‘Transcript of the live chat with Gary L. Francione Saturday, January 23, 2010/Sunday January 24 2010

[Carolyn Bailey]

Transcript of Prof.  Gary Francione’s ARZone Live Guest Chat

23 January 2010 at:

6pm US Eastern Time

11pm UK Time

24 January 2010 at:

9am Australian Eastern Standard Time

 

Carolyn Bailey:
Professor Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law, Newark. Professor Francione has been teaching law and animal rights for more than 20 years, and was the first academic to teach animal rights theory in an American law school. He has lectured on the topic in the USA, Canada, and Europe (while serving as a member of the Guest Faculty of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid).

Featured on radio and television shows and well known throughout the animal protection movement for his criticism of animal welfare law and the property status of nonhuman animals, and for his abolitionist theory of animal rights, many regard him as the most important animal rights philosopher of our day.

He is author of numerous books and essays on animal rights theory and animals and the law. In “Animals, Property, and the Law” (1995) Professor Francione outlined the problems of the property status of nonhuman animals. As long as animals are regarded as mere items of property, their rights will be routinely overridden. A year later, in "Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement," Prof. Francione turned his attention to the mainstream "animal rights movement", describing its position as one of "new welfarism.”

Prof. Francione describes this movement as fundamentally flawed, both theoretically and practically, and argues that successive animal welfare reforms cannot lead to animal rights; indeed, they are counter to a rights based movement.

In 2000, Prof. Francione published “Introduction to Animal Rights” which set out his version of animal rights theory, radically different from Peter Singer, the inspiration of new welfarism and also different from Tom Regan, the author of “The Case for Animal Rights” (1983). In his latest work, “Animals as Persons”, he expounds on his unique vision of animal rights philosophy veganism as the moral foundation of animal rights, and proposes that nonhuman animals should be regarded as moral persons and members of our moral community.

Professor Francione is set to release a new book, “The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?”, co-authored with Robert Garner.

Although Professor Francione's analysis is derived from traditional western philosophical sources, he is deeply influenced by the Jain doctrine of Ahimsa, or non-violence.

Animal Rights Zone is very pleased to present Professor Gary Francione. Would you please welcome Prof. Francione.

 

Welcome, Gary!

Jamie Rivet:
Hi Gary

Gary Francione:
Hello to all.

Tammy McLeod:
Hi there Gary

Lisa Blundell:
Welcome Prof. Francione

Thomas Janek:
Hi Gary

Roger Yates:
hi Gary

Patrycja Art
Great to be here Gary...!

Urosh:
Hi Gary

Kate
Hello

Joan E Loza Mobry:
Hello Gary

Carol:
Hi Gary!

Red:
hi

William:
Summer Greetings from NZ

Jeff Perz:
Hey Gary

Angela Dillon
G’day!

Elizabeth Collins:
Hello Gary

Sam Tucker
Hi Gary!

 

VincentJGuihan
Hi, Gary.

Joan E Loza Mobry
Greetings from Wisconsin

Carolyn Bailey
Before we begin, Professor Francione has elected to reply to his questions in a spontaneous manner, and has therefore not pre-prepared his responses. Please show respect for Professor Francione’s willingness to treat each question individually and take the time to reply to each question in a spontaneous and respectful manner, and refrain from interrupting while he is typing. Please also reserve your comments until the formal chat has concluded.

I’d now like to call on Tammy, who will ask Professor Francione his first question, thanks, Tammy …

Tammy McLeod
Thanks so much for chatting with us this morning, Gary, it's brilliant to have you here! Heres my question:

Gary, can you give your opinion of PETA, the world's largest animal ‘rights’ organization, and their use of sexist advertising as a means to promote campaigns targeting factory farming, fur, and experimentation, as well as their single issue campaigns? In particular, do you have any comment on their recent effort, “Sexy state of the union undress”?

Gary Francione
I have strong objections to PETA's sexism. Indeed, the first major argument that I had with Newkirk (I was involved with PETA from 1982-94) was over sexism. Putting aside that sexism is inherently immoral, it makes no sense as a practical strategy. The problem is the commodificaton of animals; why do we think that the continued commodification of women will reduce the commodification of animals?

Tammy McLeod:
True, ones as bad as the other

Gary Francione:
I did see the State of the Union Undress and I think it is vile. Indeed, I think that every serious animal advocate ought to distance themselves from PETA. We will never get serious people to take the movement seriously as long as the issue is identified with that offensive nonsense. And of course, we all know that such promotions have nothing to do with animals; they have to do with PETA.

I ask you all: would MLK, Jr. have had a campaign, "I'd rather go naked than sit in the back of the bus?" Of course not.

Tammy McLeod:
Absolutely not!

Carolyn Bailey:
I couldn't agree more Gary.

Gary Francione:
Speciesism is objectionable because it is similar to racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. We should never sacrifice one group for another.

Carolyn Bailey
The next question will be from Belinda, and asked on her behalf by Jamie Rivet, Jamie ...

Gary Francione:
OK

Jamie Rivet:
'The World is Vegan! If you want it.' - based on John and Yoko's 1969 billboard, is the message of your new virtual billboard campaign and abolitionist approach to the animal movement. Today, Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney have teamed up to actively promote the 'Meatless Monday' campaign, which aims to reduce meat consumption by one day/week. But by your characterisation, this approach, with its emphasis on reducing animal use rather than abolishing animal use, would still be exploitative and morally unjustifiable - and therefore, should be rejected.

Would you not agree that the 'Meatless Monday' - and similar campaigns - can work alongside abolitionism toward shifting the paradigm away from animal consumption, and are thus part of an overall educational process toward veganism?

Gary Francione:
Absolutely. I disagree with "MM." First, I think it is wrong to maintain that there is a morally significant distinction between meat and other products. There is not. Meat=dairy=wool=fur. It's all exploitation.

Second, MM is based in large part on environmental/health benefits. Its fine to emphasize the many interrelated benefits of non-exploitation, but the issue here is moral.

Third, why not have a "Vegan Monday" or whatever, where we make clear that ALL animal exploitation is morally objectionable?

We could then have a Vegan Tuesday, Vegan Wednesday. But we should NEVER suggest that there is a difference between flesh and other products or that non-exploitation is a part-time matter. I ALWAYS emphasize to people that veganism is easy and they can do it right now.

Jamie Rivet:
Thank you Gary, I am asking the next question for Pablo who did not show up:

I believe we are witnessing a major growth concerning the popularity of direct action and other similar methods where some activists label non-violent vegan education as "too passive" or irrelevant. What do you think would be the best (certainly not "the Best", just joking) answer to those activists? Thank you very much for this opportunity

Gary Francione:
I object to all violence. I see the problem of animal exploitation as a problem of violence. Violence is not the solution. But in addition to my moral objection to violence I simply fail to understand the logic of it. If you shut down 10 slaughterhouses and the demand persists, the abattoirs get rebuilt or existing ones expand operation. The focus of the violence approach is wrong. The institutional users are just capitalists who will sell apples if they can make more $ than selling beef. If anything is ever going to change, we have to focus on demand. As long as people demand the products of animal exploitation, there will be suppliers.

 

I should add that there are prominent pro-violent people who are not even vegan. I regard that as hypocrisy of the worst sort. Perhaps they should put on their balaclavas and engage in direct action against themselves!

 

I would like to say that I also find it terribly troubling that certain people who should know better are engaging in criminal solicitation and encouraging others to to engage in criminal acts. The solicitors won’t be punished; some impressionable young kid will end up in jail. That's just irresponsible.

Okay. Next one.

Allen and Linda Anderson:
Thanks for the presentation.

Carolyn Bailey:
Dr Jana Kohl will be asking the next question Gary, Jana ...

Dr. Jana Kohl:
ready for me?

Gary Francione:
Yes.

 

Douglass at Army-of-compassion.com:
you're doing a great job, Gary!

Gary Francione:
My guess is that some would disagree:

Dr. Jana Kohl :
i was listening to a voice over as I was reading this and I believe it was you Gary giving a lecture, as such it prompted me to tweak my question: you mention the need for us to join together and speak as ONE VOICE -- but how do we do that when certain groups dominate...like HSUS, who has all the clout, media and money? Whenever an animal issue arises the media goes to them for a reply and they DO NOT represent us - they are sell outs as many of us know.

