards those with NO concern for animals and try to build a bridge, rather than trying to burn bridges between people who already care about non human animals. I think this is an excellent way of saying that the inflammatory and the extreme are not always the way to go.

Yeah, yeah - I know PETA is famous for their extreme campaigns. But they are working on a national and global level - their goal, in a lot of cases, is to simply catch someone's attention or give someone a pause. We, on the other hand, are working on an individual level, so we have to win people over, one individual at a time. Change can - and often does - start with one single person. If giving someone kudos ... or perhaps not even that far ... if not condemning someone for a moderate approach to animal welfare/animal rights eventually leads to that person being an ardent animal rights activist, isn't that the end goal? Isn't any reduction of suffering better than no change in suffering at all?

ETA: You can read the PETA article in its entirety here: GoVeg.com // Get Active // Effective Advocacy // Personal Purity vs. Effective Advocacy

 

[John4216]

We, on the other hand, are working on an individual level, so we have to win people over, one individual at a time. Change can - and often does - start with one single person. If giving someone kudos ... or perhaps not even that far ... if not condemning someone for a moderate approach to animal welfare/animal rights eventually leads to that person being an ardent animal rights activist, isn't that the end goal? Isn't any reduction of suffering better than no change in suffering at all?

ETA: You can read the PETA article in its entirety here: GoVeg.com // Get Active // Effective Advocacy // Personal Purity vs. Effective Advocacy

Thank you Susan for this wonderful post. You put it much more eloquently than I have. It is exactly what I have been trying to say. And I love that article.

 

[Susan9608]

This is in tune with your idea that nobody can live totally guilt-free without ever causing harm, but I'm looking at it more from the perspective that it serves as evidence that collective society isn't ready yet. I don't know if it's because so few people care, or if it's because so few people know, but I have to believe that if more people cared, it would be easier to know.

If society isn't ready, then I believe it's our job - the animal welfarists and animal rights activists - to *make* them ready.

I've always considered myself to be a cynical and jaded person, but I'm not so jaded as to think that tha wanton use and abuse of non-human animals in our society is because the majority of people just don't care. I believe that it's a matter of knowledge - the majority of people support the use and abuse of non-human animals because they just don't know. They don't know how horrible it is ... they don't know it's wrong ... they may know it's wrong, but they may not know that there are other ways, better ways to accomplish the same thing.

There's always the bad eggs in society, the people totally without conscience who can maime, murder, pillage, and plunder with ease, without caring about the damage and destruction they create. But those people, truly, aren't the majority of society. Most people care, to a degree. I think it's simply the matter of reaching the part of them that cares.

 

[Calliso]

I agree. Cosmetics and household products could have been and should have been something that was dealt with awhile ago.

Aye maybe I am just saying at one time they would have had to be tested somehow. Especially many household products. But maybe it is the case now that there isn;t any of those products that need testing anymore as they have all been tested. Like the pamplet said things like that typically only need to be tested once. I would also agree I guess with what someone else in this thread said that we have enough fancy smancy shampoos..

 

[Maisiepaisie]

I've always considered myself to be a cynical and jaded person, but I'm not so jaded as to think that tha wanton use and abuse of non-human animals in our society is because the majority of people just don't care. I believe that it's a matter of knowledge - the majority of people support the use and abuse of non-human animals because they just don't know. They don't know how horrible it is ... they don't know it's wrong ... they may know it's wrong, but they may not know that there are other ways, better ways to accomplish the same thing.

I disagree. I think the majority of people don't care, or at least not enough to do anything about it. Take my mum for example, I tell her about the animals that are tortured for her cleaning and toiletry products but she still buys them. I tell her how male chicks are minced alive or thrown in binbags to suffocate, the unwanted by-products of the egg industry (and yes this happens even with free range and organic) but it hasn't stopped her buying eggs. The rest of my family are just as bad. One of my friends went back to eating meat because "its too hard to be veggie" oh please Most people like eating meat and they like their cheap and nasty chemical cleaning products and toiletries that animals have paid for with their lives. Most people don't want the 'inconvenience' of having to think a little more about the food and products they buy because they simply don't care enough to make that effort and thats very sad. It really depresses me that there are so many people who it seems will never change.

 

[Alusdra]

I love that article, too. (It has so many pages though! I may have to keep reading at a later time...) Vegetarians/vegans are so all-or-nothing a lot of the time... I mean, if someone had said to me 6 years ago: "you can just eat less meat, you don't have to give it up" I would have been on the mental bandwagon right there. It's healthier, anyway, not to mention cheaper. I doubt I'll ever stop eating meat, but I can certainly stop eating it at every meal.

The number of people who ask you in genuine confusion "well, if you don't eat meat, what else is there?" is just ridiculous. I was one of them. Then I found veggie casseroles, lasagna, stir fry, etc- and found out that a salad doesn't have to be iceberg and Caesar, you can have all sorts of crazy things on there- like strawberries or... or nuts! Eating less meat is great. I've been converting my family, too. This was mostly spurred on by my dad's 4 straight weeks of steak (good gods!) but the groundwork was there from non-militant veggies who invited me for dinner and cooked no meat (everyone's a sucker for free food) and my cousins who eat meat at a 10% of the diet level due to health concerns (cholesterol... I think?) I think that's a very good place to be, diet wise. Imagine if everyone in the country ate only 10% meat in their diets and only ate an appropriate amount of food. That would probably save more animals a year than every vegan and vegetarian could by not eating meat at all.

Oh- and as a completely other thought- the reason I object to service dogs (in particular) being compared to slaves is that a service dog has species-specific considerations and (as far as current knowledge is concerned) has the best possible treatment possible. They have a good, balanced diet, plenty of exercise, tip-top veterinary care, mental stimulation, job satisfaction and a reasonable retirement plan. Salves- not so much. They were overworked until death, treated with severe negative punishment, not fed properly, or given medical care, not properly stimulated so far as their mental needs were concerned, etc. Now, if you want to compare slaves to puppy mills or guinea pig breeding farms- that I have no problem with. But the service dogs to slaves is not even in the realm of apples to oranges- it's like comparing... er... bike tires to cucumbers (or something). Completely different situations. Same thing with the Jews to cows. I don't see the correlation. At absolute face value- cows need to be fed properly to produce milk/meat. I won't go deeper into that one as I went a bit nuts on the slavery issue. When you say that someone's service dog, who makes their life so much better and is usually a member of a person's family, is like enslaving another human being- that's just inflammatory. I don't see it serving any purpose than to make 'meat eaters' (really, we're omnivores... but tick them off and that's what they'll call themselves) making omnivores angry and making AR people feel self-righteous. Which is going against the crux of that great article, methinks.