Jeff Perz ~ Guest Chat Transcript ~ 29 - 30 May 2010

[Carolyn Bailey]

Transcript of Jeff Perz's Live ARZone Guest Chat

29 May 2010 at:

3:30pm US Pacific time

6:30pm US Eastern time

11:30pm UK Time

and 30 May 2010 at:

8.30am Australian Eastern Standard Time

Carolyn Bailey:

Jeff Perz is a Canadian animal rights philosopher and activist living in Australia. His activism has involved the use of portable audio-visual kiosks placed on the streets In this way, Jeff has shown the public video images of non-human animals being exploited and killed for human consumption while simultaneously presenting rational arguments for animal rights and a vegan lifestyle from an abolitionist perspective.

His Master’s thesis is entitled Core Self-Awareness and Personhood and argues that all self-aware beings are moral persons and ought to be legal persons.

Jeff has written several animal rights articles, which are linked here:
https://arzone.ning.com/notes/index/show?noteKey=Jeff_Perz%2C_M.A._....

ARZone is proud to welcome Jeff Perz as our guest today, please say hello to Jeff …

Michael T Tiedemann
Hi Jeff!

Carolyn Bailey:
Hey Jeff, welcome!

Jeff Perz:
Hello everyone, thank you for having me here.

Roger Yates:
Hi Jeff.

 

Carolyn Bailey:
Before we begin, I’d like to request that all comments be withheld until the formal chat has concluded, at which time Jeff will be happy to take questions from all members in open chat. I’d now like to ask Jeff his first question on behalf of Tammy McLeod who can’t be here:

I consider myself an abolitionist. I define this by my desire to abolish all animal use and abuse completely, without exception. I also believe, in order to do so, direct action is an acceptable way of accelerating this. I believe direct action has a place and is necessary, to remove animals who are suffering NOW from their current circumstances. Could you please explain why you feel my opinion is wrong, and why you feel your approach is superior?

Jeff Perz:
Thanks very much, Tammy, for your eloquently worded question.
When you speak of “direct action” above, you appear to be limiting it to removing animals from situations of exploitation. If this is indeed all that you mean, my view is that sometimes rescuing animals is morally acceptable or desirable, sometimes it is not clear whether a rescue is acceptable and other times rescues are clearly immoral.

I will start with the rescue situations that I am ambivalent about. On the one hand, there are individual healthy animals in need of rescuing, and it would be cold to turn one's back on them. On the other hand,
rescuing healthy animals will cause more animals to be bred into existence to replace those rescued. In other words, the act of rescuing one healthy animal is casually connected to the response of the exploiter, who will respond to the demand that the rescuer has created, phone his supplier, and ask that more animals be bred into existence, used and killed. The rescuer is the cause of this suffering and death NOW. So, I am of mixed minds when it comes to rescuing healthy animals.

Regarding rescue situations that I believe are morally acceptable or desirable, these would involve “unhealthy” animals, or animals that the exploiter does not want for whatever reason. If the animals are so
unhealthy that they would be discarded by the animal exploiter, then I support efforts to rescue them, so long as nothing is paid for them, not even $1. These situations do not create demand for breeding more animals into existence, whom would then be exploited and killed. Rescues are clearly unethical when not enough consideration is paid to the well-being of the animals. For example, cases of releasing minks from mink farms, where the minks have died of dehydration, starvation, or have been hit by cars. All of that said, it is a better use of an activist's time to do vegan education than to rescue animals. Vegan education saves* many more lives. One could spend days (or more) planning and executing an open or covert rescue. Perhaps that would save 10-50 animals. Or, instead, one could spend that same time doing vegan education. Helping just one person in her 20s to go vegan would save*(i.e. prevent _thousands_ of animals from being bred into existence, exploited and killed) NOW. As Francione notes, we’re in a zero sum game: every minute spent doing a rescue is one minute less that we could have been doing vegan
education, saving more lives.

So, in general, this is the reason why I believe direct action via rescue is not the best approach to abolish all animal use. That said, I do not actively oppose all rescues, as I explain above.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks very much, Jeff.

Roger Yates:
thanks Jeff

Jeff Perz:
You're welcome

Roger Yates:
the next Q comes from Carolyn on a cranky old Aussie computer....

Maggie Baker:
thank you Jeff

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Rog!
Could you please give us your opinion on the keeping of companion animals. Doesn’t this violate the most basic right any animal should be afforded of not being treated as property?

Jeff Perz:

Let me answer with a human analogy. Suppose the question were asked, “Could you please give us your opinion on providing sanctuary to runaway (human) slaves.

Doesn’t this violate the most basic right any runaway slave should be afforded of not being treated as property?” The answer, obviously, is “no.” So, for cats, dogs, etc., this means that we can rescue them from shelters. We can care for and provide sanctuary to the animals that exist now. But we must stop breeding new cats and dogs into existence.

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks again, Jeff

Jason Ward has the next question, but he may be unavailable at the moment, so Rog will ask for him, Rog?

Roger Yates:

I will!