Gary Francione:
I am not sure what you were listening to so I cannot comment on it. I will say that I think it is unlikely that HSUS, PETA, and the other new welfare corporations are going to join in anything related to abolition. Indeed, if you missed it, Newkirk had a piece in the Guardian this week in which she defended welfare reform and sexism. It is getting difficult to see the differences between HSUS and PETA, certainly on the welfare reform issue. All of these groups have, in effect, forged partnerships with industry. All of them are doing nothing more than increasing production efficiency. And many of the people who contribute to these groups are just people who "like" animals in some sense but are never going anywhere with that.

Years ago, if the large groups did not "allow" you to speak (at their conferences, in their newsletters, etc), you were effectively dead. But the Internet has changed that in that it has lowered the opportunity costs of communication and we can form communities outside the structure of the large groups. The abolitionist movement is at present a small, grassroots phenomenon, but it is occurring all over the world. As we organize more and as we educate about veganism, things will change. They already are changing. We don't need the millions that HSUS and PETA brings in. We need passion. We need the willingness to work hard. We need to educate ourselves so that we can talk intelligently with others. We all need to become leaders, educators. We CAN do this if we want to.

Okay. I'm done.

Dr. Jana Kohl :
Can I follow up?

Gary Francione:
I am sorry I am so slow. I type with one finger. I have all my life!!

Carolyn Bailey:
Of course Jana

Gary Francione::
If it's okay with the moderators.

Dr. Jana Kohl :
What about the millions in the US who claim religion as their "right" to eat animals - i come across this all the time and i answer by saying that God intended for man to be vegan according to Genesis and the garden of eden in which he states they have all they need there, and that there is evidence that Jesus was an ethical vegan when he lived among the jewish essenes, who were also ..but.. that doesn't always fly with many Bible people who claim we have dominion over animals as it states in the bible of course it's bs to most of us but lets face it, this is a very religious country and most of them eat meat.

Gary Francione:
Look, we're not going to get everybody-not at first. There are still people who rely on the Bible to justify racism and sexism and heterosexism. I always try to get people to focus on the nonviolent aspects of their religions and that sometimes works. I also find it effective, particularly with young people, to get them to focus on whether something is right/wrong because God says so, or whether God tells us it's right/wrong because it is. We need to get people to think about the relationship between religion and morality.

But look, I agree that there are many people who are going to cling to religion as an excuse to hold all sorts of hateful and violent beliefs. We need to try to reach those who see nonviolence as an important value-whether they are religious in a traditional sense or not. There are zillions of people out there we CAN educate. Let's reach them. We can worry about others later.

Dr. Jana Kohl:
Yes, agreed. I come away from this hearing that the web is one of the most effective ways to advance our cause..look at what Obama achieved in terms of winning the election due to their savvy use of it but how do we do that? i'm clueless on that front

Gary Francione:
It is. Despite the fact that I HATE computers, the reality is that we are developing a worldwide peace movement based on veganism and abolition with this technology. We need to harness the talent and abilities of those who are good with computers and move forward. And we can and should learn a lot from the Obama campaign.

Dr. Jana Kohl :
We need to hire Obama's computer geniuses or find our own.

 

Gary Francione:
There are lots of young people out there who are terrific w/technology. They help me and I am getting more to help.

Dr. Jana Kohl :
great - i'd love to know more and will visit your site - thanks

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks for that Gary and Jana, Lisa will be asking a question now, Lise ...

Lisa Blundell:
Hi Gary. Thanks so much for taking time out to be here. It's a pleasure. This is my question. What is your opinion on the Eskimo's plight? They live in an area without any vegetation and depend on the ocean's food. I get this argument 'a lot' from omnivores

Gary Francione:
Almost no one lives anywhere where they can't and don't get things shipped in so I am not sure your factual predicate is right. But even if it were right, I still think killing nonhumans is not justifiable. What if they lived in a place that was so cold that there were no nonhuman animals and they ate a human every week or so? No one would think that okay. Unless we are going to be speciesist, I think we have to come to the same conclusion.

Lisa Blundell:
I can see what you mean. :-)Thanks for your answer.

Gary Francione:
That is not to say that I regard native peoples on my "top ten" list of concerns. I am more concerned with what we're doing. But I do not think that it's justifiable just because it's a native practice. So is genital mutilation. I don't support that.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Gary

Gary Francione:
Is this working okay with you all?

Lisa Blundell:
It's great Gary :-)

Thomas Janek:
sure

Carolyn Bailey:
Its good, really

Kate:
Fantastic!

Carolyn Bailey:
We're all a bit slow because there's over 50 people in here, that's all

Patrycja Art:
I am reading all the time...

Carolyn Bailey:
The next question will be asked by me on behalf of Dave Warwak, who couldn’t be here today.

Do you feel activists should reach out to children and public schools more often? Do you reach children in your activism? Please describe your last experience talking about veganism with children.

Gary Francione:
While you are waiting for postings here, keep www.AbolitionistApproach.com open. You can read some of my stuff in between delays!

Maynard S. Clark:
I'm busy writing about the Department of Energy's research budget for graduate school - at MY 'advanced age'.

Gary Francione:
I absolutely think we need to try to educate kids about veganism. But in the US, that's tough. They'll let you come talk about "humane" education, which is just propaganda. As a general rule, they won't let you talk about veganism. I get invited to high schools sometimes and I always go. But when you talk about veganism, it concerns some.

Maynard S. Clark
What abolitionist goals can be configured into public environmental policy?

Gary Francione:
I am getting confused here. To whom am I supposed to be responding?

Jamie Rivet:
To Carolyn, Gary

Carolyn Bailey:
Could we please give Professor Francione time to reply to each question personally and avoid interruptions, thanks so much everyone.

Gary Francione:
I have finished my answer on education: yes, it's crucial but difficult to do institutionally because of the hostility to anything but "humane" education. Again, a big part of the problem is that the large groups buy into this and peddle that nonsense that veganism is radical so primary schools are very reluctant to let you talk to kids about veganism, which the large groups reject.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Gary, the next question is from Ken, the owner of Toronto's only vegan store, and will be asked by Jamie Rivet ...

Jamie Rivet:
Can single issue campaigns (SICS) or wedge issues related to animal rights be used as a way to reach people who reject our vegan message outright? If we succeed in having others believe that supporting the circus or rodeo is wrong on ethical grounds, can we not expect some of these people to progress to veganism? And if SICS have no place in advancing veganism, should activists simply ignore the rodeo when it comes to town?

Gary Francione:
I have long been against single-issue campaigns because they encourage the false belief that some forms of exploitation are worse than others. I am not saying that you should not engage in peaceful demonstrations at a circus or whatever; I am just saying that you ought to be distributing literature and educating people about why ALL animal use is unjustifiable. Using an event like a circus as a focal point for vegan education is not necessarily a bad idea. As a general matter, however, I see single-issue campaigns as problematic, whether they are regulatory (making practice X more "humane") or whether they purport to be "bans" or prohibitions. They convey the impression that some forms of exploitation are worse than others and confuses people.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again Gary for you wonderful replies, Paul would now like to ask you a question, Paul ...

Paul Hester:
What do you see as the biggest "weakness" for those that choose money making, pleasure, and power, (cattleman's lobby, complicite federal and state government, fur industry, and hunting groups, etc) over the care and compassion for a living breathing animal that is seen by them as only a "thing" to kill anytime and anyway they wish?

Follow on: And if there is one that stands out, how do you suggest using it, to affect a change for the animals?

Thank you Professor!

Gary Francione:
Are you asking what to do about institutional exploiters and their political supporters? If so, that's easy: change demand. Animal exploitation happens because people want it to happen and many who don't like it, don't care enough to become part of the abolitionist effort. But if we are successful in our effort-and it is clear that this effort is exceeding my wildest dreams-then the economics of exploitation change and the political support changes. If I did not answer your question, I apologize and please rephrase.

 

Gary Francione:
I just want to make a comment. While I am sitting here, I see the Google ads on the side bar of the page: "sexy thin vegan wallets," "meat=animal cruelty," etc. All wrong messages!!

 

Carolyn Bailey:
I agree Gary, but we have no control over them (the Google ads).

 

Gary Francione:
Carolyn: Yes, I know. I was just making a comment. The propaganda is all around!

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Gary, Lilith is with us and also has a question for you, Lilith ...

Lilith Green:
Hello, You have stated that you believe in non violence toward institutional exploiters/capitalists since, as long as demand continues, so will supply. How do you justify doing nothing, other than telling people "The World is Vegan, if you want it”, given that animals are suffering on fur farms in China, factory farms in Iowa, and live export ships from Australia, to name just a few places?

