tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17670614242164334132011-08-21T07:32:50.317-07:00James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comBlogger221100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-85325286700702810582010-05-13T02:41:00.000-07:002010-07-29T02:05:29.082-07:00

The idea that we must promote vegetarianism and welfarism instead of veganism and abolitionism is pernicious nonsense promoted by corporate welfarist organizations which profit thereby and endorsed by advocates who have been lead astray by the seduction of "leaders" - Singer, Pacelle, Friedrich, Newkirk, and so on - into false beliefs about why veganism is perceived by the public as "extreme" and

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-88292243961027966432010-02-20T14:11:00.000-08:002011-04-05T11:23:39.748-07:00

Priscilla Feral, the president of the corporate organization Friend's of Animals (FoA), was recently interviewed by MikeyPod on Meat Free Radio. This interview was as intellectually threadbare as its personal attacks were densely woven, with Feral's resorting to cavilling against abolitionism and - what is worse and different in kind - defamatory ad hominem attacks against Francione himself -

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-46547414618169332992010-02-17T18:00:00.000-08:002011-04-08T11:48:15.492-07:00

Steve Best's latest essay over at Thomas Paine's Corner is titled "The Loss of a Halo: Francione and the Mask of Jainism." Reading it was an experience that moved me to nothing but derision. In fact, it is difficult to imagine someone being so hard up for something to do as to write such an insipidly verbose screed devoid of sense and decency. It is a screed that exemplifies Best's predilection

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-43152873007418902442010-01-18T10:02:00.000-08:002010-01-18T11:29:26.780-08:00

I would like to draw attention to a great newspaper article by Victor Schonfeld on the faliure of the animal rights corporations to achieve progressive change on behalf of animals. The article, which is called Five Fatal Flaws of Animal Activism and was published in the Guardian, can be found here

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-26890510938760036342009-12-17T02:56:00.000-08:002009-12-17T02:59:48.773-08:00

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-89897586335869954242009-09-04T15:02:00.000-07:002009-11-15T03:58:13.736-08:00

Since the abolitionist approach was developed in the writings of Gary Francione, it has been marginalized by those who represent what abolitionists refer to, and criticize as, new welfarism. For as long a time, there have been attacks against Francione from the very same side, which are openly directed against his integrity as a scholar and animal rights advocate. While his opponents have been

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-61632639990599610332009-07-08T04:59:00.000-07:002010-01-21T09:38:22.112-08:00

Critics of new welfarism are often confronted with the objection that they deny that other activists want the abolition of animal exploitation. That is not the case. Since we don't have the ability to read minds, we don't know if what others purport to want is what they really want. But we can make valid predications about whether someone’s actions are logically and credibly consistent with what

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-13188988233834654892009-07-02T12:05:00.000-07:002010-01-21T09:39:22.973-08:00

*meat here represents all animal productsAnimal welfare legitimises animal useIn his books, articles, and blog essays, Gary L. Francione has analysed comprehensively and in detail the status of nonhuman animals as property which is embedded in laws that regulate animal use and is reinforced by welfare reform.Jeff Perz puts it this way on an Internet forum: ''One of the reasons why abolitionism

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-68494265058599658412009-02-23T05:11:00.000-08:002010-03-09T09:18:03.721-08:00

I would like to make a few points with regard to the claim that animal welfare is a "step in the right direction" because it convinces people to go vegan.First, the sentimental "every little helps" approach is the expression of a model of animal advocacy whose central idea is that we should support any welfarist measure that will reduce animal suffering. But it would be difficult if not

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-84348364820052301272009-02-01T11:34:00.000-08:002009-05-31T00:34:33.526-07:00

I'd like to draw attention to a great new animal rights website created by the abolitionist Roger Yates. The site is called Animal Rights Violations.

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-91156524974690342942009-01-21T05:55:00.000-08:002009-02-26T02:39:59.727-08:00

The abolitionist community has produced some excellent outreach materials which can be viewed and/or downloaded at the following sites:Pamphlet by Gary Francione and Anna Charlton. This pamphlet has been translated into several different languages, including French, German and Spanish.Pamphlet by the Boston Vegan Association.Pamphlet by Joanne and Vincent (The Starting Point Is Veganism blog).