Gary Francione:
Lilith, that is a misrepresentation of my view. You either have not read what I write or you don't agree with it and so you're misrepresenting me. If you are really asking me why I do not support violence, then I answered

Lilith Green:
Is that aimed at me? I only asked the approved question.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Lilith, and thanks again Gary, now Jamie would like to ask his OWN question, Jamie ..

Jamie Rivet:
Gary, of course I agree with your message and support abolishing all use of animals. I question parts of your argument however. You state that welfare reforms will occur naturally as a result of market forces

Gary Francione:
I am not finished with Lilith. Why are you asking me why I advocate doing nothing? I don't advocate that at all. I advocate creative, nonviolent vegan/abolitionist education. It's much more effective than violence. So whether your question was approved or not, It misrepresents my views. In any event, I have never said we should utter slogans and do nothing about individual animals!! Are you suggesting that we should go and release all of those animals? If that is what you are suggesting, then I suggest you do a big time reality check. That will be stopped in five minutes and all the animals will be replaced. You know, there is probably a kill shelter near your house. Go and rescue an animal. There are probably strays living near your house. You should rescue one or more of those. We have five rescued dogs, all of whom would be dead. No balaclavas or drama was necessary. I adopted three from a kill shelter, one from the street, and one from a foster situation (she had medical issues). But I encourage everyone to get out there and educate, educate, educate. But I also am a strong supporter of rescuing individual animals. I do so and I hope you do as well.

Okay, next?

Jamie Rivet:
Gary, of course I agree with your message and support abolishing all use of animals. I question parts of your argument however. You state that welfare reforms will occur naturally as a result of market forces they will come about because of inefficiencies and the drive for profit. But high-density confinement is extremely efficient in terms of using animals as products. So how would something like, say, cage free eggs (ending battery cages) happen without interference from animal advocacy groups? Surely it is not nearly as profitable to have fewer birds in a given space.

Go ahead Gary

Gary Francione:
This is complicated and is going to take a few chunks. When factory farming developed in the 1950s, the thinking was that high stocking densities were efficient. There was no thought that these were nonhuman animals and not widgets and that intensive confinement would create stress and increase costs that would exceed revenue. It is now becoming clear that there are many economic inefficiencies in intensive farming. These are the things that animal groups go after. Animal welfare reform efforts help industry to identify inefficient practices, such as the gestation crate, veal crate, traditional method of chicken slaughter, etc. What is fascinating is that the literature from the groups themselves argue that these reforms are efficient, citing agricultural economists.

Now, as to the cage-free egg situation. I think that would be humorous if it were not so tragic. Anyone who thinks that cage-free eggs represent anything but putting some padding on a water board is dreaming. I have seen cage-free facilities and they are horrible. The price increase is de minimis and producers can actually make a good deal of money selling to the niche market. That is why so many farmers supported Proposition 2 in California. For those that did not have capital investment in the traditional battery cage situation, the cage-free scam is worth money. But I really think that if you regard those sorts of reforms as significant (I actually think they are counterproductive), you need to really look more closely. But these are complicated issues. The new book I have coming out (in April or May) will discuss the economics of welfare reform in great detail. I think I show that animal welfare reform is a win for animal groups and industry and a big loss for animals.

Okay, Jeff?

Jeff Perz:
Gary, I remember you once said that many of the vegan speakers at welfarist conferences want to see a vegan world – but they want the world to stay the same in all other respects; i.e. capitalist, consumerist, sexist, etc,

You've written at least one essay about the connections between classism/capitalism and speciesism. Would you share some of your thoughts with us now about these subjects?

Also, in particular, what are your thoughts about anarchist political/economic systems and how do you relate these to animal rights?

Gary Francione:
They're all connected. That is clear. Capitalism commodifies, alienates the individual from those things in which she has interests and then forces her to buy these things. It's an immoral system and ironically, it conflicts with the ethical/ spiritual beliefs that most of us claim to embrace. In any event, a major tenet of the abolitionist approach is that it rejects all forms of discrimination. That is central. I have to say that not only do I find things like the PETA sexism offensive, but I am stunned that other groups don't object. Almost no one talks about heterosexism or classism. All of these things are wrong and they are all related to each other and to animal exploitation.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Gary, Laura will be asking the next question of you, please go ahead Laura ...

Gary Francione:
A minute more with Jeff. It is imperative that we make the human rights/animal rights connection. This semester, we have almost 100 students in our human rights/animal rights class at Rutgers. It's terrific. And once things are explained coherently, young people see these connections.

Okay?

Laura Cooley:
Gary, it seems that some in our rights movement become hegemonic in their control of the base. Do you feel we challenge the leaders of this movement to a sufficient degree (in the way scientists are peer reviewed)? ...Do you feel like you are or are you satisfied with the willingness of others to debate you one on one?

DJLanglois;
How does one sign up to ask a question?

Gary Francione:
Hey, David, stick around for later. I'll go for as long as people want. I am a vegan. I have energy!

Okay, Laura: There is a real problem of cultishness in the movement. I say repeatedly and I believe sincerely that each of us has a moral responsibility to become a leader. The result of not doing this is disastrous.

Look at Proposition 2. Many of the people supporting it did not even know that it does not take effect until 2015. They knew NOTHING about the substance. But HSUS told them it was good so they supported it. Today, I got an email from someone who responded to my critique of PETA's latest sexist antic. She stated (this is a quote): "I can't refute your arguments but I know that Ingrid cares about animals and would not do anything that wasn't right by them." That's the sort of thing I am talking about. That results in a cult and not a movement.

Carolyn Bailey:
Exactly Gary, thanks for your reply. Vincent now would like to ask you a question, Vincent?

Laura Cooley:
Thanks Gary.

VincentJGuihan
Hurray – I'm up! :-D Hi, Gary. First, thanks for participating in what has turned out to be a very interesting chat. You and your partner have rescued several dogs together, including your latest (Christine). :-D Can you tell us why animal adoption is an important part of abolitionist work and what the other animals you have rescued have meant to you personally?

Gary Francione:
I actually was not done answering but we'll go on.

VincentJGuihan
I can wait.

Carolyn Bailey:
Please feel free to go back Gary if you prefer

Thomas Janek:
Learn to type quicker :-D

Gary Francione:
Thanks. Some of the welfarists/pro-violence people claim that people "follow me." That is nonsense. I don't want any followers. I want people to read what I write and make assessments about the validity of my arguments. If my arguments are sound, fine. If they are not, reject them. The fact that someone scrutinizes my arguments and agrees means nothing more than that she finds my arguments sound. What is fascinating is that welfarists declare (they don't argue) that welfare works w/o any empirical evidence. The violence people declare (they do not argue) that the "exploiters" are institutional users and not those who create the demand in the first place, It is the welfarists and violence crowd that demand faith.

And the welfarists and pro-violence people never challenge me on substance; they just call me names.

Okay, Vincent.

VincentJGuihan
Great. Also, if you cap your answers (when done) with a “Done.” I'll wait before proceeding with any follow-ups. Up to you, but so I don't cut you off. You and your partner have rescued several dogs together, including your latest (Christine). :-D Can you tell us why animal adoption is an important part of abolitionist work and what the other animals you have rescued have meant to you personally?

Gary Francione:
Done

Thomas Janek:
lol

Gary Francione:
Okay, Vincent: We should never have domesticated nonhumans in the first place. But we did. We got them into this mess. We have an obligation to help them out. When we rescue an animal and incorporate her into our family, we reject her status as a thing and we recognize her personhood. And that is the least that we owe to them. We love our dogs as we would love our human children. But in the best of all worlds, we would not have domesticated them in the first place.

Carolyn Bailey:
Vincent has another question for you Gary, please continue Vincent ...

VincentJGuihan:
No problem. As a follow up: how would you say adoption, which you support, is different from welfare reform, which you do not support?:-D

Gary Francione:
Adoption means removing the animal from the system of exploitation and giving her a home. Animal welfare is a revolving system of continuing exploitation. But the animals stay in that system; adoption removes them from the system.

And, as you know, I do not think that welfare reform does anything for animals anyway. On the contrary, it encourages more exploitation because it makes the public feel more comfortable about animal use.

VincentJGuihan
Great, thank you, Gary, for the thorough answer.

Carolyn Bailey:
Vincent, would you like to ask Gary another question? ...

VincentJGuihan:
Yes. I think a lot of people misunderstand your views on incremental change. Are "bans" on specific types of treatment/use abolitionist? If so, under what circumstances?

Gary Francione:
In Rain Without Thunder, I argued in favor of creative, nonviolent vegan education as the primary form of activism. I argued that IF advocates wanted to pursue single-issue campaigns, those should satisfy several conjunctive (not disjunctive) conditions: They should be bans (not "humane" regulations) on significant activities based explicitly on inherent value and presented explicitly as part of the goal of overall abolition. I was careful to argue that bans can be tricky because changing from a small cage to a larger cage could (and by some welfarists has) been characterized as a "ban" of the smaller cage. Anyway, I refer to what I said earlier about single-issue campaigns. I advise advocates to stay away from them in favor of creative, nonviolent vegan education. In any event, any campaign that satisfied the criteria I laid out in RWT would not have a chance of success anyway.

VincentJGuihan
Great, once again, thank you for the thorough reply, Gary.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Gary, Vincent has one more question prior to finalising the formal part of our chat, Vincent?

Gary Francione:
You're welcome.

VincentJGuihan
Yes, thanks, Carolyn. This one is my last. A lot of advocates, Matt Ball, Bruce Friedrich, and Erik Marcus, for example have criticized veganism as fanatical, as a last step, as unnecessary and so on. HSUS refuses to promote veganism …

Gary Francione:
Yee gods, Vincent! Okay, go ahead.

VincentJGuihan
Vegans like learning. :-D

You say veganism is a moral baseline. How do your views differ from theirs and why is veganism so important to abolition?

Gary Francione:
Theirs? Meaning who?

VincentJGuihan
Ball, Friedrich, Marcus and HSUS. Start with any. Did you see the first part of the Q?

I'll repaste: A lot of advocates, Matt Ball, Bruce Friedrich, and Erik Marcus, for example have criticized veganism as fanatical, as a last step, as unnecessary and so on. HSUS refuses to promote veganism …

Gary Francione:
Oh, I apologize. No, I didn't. People like Matt, Bruce, Marcus maintain that consistent veganism is "absolutist" or "fundamentalist." That sort of view is clearly speciesist. If someone said that a person who opposed all rape or pedophilia was an "absolutist," we would object. But let us be clear here: HSUS, PETA, "Vegan" Outreach are all entrepreneurs in the "happy meat/products" business. They actually promote animal products, fast-food chains, etc. They give awards to people like Temple Grandin. That's outrageous. I see ethical veganism as the moral baseline-the FIRST step, not the last step. Veganism is the rejection of the status of animals as property. Veganism is the recognition of the moral personhood of nonhumans. And the more people who go vegan, the more demand drops. The more we shift the paradigm from property to personhood. And veganism is the first step in pursuing nonviolence. Nonviolence begins with what you put in your mouth and on your body.

Done. But if Vincent has a 35th question, that's fine.:-D

Carolyn Bailey:
It is at this point I would like to sincerely thank Professor Gary Francione for his generosity in affording us the time to hear from him, learn from him and chat with him. It's really been a great experience for all involved

Gary Francione:
It was my pleasure. I am sorry it took me so long but I am a one-finger typist and I answered directly. They were good questions.

So let's continue...

Laura Cooley:
thank you Gary for typing slow....:-)

Jamie Rivet:
Well let's say Joan is up!

Carolyn Bailey:
Gary will be available to take further questions in an open chat forum directly. I would also like to thank all ARZone members for their participation in a civil and enlightening chat

Joan is first up in the open chat, of course

Joan E Loza Mobry
Thank You. I am honored to be here and to have the opportunity to speak with you. Here is my question...

Gary Francione:
Sure. I will take a question from anyone.

Joan E Loza Mobry
Other Than Education (Foremost), Petitions, Boycotts, And Non Violent Demonstrations. Is There Any Method More Effective For Reducing And Eventually Eliminating Animal Neglect, Animal Abuse, Animal Cruelty, Animal Torture and Animal Murder Throughout The World?

Carolyn Bailey:
Could we just give Professor Francione a few minutes to recover before re-starting? And to perhaps check his private chat box ??

Jamie Rivet:
There is a subtle hint

Roger Yates
51

Carolyn Bailey:
It was more before Roger

Gary Francione:
Joan: I think if we conscientiously pursued creative, nonviolent vegan education, it would make a terrific difference. I also think we have to reshape the movement to incorporate nonviolence and peace studies.

I am confused. Am I supposed to stay here or start addressing people in the private chat area?

Carolyn Bailey:
This is it Gary, this is the only box you need to worry about

Rico:
i came in late Gary, so maybe you've already covered this, but what is violence?

Joan E Loza Mobry
No Problem. Above all, this job requires patience. I can wait as long as needed.

Carolyn Bailey:
thanks, Joan, and after Gary's replied to Joan I believe David was next

Trisha Roberts:
Thanks very much Prof. Francione. They were good questions and great answers. (sorry if this comment drops in 10 minutes late, big lag time) ;-)

Gary Francione:
I could spend hours answering that Rico but let it suffice to say that I regard any activity that harms other sentient beings or that creates a risk of harm to other sentient beings as violence.

Rico:
Ok, good, thank you - very succinct.

Gary Francione:
Joan: I did reply to you. Scroll up.

Patrycja Art:
Can I have a question next?

Jamie Rivet:
You can go Pat

Ohsooosara:
i have one too

Joan:
Time to go back to work. Good bye all. Thank you Gary.

Gary Francione:
You're welcome, Joan. Thanks for coming.

Lisa Blundell:
My mother (i'm reading her answers Prof. Francione :-D)and I thank you very much for taking such a big time out of your schedule to be here. <3

Gary Francione:
Lisa, it is my pleasure. I hope the two of you will stay.

Jacqueline Webb:
I think I have a q - let me know when I can go

Patrycja Art:
Thanks a lot, it's 02 am here... ok I have kinda dilemma. With my boyfriend we are vegans but we don't have always enough money to buy vegan fair trade organic products in organic vegan shop. What is your opinion on buying vegan products in big supermarkets like Tesco and so supporting this type of exploitation this big supermarkets are doing. I mean we buy vegan but through this we support big commercial monster somehow.
What is your opinion on that , is it ok or we should always try to make it right in all aspects? Thanks a lot.

Carolyn Bailey:
If anyone would like to ask Gary questions, please feel free to PM me or Jamie

Jeff Perz:
I think Lilith asked her question a little awkwardly but she really meant: vegan education and adopting animals are ok. But given that so many animals are suffering "right now", aren't violence and welfarist campaigns justified? Why not?

(the above is my interpretation of Lilith's question, and is not my view substantively.)

Gary Francione:
Yes, I understood Lilith to be asking about the legitimacy of violence. But I answered that earlier.

Gary Francione:
Great question, Patrycja. It's a serious problem. Where I live, we had several great small shops and w/1 exception (the one that carries almost no produce), they've gone out of business. Now we have Whole Foods and Trader Joe's! You do the best you can do. I try to find local farmers where I can get stuff direct but it isn't easy. So again, you do the best you can do.

Patrycja Art:
Right... step by step.. Thanks Gary!! much appreciated!

Carolyn Bailey:
William had a question, William ....

William:
Hi Gary. Thank you so much for giving your time to answer our questions. :-D

Joan Dunayer has criticized your use of Speciesist Language, notably in her 2004 book 'Speciesism', I do feel Joan makes strong points about our use of Speciesist Language in general. I believe adopting non-speciesist language is incredibly important in talking with people who are not part of the animal movement, in gaining their compassion a lot more effectively, but also at the same time, reinforcing that non-human animals are moral persons not just 'things' or 'property' - The very status we are challenging. How do you feel about our use of Speciesist Language?

Gary Francione:
Two points. First, Dunayer asked me to write the foreword to Speciesism. I agreed to look at the manuscript (it was a self-publish job) and it did not contain a single word of criticism of my supposedly speciesist language. I have the original manuscript that Dunayer sent and the email asking me to write the foreword.

I refused to write what Joan wanted because I thought her book contained very little that was original. Dunayer got angry and rewrote the manuscript, attacking me and calling me a speciesist and welfarist. Frankly, I think that Dunayer acted very badly and she misrepresented my views in order to retaliate. Ask yourself: if she thought that I was engaging in speciesist language or supported welfarism, why would she ask me in writing to write the foreword? Interestingly, in that same email, Dunayer told me what a great book Introduction to Animal Rights was-the very book she claims is speciesist!