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-15762823034125932282008-11-18T04:23:00.000-08:002008-11-22T12:40:17.690-08:00

Several prominent welfarist organizations, including Compassion in World Farming and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, are organizing a conference the aim of which is to promote the benefits of animal welfare -- not to animals, but, on the contrary, to animal industry; in the words of Adolfo Sansolini, trade policy advisor for RSPCA, Compassion in World Farming,

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-61191460090051421462008-07-02T11:08:00.000-07:002008-07-02T11:23:35.760-07:00

Gary Francione and Anna Charlton have produced an abolitionist pamphlet that "presents the abolitionist approach in an accessible way," and that they hope will facilitate people's efforts to educate their families, friends, and communities about veganism in a nonviolent and creative way (to paraphrase Francione).Please download the pamphlet and distribute it far and wide!

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-43182367479202489182008-06-25T03:17:00.000-07:002009-06-10T06:06:12.946-07:00

I wrote a long forum post recently which I thought I'd reproduce here:PeTA's own report on CAK clearly states that CAK will increase production efficiency for animal industry. Therefore, how can the welfare movement seriously claim that CAK represents incremental progress toward abolition -- in other words, that it is a step on the road to emptying the cages?Animal industry will survive for as

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-68970862602619604332008-01-15T07:58:00.001-08:002008-02-03T15:43:00.651-08:00

Some animal advocates claim that people are probably always going to eat animal products (at least for the foreseeable future) so it is better that they at least eat "humane" animal products, which we should promote. That is, if people are going to do terrible things then we should spend our time and resources promoting slightly less terrible things (even though they are economically efficient

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-23147135931472979592007-12-26T05:43:00.001-08:002009-07-09T10:44:30.109-07:00

A constitutive part of welfarist ideology is the claim that welfarism is conducive (a "step on the road") to abolition in that it supposedly fosters conditions of kindness toward animals, which in turn dispose people to take animals seriously. However, it doesn't follow, from the fact that something may be conducive to abolition, that we should therefore promote it. For example, someone once told

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-54235144670672045732007-12-17T06:42:00.000-08:002007-12-17T07:02:06.726-08:00

It has been pointed out that some people may not have access to the first petition which requires registration. Roger Yates has therefore come up with a second PeTA petition designed to replace the first. The petition can be found here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/PETAPET/index.htmlCan those who signed the first please sign this one too. Thanks.

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-15545971978685263802007-12-11T09:38:00.000-08:002007-12-11T16:30:43.343-08:00

The abolitionist Roger Yates has started an online petition to send to PeTA concerning their claims about Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. Despite the fact that Singer himself has clarified on several occasions that he is a utilitarian animal welfarist and not an animal rights theorist, PeTA nonetheless promote him as a rights theorist and his work as an -- indeed the -- animal rights philosophy

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-14602956946303848612007-08-29T08:33:00.000-07:002007-08-29T09:09:09.073-07:00

I'd like to draw attention to an excellent new abolitionist blog by Dan Cudahy called Unpopular Vegan Essays

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-70191444915624598672007-08-14T11:25:00.000-07:002010-01-21T09:40:53.784-08:00

Gary Francione: "Violence treats others as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves. When we engage in violence against others -- whether they are human or nonhuman -- we ignore their inherent value. We treat them only as things that have no value except that which we decide to give them. This is what leads people to engage in crimes of violence against people of color, women, and gays and

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-49854813522550605942007-08-05T10:18:00.000-07:002010-01-21T09:39:59.434-08:00

If there is anything to get things moving concerning speciesism, it is pointing out the bizarre division between animals who are institutionally used as companions and therefore granted a higher value in being kept alive than in being killed, and those whose value is realized in their being transformed into what is considered food as quickly as possible. A division which Gary Francione has

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1767061424216433413.post-87958189693121845202007-04-05T17:08:00.000-07:002009-06-29T04:18:29.780-07:00

Why is the history of animal welfare an incessant procession of incalculable defeats? Why does every welfarist "victory" demonstrate nothing but impotence? Why, even though we recognized that we have direct moral obligations to animals two hundred years ago, are nonhumans held captive in spaces so small that they cannot move? Why, after 200 hundreds of years of welfarism (the first welfare law

James Crumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08968692085357890656noreply@blogger.com