Second, as to the issue of language, we should of course not use speciesist language, racist language, anti-semitic language or homophobic language. But I think it is silly to say that if we change our language, the world changes. We have to change the ideology that leads us to use the problematic language. In the US, one never hears the racist epithets I heard growing up

William:
You and Joan have varying views on what Speciesist Language exactly is.

Yes, I agree we have to change our ideology. I don't think that is solely what Joan is saying. Language is only a part of our activism.

Gary Francione:
and it is still a racist country. Funny, Joan did not think that my language was speciesist until I would not do what she wanted. In any event, if you think my language is speciesist, I am sorry. I disagree.

Jamie Rivet:
Mateja has the floor now, then ohsooosara, go ahead Mateja please...

Mateja Presern
Hi Gary, thank you for your time. Here's my question:

William:
Thank you for answering Gary.

Mateja Presern
Reducing the demand today means less animals will suffer tomorrow. But can anything be done to help the animals that are being exploited on farms at the present time?

Gary Francione:
No, and welfare reform (even if it were worth a damn) would do nothing for the animals suffering today anyway.

ohsooosara:
Thank you so much for your time Gary! I was wondering what your thoughts are on vegans in relationships with non-vegans. I am trying to be patient and educate my partner on veganism but so far he has not decided to change.

Mateja Presern:
Thanks.

ohsooosara:
i try to be tolerant and understanding as not too long ago i was eating meat too, but I fear it will be the end for us if something doesn't change do you have any ideas of getting through to him? should i try to stick it out? we don't live together now and if this doesn't change i know we never will

Gary Francione:
That's an interesting and tough question. I think you have to do exactly what you are doing: educate and be patient. Remember that in our culture, eating animals and animal products is considered as normal as breathing air. So you really have to help your partner see a different moral reality. But at some point, you have a hard decision to make. I could not live with someone who understood the moral arguments, had no response (because there is none), and continued to eat animals anyway.

ohsooosara:
It is a constant source of worry and suffering as we were together long before i went vegan. i appreciate your thoughts.

Gary Francione:
I understand and sympathize but would you--could you--live with someone who was a member of a racist hate group? Once your partner really understands, if he does not change, you have a hard decision to make. But that happens lots in life.

ohsooosara:
yes, i know it will come to that point in the future if he does not become vegan. I'm trying to accept him.
thank you Gary

Gary Francione:
Good luck. Keep working on him!

ohsooosara:
I WILL!

Carolyn Bailey:
I think Douglass is next with a question, Douglass ?

Jamie Rivet:
Gary, do you want to call it a night? Continue? Continue in a purely informal way? It is your call; we are approaching 4 hrs here.

Douglass:
I'm here only if there's time

Gary Francione:
Nope. There are 41 people still here. I am staying a while longer.,

Douglass:
Professor Francione, I have a few quick questions (actually, only two). Please answer as many as far as you are patient for.

Carolyn Bailey:
Gary is giving so generously of his time here to help everyone, it's very sweet of him, thanks Gary. I must say that I am incredibly impressed by his patience and generosity.

Gary Francione:
I don't know Douglass, are you good?

Douglass:
I am amazing, thank you very much, sir!

First, You clearly state all serious AR advocates should set distance from PETA. With that said, do you think videos like PETA's Meet Your Meat are effective or do you have an alternative suggestion?

Gary Francione:
As I said, it is my pleasure.

Douglass: I think we should always be careful when we show any video like that because it makes people think that the issue is treatment and not use. These videos tend to stress "abusive" situations. But I have been in plenty of abattoirs in my time and I can tell you that there is no such thing as a non-abusive one. They're all horrible and killing animals is morally unjustifiable however "humanely" they're raised or killed. So I express that caution. As a general matter, I don't use those materials. I actually prefer things like Schonfeld's "The Animals Film" because it shows the "normal" operations on the farm and in the lab. The problem is that that film was made in 1982. But I favor material that shows "normal" operations. To the extent that I use any PETA material, I always make clear to my students (or whatever group I am dealing with) that I do not support PETA. I usually also say that I am glad that with all the millions of dollars they rake in, they produce a bit of useful stuff. No one screws up all the time (although PETA gets close)!

Sorry, Done.

Douglass:
Next, are you interested in attending future animal rights/vegan conferences?

Gary Francione:
Actually, I have more to add to your first question. I am actually bewildered that more advocates aren't enraged by the fact that PETA kills about 85% of the animals it "rescues." I think that is obscene. Maybe someone should go rescue the animals that PETA "rescues" and then kills!

As to your second question, I generally avoid animal rights conferences in the U.S. because the conferences are uniformly new welfarist. There is not a single large group in the U.S. that is not new welfarist. I am very interested in talking with other progressive groups and I am interested in vegan groups. I do a lot of lecturing on Skype and am always willing to do video conferences. They work well and it's greener than traveling.

Douglass:
Well, I'm under the impression that 85% figure may be skewed numbers, but we'll have to discuss that detail, later...

I've got a little more to go, can I continue?

Carolyn Bailey:
Roger has the next question Gary

Douglass:
thank you, Professor Francione!

Carolyn Bailey:
Douglass, please feel free to continue after others have asked

Roger Yates:
Hi Gary
Thanks so much for being here.
Can you say a few words about the work we are developing together – that welfare advocacy is largely redundant since animal users ~respond~ in a default sense to animal rights with animal welfarism.

Gary Francione:
Just a second Roger, I need to finish with Douglass. Douglass, if you read my "Rain Without Thunder," you know that PETA was killing healthy animals back in 1994 at it's "no-kill" sanctuary, Aspen Hill. In fact, that is why I finally broke away from them. And the numbers of animals killed come from the reports that PETA files with the Commonwealth of Virginia.

And frankly, Douglass, if it was one healthy animal that PETA killed, that's one too many. I cannot accept that nonsense. No how. No way. Not ever.

Douglass:
I agree. I've been told the actual number is more like 26%
26% too much, even if that were the case.
in my opinion. Thank you. we can continue this dialog, later!

Jamie Rivet:
your colleague Roger posted a question above Gary, you may have missed it?

Gary Francione:
You've been told by whom? PETA? The reports state what they state. But 26% is only a little less obscene. If animal rights means anything at all, it means that we don't kill healthy nonhumans entrusted to us. If it doesn't mean that, it's bullshit. No offense to bulls.

Roger Yates:
should I post it again?

Gary Francione:
and I apologize if Dunayer thinks that's speciesist language.

Douglass:
his is what a AR activist I respect that I work with stated:
when I quoted part of your comment to Ingrid's latest, that is:
“Douglass, please be careful when repeating that "kill rate" as promoted by the "Center for Consumer Freedom," which is a front for restaurant, tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. It is intentionally misleading, in order to protect profits of in industries that use animals: They are first subtracting the number of animals returned to owners, in order to artificially inflate the euthanasia rate. The statistics on the following site about animal shelters are based on total animals entering, without subtracting those reclaimed by owners.”

Gary Francione:
Hey, Roger: No, I was about to reply when I got the news that PETA's only killing 26% of its "rescues"!! Breathtaking. Anyway, yes, it follows from the theory of animals as chattel property that if advocates promote abolition across the board, industry will respond by making welfare reforms that are economically efficient, which is what they do now anyway.

Gary Francione:
Douglass: I am not pursuing this further other than to say that the public reports contain the numbers. I am not relying on CCF or anyone else. And again, if you think that killing ANY--read that--ANY healthy animals is anything but a travesty, then you and I live in different moral universes.
Done.
Next, please.

Jamie Rivet:
Pilar is next

Pilar:
thanks
hi Gary
I‘ve made a short documentary as part as my final project as uni last year, about a group of animal right activists who have been protesting against the fur industry outside a shop in London for the past 2 years.. for this reason I spent a lot of time with them, observing their demonstration and the amazing work they are doing as well as the reaction of the public and their views…unfortunately, people passing by didn’t seem to care much about the protesters and although people did feel very ‘‘’sorry’’ for the animals in the fur farms, no-one really seemed to consider veganism as an option…they were rather annoyed at the protesters and their ‘’noise’’. After many months my conclusion was that, generally speaking, protests don’t work … I would like to know your opinion on this..

Do you think protests are effective in bringing about a change in people’s consciousness in regards to the animal slavery?? Do protests work? What is the best way of educating people?
Thank you very much Gary

Gary Francione:
The problem is that fur is the perfect example of a waste-of-time single issue campaign. It's been going as long as I have been in the movement (about 30 years) and fur is as strong as ever. There is no moral difference between fur and wool and silk and leather. And the fur campaign has been responsible for a great deal of misogynist behavior by animal advocates.

In any event, we need to understand a simple fact: animal exploitation is not like slavery in that there was always a good chunk of people who opposed race-based slavery; 99% of the population thinks that animal exploitation is "normal" and is like breathing air or drinking water. We really have to get that into our heads. There is a paradigm in place that it is okay to use animals as long as we do so "humanely." That paradigm is reinforced--strongly--by HSUS, RSPCA, CIWF, PETA, and all the other welfarist/new-wefarist groups. We need to change that paradigm. I find it very useful to use the "moral schizophrenia" approach that I used in "Introduction to Animal Rights." In fact, I am working with a cartoonist and we're preparing a little video involving Simon and the blowtorch. I think that will resonate. I used that approach when football star Michael Vick was busted for dog fighting. I wrote an editorial in which I argued that there was no difference between sitting around a pit watching dogs fight and sitting around the summer barbecue--both activities are justified by nothing more than pleasure. People really responded to that.

Many people DO care about the animal issue. They have just never been challenged to think critically about it. And groups like PETA (or any of the rest of them) aren't going to get them to think critically. PETA accuses anyone who thinks critically as "divisive."

Pilar:
Thank you Gary....so, in your opinion, should we totally avoid bringing awareness into one specific cause and concentrate on veganisms as a whole?

Gary Francione:
Yes, we need to educate people about the use of animals. Period. We need to work on shifting the paradigm away from property and toward personhood. We need to send a clear and unequivocal message about veganism as the moral baseline.

And this raises an issue about our own education. How many of you think of Peter Singer as an "animal rights" philosopher. That's rhetorical; I am not asking anyone to answer. But if I had $1 for every time I heard an animal advocate express surprise when I say that Singer is not animal rights theorist, I'd have about $20 million. And Singer explicitly says that it is okay to use animals and to kill and eat them and their products. We just have to be "conscientious" about their "humane" treatment. People really need to educate themselves. That was actually why I created my website. It was a way of helping advocates to learn how to educate others by first educating themselves about the basic ideas. They're not that complicated, really.

But you have an obligation to educate yourself before you try to educate others. But you will see good results if you do so.
Next?

Jamie Rivet:
Can we give Roger Yates a minute to post if he chooses? Would you like to add something Roger? After Roger we have Timothy on deck.

Gary Francione:
I consider Roger Yates to be a wonderful sociologist; he can post whatever he wants as far as I am concerned.

Roger Yates
Hi Gary
I'm going to pass to Elizabeth Collins since I've already had a Q - Betsy???

Elizabeth Collins:
hi thank you
Hi Gary thanks for taking the time to be here. Do you have a comment on the claims by people, including very recently, that if it weren't for PETA and their activities we wouldn't have as much vegan awareness as there is? Well they usually say "vegetarian" awareness, I believe a claim was made using Victor Schonfeld's comment that there is much more awareness today. Many people attribute that to groups like PETA at least it is something I get told all the time they say "I learned about veganism from PETA" etc? DONE

Gary Francione:
That's not the point. The point is that we'd have a lot more vegan awareness if PETA and other advocacy groups promoted veganism. Friedrich himself says that we should not be vegan if it will make others think veganism is difficult (Singer says that as well). In an interview with Dan Mathews of PETA (the guy who was the impetus for all the PETA sexism campaigns), Mathews said half of the PETA membership was "vegetarian" (not even vegan) and the other half "thought it was a good idea" (or words to that effect). Has PETA raised some consciousness? Sure it has. With the zillions of dollars it spends, it ought to do something. As I said before, no one screws up all the time. Hitler loved his dog. If PETA resisted the temptation to get into the "happy meat" business, vegan education would be further ahead. It is interesting that Schonfeld identified PETA as being a real hindrance to progress by its partnerships with industry and its sexism. When you boycott KFC until it agrees to gas chickens and then call off the

Andrea;
hey everyone

Jamie Rivet:
closed chat right now Andrea but hi

Gary Francione:
boycott, what sort of vegan message does that send? Schonfeld said at the conclusion of the BBC program that "crystal clarity" (I think that's the expression he used) was necessary. And he identified veganism as that clear principle. He reiterated that in The Guardian editorial, I agree completely. And I think that PETA has very much lost its way. It did so a long time ago. When you have an organization that kills healthy animals, promotes sexism, and gives awards to Whole Foods and Temple Grandin, it's time to move on and get serious. Done

Elizabeth Collins:
Thank you Professor, it is a question I often get asked and it irks me somewhat. I would like to say that I personally did not learn about veganism from PETA or any other big group, but rather from individuals conducting vegan education on a forum

Jamie Rivet:
Thank you Gary, Timothy is up now in our 5 hour Francione chat-a-thon! Go ahead please Timothy.

Timothy E. Putnam
Gary, thanks for your insight! I'm currently in an Environmental Science class for my PhD, and almost all of my environmentalist peers advocate "organic" and "sustainable" animal products (as does my professor).

Elizabeth Collins::
and in fact

Timothy E. Putnam
Because my peers are so narrowly focused on "the environment," they aren't receptive to non-empirical moral issues of "domesticated" animals during class. With our textbook being _The Omnivore's Dilemma_ and articles like "How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet" ( http://tinyurl.com/y9fq3dj ), I'm not sure what to do. How do you address these issues with highly educated enviro scientists?
As you can imagine, they're all in agreement and I'm the odd one out, so the onus is on me during class. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Elizabeth Collins::
when i was first presented with something by PETA i went on to buy "free range" eggs and leather/silk/ seafood etc for MONTHS until I went on that forum of individuals with no money or fame. Thank you Professor oops sorry. DONE

Gary Francione:
Eliz: no problem. You prove my point. You got PETA literature and bought "free-range."

Elizabeth Collins:
yes. true story

Jamie Rivet:
Timothy posted for you Gary-- you may have to scroll up or ask him to repost-- it got a little crazy there.

Gary Francione::
Timothy: I have been teaching in a university for 26 years now and I am very familiar with what you are talking about. It is astounding to me that ecologists do not recognize the fact that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. But the problem is clear: if you do not see the moral issue, you are likely to see the environmental issue purely as a scientific problem that science can solve. As far as Michael Pollan is concerned, it's pathetic that a guy who basically argues that we can get back to nature and become hunter/gatherers while living on the West side of Manhattan gets taken seriously. But he does. All of these people: Pollan, PETA, Singer, Foer, etc. tell us what we want to hear: that there's no moral problem as we do it "the right way." Hell, we'll even give you an award for designing a slaughterhouse! As long as we fail to perceive the 800 pound moral gorilla in the room (please don't report me to Dunayer), everything else is going to be a matter of pragmatics. Done.

Timothy E. Putnam
Thank you!

Jamie Rivet:
Belinda has the floor if she chooses, then Laura. These may be the last 2 of the chat-a-thon. Please go ahead Belinda:

Belinda Morris:
Thank you, Gary, for taking the extra time to chat w/ all of us tonight. I probably could think of 100 questions to ask you! One revolves around the term 'absolutism'. I believe that, by definition (in your own discipline) you are ...an 'ethical absolutist'. Why do you dismiss the handle? I think it is an apt and accurate (and admirable) term for your uncompromising principles re veganism...
Rather than rejecting it, why not consider qualifying the 'absolutist' label with the 'ethical' descriptive? (It might raise the bar...!) Thx for staying up half the night...
I'd like to buy you a vegan breakfast! - Done.

Gary Francione::
Because it has a pejorative meaning. If we would not apply that term to someone who had an uncompromising view on rape or child molestation, we should not apply it in the animal context. When you're in the New York area, you can buy me breakfast!

Belinda Morris:
LOL! OK!

Jamie Rivet:
Succinct on that one Gary? Or are you about to continue?

Gary Francione:
LOL? I am professor of LAW and philosophy. We're talking a contract here.:-D

Jamie: No, I said what I wanted to say.

Jamie Rivet:
Laura, it is your turn.

Laura Cooley:
Hey Gary. Thank you for doing this for us today. Being a vegan for less that a year myself, I am learning a lot today!
My question is: What are your thoughts on animal sanctuaries?
In particular, farm animal sanctuaries like ‘Farm Sanctuary’ and ‘Animal Acres’ who promote; veganism, rescue, education and advocacy?
Do you feel, like with adoption, that they are removing the animals from the system of exploitation and giving them a home?
Done.

Gary Francione:
Although I like sanctuaries, I have issues with Farm Sanctuary. I have known Gene and Lorie (who is now at Animal Acres) probably longer than you've been alive and FS definitely promotes welfare reform. I am very disappointed about that.

In fact, FS (along with PETA, "Vegan" Outreach, HSUS, and others) signed Peter Singer's love letter (available on my site) to Whole Foods in which Singer fawned over Mackey for developing the "Animal Compassionate" program. I do not know about Animal Acres although I did an interview for Phil Steier on his blog last week and he's involved with them. I like Peaceful Prairie in Colorado although they started out with a stronger abolitionist message. Nevertheless, I have not yet seen any evidence that Peaceful Prairie supports welfare reform efforts or compromises on the vegan question. I also have never visited the Hillside Sanctuary in Norfolk (UK) but I think that they have done some good work. There are small sanctuaries all over the place. Look for them. You'll find some good places and I believe in sanctuaries just as I believe in adoption. But I do not think that sanctuaries should support welfare reform or take anything but an uncompromising view on veganism.
Done.

Jamie Rivet:
Rico has been waiting patiently so we'll afford him his time now. Go ahead please RIco:

Rico:
some vegans say that if people aren't receptive to the moral argument, you should move to another argument eg health ie better to interest them some way rather than none. what's your view?

Gary Francione:
Laura: Thanks for your questions.

Laura Cooley:
:)

Gary Francione:
Rico: Good question. When I lecture-particularly newbies-I emphasize morality but I do talk about health and the environment. Actually, I think that they both raise moral issues in their own right in that we have a moral obligation not to harm ourselves and we have a moral obligation to all sentiments not to harm the environment in which they live and which all of us (human and nonhuman) need to survive. So yes, I do mention these things but I always emphasize that the most compelling reason is morality.

Rico:
ok, so mention all 3. but if people don't seem interested in the moral aspect?

Gary Francione::
Someone sent me a PM that I had neglected to answer an earlier question about debating others. Singer said he would debate me but he wanted $10,000 (that he claimed he would donate) and he wanted to negotiate the subjects to be debated. Rollin announced to his class that he wanted to debate me. I accepted and he backed out. Pacelle said that he was considering debating me but was too busy until next year. And Newkirk never
replied. I find this comical in that it is clear that these people cannot debate the merits of welfare reform because they know that my arguments about welfare reform are valid, that the argument that killing is not a per se harm is a very hard sell, etc. But


Jesus Valdes-Martinez:
One point that vegan couples or families don't realize is the sometime complicated situation on families with only one vegan, V. Shoenfeld point it very well when he says: "I had stopped short of removing milk and eggs from my diet and all leather

Gary Francione:
these debates are not necessary in that you can read what we all write (yes, not as entertaining, I know, but it's not about entertainment) and see that we very clearly differ and you can judge for yourself whose arguments are stronger.

Jesus Valdes-Martinez:
wool from my clothing. I'd had my rationales for this, the main one being that I hadn't wanted to impose too zealously nonconformist a lifestyle on my family. "I have eliminated all animal products of my personal live but sometimes it is difficult

Gary Francione:
Rico: If they're talking with me, they hear about the moral argument whether they want to or not. But I find that most people engage it.

Jesus Valdes-Martinez:
either for me or for my family. One day I received a book and I was very happy, my wife asked me what book was it and my son told her (12 years old then) "it is called How to torture your family"

Jamie Rivet:
HI Jesus, please let Gary answer in turn-- we have at least 2 others waiting.

Rico:
I still have follow ups, but I'll defer to others...

Gary Francione:
I respectfully disagree with Victor on that point. And I think that Victor's own views are evolving. He very clearly stated that he now recognized veganism as a moral baseline both as a social matter and as a personal matter. As far as family issues are concerned, I think you have to educate patiently but I would not consider it zealous to have a vegan house any more than I would find it zealous to prohibit porn in the house.

Jesus Valdes-Martinez:
I sent a long message not really knowing if I did the right thing to ask a question. I don't know what are the mods, or a PM. Excuse if I did something wrong.

Gary Francione:
Done. next?

Jamie Rivet:
Vera?

Vera:
Hi Gary. Thanks for being with us.

Gary Francione::
My pleasure, Vera.

Jordan Wyatt:
I'm sorry I've missed this chat, I'd been taking photos of my Chicken Friendshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/jaywontdart/sets/72157623271446744/ stay well everyone :-)

Vera:
You say that "the only use that we make of animals that isn’t transparently frivolous is the use of animals to cure serious human illnesses." Does that mean that it would be acceptable to use an animal to cure a human illness if that was the case?

Gary Francione:
Vera: NO!!!!!!! What I said was that you don't even need a particularly complicated theory to see that 99.9% of our animal use cannot be justified given moral principles we claim to accept (that "unnecessary" suffering and death cannot be morally justified). Vivisection (or some of it) may require a more complicated analysis but I make very clear that I do not regard ANY vivisection, even if empirically necessary and even if will be beneficial (two huge "ifs") as morally justifiable. NONE. Done.

Jamie Rivet:
Angela?

Vera:
Thanks a lot. It is clear now.:-)

Angela Dillon:
For some of us it is the afternoon (but not to be southern-hemisphere centric lol). I admire all you northern hemispherians for staying up so late. I was wondering what can be done about the animals in shelters – there doesn't seem to be enough people adopting them. Places that take them have limited space and funds. People are being educated (?) about “pets are for life not for Christmas” but every year they are inundated at that time of the year. Then there is the rest of the year.
What are your ideas

Gary Francione:
First of all, you have the large groups refusing to condemn breeding. They talk about "responsible breeding." There is NO "responsible breeding." We should have an unequivocal call for a complete ban on all breeding. Interestingly, I was interviewed by a major British paper a year ago (Financial Times Magazine section) and the reporter told me that not even PETA would say that we should abolish "pet" ownership. We shoukld take care of those animals that are alive now but we should not bring any more into existence. According to the reporter, I was the only one who would say that and that was stated in the article.

Angela Dillon:
Thanks. Is that as likely as it being a world of vegans?

Gary Francione:
With all of the money in this "movement," there should not be a single animal in a shelter or on Petfinder or whatever. We spend money on the wrong things, like flying people around the world so that they can go naked rather than do something useful. Is it likely? Well, if we keep on telling ourselves that everything is unlikely, I guess we won't achieve very much. But we can achieve a great deal if we have the will, the passion, and the willingness

Angela Dillon:
Not sure if you're "done" but I will try and stay positive but I am willing that is for sure.

Gary Francione:
to work ceaselessly. That was the point of "THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it" campaign. It was to remind people that veganism is not something that is going to be bestowed from above; WE have to want it; demand it. That was what John and Yoko were trying to tell us about war. You can't look to the government, which profits from war, to end it. WE have to make it end by demanding peace. Done.

Jamie Rivet:
Sam is the next ARZone member to question our guest. Please go ahead Sam.

Angela Dillon:
Thanks so much for the answers to my question and also for all the other information here.

Sam Tucker:
Hi Gary, it's great to have you on here! I'm going to play devils advocate and ask you some questions about Martin Balluchs approach

Gary Francione:
Angela: You are most welcome.
Sam: I wrote a very long essay about Balluch's approach, which is nothing more than new welfarism.

Sam Tucker
Yes and it was a great essay
But recently Balluch has made a counter-essay
in this essay he said that the fact that Austria banned fur farms showed that they were moving into welfare reforms that were detrimental to the industry. he believe that this is proof that your ideas about the economics of welfare reforms are incorrect, what are your thoughts on the Austrian ban on fur farms, does this represent a move away from "traditional" welfare?

Gary Francione:
Okay, Sam, what do you think Martin has said that in any way responds to my analysis of his approach?
Sam, the fact that in 200+ years of animal welfare there has not been such an example is not surprising. What Balluch does not like to admit, however is: (1) the demand for furs did not go down in Austria; and (2) production just got moved to places where things are as bad if not worse. So what's the point of these efforts? As long as people continue to demand fur, I am really unconcerned about where the production takes place.
Done.

Sam Tucker
Great answer Gary

Jamie Rivet:
Carolyn, do you have anyone in sequence now?

Roger Yates:
Gary?

Sam Tucker:
On more question about Balluch, he believes that humans are more social than rational and therefore will contniue to be nonvegan, even if they are convinced that veganism is the morally right thing to do, what are your thoughts on this?

Gary Francione:
Laura: my morality coach, CAROLYN BAILEY, says I should thank you for continuing the transcript. I listen to Carolyn's commands. Thank you!

Laura Cooley:
Thanks Gary but you are doing all the work. THANK YOU!

Gary Francione:
Laura: I repeat. I question not Carolyn.

Laura Cooley:
yea probably a good idea.

Gary Francione:
Sam: Balluch has a lot of strange ideas. He thinks that social change happens asa result of agreements between industry and animal advocates elites (like him) and that the public is irrelevant. I think that is very odd and wrong. As far as Balluch's also weird distinction

Carolyn Bailey:
I saw my name .... did I err?

Gary Francione::
between the social and the rational, that's just Martin's way of expressing the defeatism that we hear constantly from HSUS, PETA, "Vegan" Outreach, etc.--that we are not going to succeed at doing something significant so we ought to keep pursuing welfare reform.

Carolyn: You never do anything wrong. That is, at least, what you tell me.

Sam Tucker:
Great answers Gary, thanks so much for taking the time to answer that, is it OK if I post your reply on twitter?

Carolyn Bailey:
It did happen once, I was 3, I remember clearly

Laura Cooley:
Dark day in history...

Gary Francione:
Yes. I heard about that. When you screw up, it's bigtime.

To Sam: Sure. Go ahead.

Sam Tucker:
Cool

Rico:
were u going to say something before, Roger?

Roger Yates:
Gary, this may have been done to some extent, but would you please underline the importance of the property status of nonhuman animals in terms of animal rights efforts?

Gary Francione:
To Roger: Gee thanks for an easy one that I can answer quickly!! Bottom line: animals are economic commodities w/only extrinsic or conditional value. To protect their interests costs $ and that adds to total production cost. Therefore, we generally will incur that cost to the extent that it is economically beneficial. So we will, for example, require that large animals be stunned before being cut and bled because a large animal moving around upside down causes injuries to workers and carcass damage.

Interestingly, PETA is now arguing for gassing chickens because the conventional way of slaughter results in a great deal of carcass damage and wasted "meat," which is true. Gassing chickens is much more economically efficient, which is why it is increasingly accepted by industry. But those interested should go to my website and watch the video on "Animals as Property." These concepts are explained. I also have video presentations on the "Theory of Animal Rights" and "Rights vs. Welfare."
Done. Next, please.

Carolyn Bailey:
At this point in time, we'll cease transcribing and wrap up the actual AR Zone chat and say thank you sincerely to Professor Francione for his valuable and much appreciated time ...

Roger Yates:
Thanks Gary

Belinda Morris:
Good night all. Special thx to Gary (I disagree that 'ethical absolutist' is by def. "perjorative", but I'll honour my contract and happily buy you breakfast when in NY) Many thx to Carolyn and Jamie - excellent moderation! Wicked show tonite.

Vera Regina Cristofani
Great chat! Have learned a lot. Thanks Professor Gary, Carolyn, Jamie and all.

Timothy E. Putnam:
Gary, thank you for your generosity of time and energy, and especially for your clarity! Also, I recognize many of the names in the chat list, and I want to thank you all, too. Your blogs, podcasts, etc. have helped me grow as an abolitionist!

Jamie Rivet:
Thank you Gary, incredible job!

Carolyn Bailey:
Gary is good to stay and continue to answer questions, I am just relieving Laura and ending the 'official' part of this

Angela Dillon:
Thanks! Will be reading more about the issues mentioned on your website Gary.

Sam Tucker:
Great job Gary! :-)

William:
Thank you Gary for your time today and all the work you do!

Carolyn Bailey:
so please, continue, but Laura won't be transcribing any more, she's lazy like that!

Gary Francione:
Yes, please visit www.abolitionistApproach.com

Roger Yates:
Lazy person that Laura!

Laura Cooley:
Great job Gary!!
lol thanks Roger

Gary Francione:
Well you're transcribing it, aren't you Carolyn?

Roger Yates:
We need a "sound" transcriber.

Rico:
Thanks Gary! And also to mods Carolyn and Jamie...

Carolyn Bailey:
I am editing the transcript, but Laura took it all down

Trisha Roberts:
Thanks very much Prof. Francione for a wonderful informative Q&A and for giving us much of your precious time :-)

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Rico

Trisha Roberts:
Lol Roger

Elizabeth Collins:
thanks to everyone for this wonderful experience and to Animal Rights Zone. :-)
Special thanks to Professor Francione

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, sincerely, to the members of ARZone who took the time to participate in this experience, thank you all very much

Carol Hughes:
Thank you, Gary and the Mods. :-)

Angela Dillon:
Good afternoon all.

Trisha Roberts:
I've managed to catch a good amount of it Gary and posted it on LiveVegan as it's been happening.

Mark Jordan:
Thank You Professor Francione and mods, interesting.

Gary Francione:
Trisha:" I hope you corrected it because I made a zillion typos.

Liliana Isabel Rocca:
Thank you. Professor

Trisha Roberts:
Lol I did Gary

Gary Francione:
You are all very welcome. Just do me a favor: tomorrow, commit to talk to someone about veganism!

Trisha Roberts:
Considering you type with one finger, you did very well. Few typos ;-)

Jamie Rivet:
We had a really nice crowd tonight too. Geez, and I was ready for trouble.

Gary Francione:
When I die, my finger will be donated to science. I have written six books and a zillion articles and essays with this one finger, it is a good finger.

Renata:
Ha ha ha ha!!!

Gary Francione:
Jamie: Trouble? You mean from pro-violence people?

Jamie Rivet:
Ya, mostly them I guess.

Vera Regina Cristofani
3:15am here in Brazil. It was worth it to be up till this time. Good night everybody. And thanks again for your wonderful answers, Gary.

Trisha Roberts:
Lol the precious finger lol

Kate:
And don’t worry I’m sure no one will report you to Dunayer! ;)

Roger Yates:
Three cheers for “the finger”

Nathan:
We definitely need to get this information about how Gary types on Wikipedia

Jesus Valdes-Martinez
First time here, enjoy it. Thanks Gary and all of you. Adios amigos.

Trisha Roberts:
Hip pip hurray ;) hip pip hurray ;) hip pip hurray ;)

Reneta:
It wasn’t Gary who used “speciesist language” it was the FINGER!

Trisha Roberts:
J6 + hour chat, excellent

Reneta:
Good afternoon to all! It was great, as well as all the side-line conversation I was having with the members in the room. Now back to caring for our overly energetic vegan children.

Trisha Roberts:
I’m glad I had someone to give me a beverage or two, I hope Anna, or Christine ;) offered you a beverage and some food too Gary ;)

Renata:
Yes and that’s another debate! One I’ve had before on the earthlings forum!!!!

Trisha Roberts:
Liz (or Betsy j/k) are you still there?

Renata:
Good day to all u from the vegan breeder! Or Desert Girl! Ciao!

Gary Francione:
Trisha: Yes, I have been eating and drinking as we moved through the night.

Trisha Roberts:
Ciao

Roger Yates::
Goodnight – well. 5:20am – folks! Thanks to everyone involved, not pointing the ‘finger’ at anyone in particular.

Timothy E. Putnam
Lol Roger

Trisha Roberts:
JGoodnight Roger

Timothy E. Putnam
Thanks again, everyone! Goodnight!

Trisha Roberts:
Say hi to Mo Mo

Roger Yates:
will do

Trisha Roberts:
Goodnight Tim

Timothy E. Putnam:
Night Trisha

Roger Yates:
She is still awake at 8am as usual

Jamie Rivet:
Thanks again Gary and thanks to the awesome ARZ people

Trisha Roberts::
Thanks Carolyn and mods for holding this. I look forward to future ones

Jamie Rivet:
Won’t be long

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Trisha, I’m so pleased you’re part of ARZone now

Gary Francione:
We should do this again sometime. It would be good if you could persuade a prominent welfarist to come and discuss these issues with me and all of you.

Trisha Roberts:
I am as well Carolyn.

Jamie Rivet:
Yes that would be perfect

Trisha Roberts:
Not likely though

Gary Francione:
Seriously, I want to thank you all for your great questions and your obvious enthusiasm. Remember something: we really can change the world.

 

 

ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after “chats” by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.