What’s your opinion of vegans taking advantage of medications or procedures which have been developed through vivisection, or the use of animals as commodities? Is this not inconsistent with living a vegan lifestyle and taking an animal rights position?

 

Jeff Perz:

Thanks for this question, Jason. I believe someone from PeTA (which I oppose) effectively answered this question decades ago. Gary Francione gives a variation of this answer in the appendix to Introduction to Animal Rights. I am opposed to (human) slavery and the use of prisoner labor. Yet, many of the roads in the Southern U.S. were originally built by slaves and continue to be maintained by prisoner labor. If we live in the U.S. South, should we avoid driving on these roads? I believe the answer is “no, but we should become strong advocates against the use of prison labor.” Similarly, if I had to choose between a medication with no animal ingredients but it was tested on animals, vs. dying, I would choose to take the medication and live. Then I could do more vegan education, which includes anti-vivisection education. Thus, I don’t think there is any inconsistency. That said, I strive to avoid all animal-tested products, including medication. When I can, for example, I will take feverfew herb instead of aspirin or whatever.

Roger Yates:
thanks Jeff
the next Q is from Carolyn

Carolyn Bailey:
There are many people who are most effectively convinced of the necessity for veganism by rational argument.

However, there are also many people who are most effectively persuaded by emotional impact, such as that delivered by films like Earthlings and similar video footage.

Indeed, I know at least a few, if not several people, some who are now abolitionists, who went vegan directly as a result of the emotional impact of watching Earthlings or similar video. The criticism of films showing emotional impact is that they focus on treatment instead of use per se. The concern is that many people will react to such films by wanting more regulation, either as part of, or instead of, abolition. As an abolitionist with significant formal training in rational argument who has experience showing video of the cruel treatment inherent in virtually all animal exploitation, do you think such videos are an effective educational aid for abolitionists? Do you believe adding such “emotional impact” to rational abolitionist argumentation is more effective than rational abolitionist argumentation alone?

 

Jeff Perz:
Thanks, Carolyn. First, let me paraphrase Gary Francione’s view: There is no right or wrong answer to your question. My view (and my personal experience) is that, if gory videos of animal use are shown
with no commentary, then the default position of the viewer will prevail. In other words, she will say or think the images of animal use are “horrible, I don’t agree with that. But conditions could be greatly
improved and I agree with the humane use and killing of animals.” Then, this person will go on eating factory farmed animals, simply because the mere possibility of improving conditions of use exists. To avoid
this scenario, I do the following. If conducting a workshop or formal film night, I will begin by presenting a clear, rational and easy to understand argument for why regulating animal use does not work, and
why doing so is immoral. Then I will show the video. Afterwards, I will re-cap the argument I began with and then open it up to questions and discussions with the audience. After being shocked, and after
empathizing with the animals in the video, the audience is generally hungry for a way to make sense of it all.

They need reasons for maintaining the status quo, or reasons for changing and going vegan. In other words, empathy and emotion need to be accompanied by easy to understand reasoned analysis.

Also, in informal situations where I am simply showing videos on the street, there is no opportunity to give an introduction. In these cases, I make my own abolitionist pamphlets that explain everything,
and I am there to answer people’s questions. Unlike in conventional protests that generally have aggressive atmospheres, which encourage passersby to walk past as quickly as possible and avert their eyes,
showing videos of animal use on the street causes large groups, semi-circles of people, to gather around the screen. (This is only true if the population density in a given area is at the right balance.)
There is a quiet, somber atmosphere. People approach me, the activist, with an open mind. Lastly, some people respond more to reason, some more to empathy and emotion, but most people need both.

Carolyn Bailey: 

Thanks again, Jeff, for your thoughtful replies. Next question is from Sam Jenkins and will be asked by Roger Yates, Rog?

Roger Yates:
here's the Q:....There has been some debate online during the week regarding a video which was filmed by “Mercy for Animals” of an Ohio dairy farm and some of the extreme atrocities carried out by their workers and owner. The undercover video displayed some of the worst cruelty imaginable, including severe and relentless beating of cows and calves, in the head and face, using crowbars and other tools.

The debate has involved some activists suggesting that to place any importance on this video would be to suggest all other dairy cruelty was less significant, and more acceptable, in comparison. Some activists have suggested that not to place emphasis on this video is a wasted opportunity to educate people who choose to consume dairy, of the atrocities that occur in every dairy farm, every single day, for every single cow.

Do you see these videos as potentially beneficial for vegan education? Why or why not?

Jeff Perz:

I prefer not to use videos that involve scenes of illegal activity within industries that exploit animals. For example, activity that violates the Humane Slaughter Act and other laws. Beating cows is illegal because it is a waste of worker time and causes carcass damage (although that doesn't matter in the case of cows used for dairy, whose bodies are later ground up). As Dan Cudahy recently said, “The horrific treatment of these innocent beings is merely a symptom of the disease of using them and of speciesism. The use *cannot* be regulated; use must be abolished.” I agree with Dan.

I don’t support using videos of illegal animal exploitation. I do support using extremely violent abhorrent videos of legal animal exploitation--so long as the images depict commonplace, standard industry practice. See my reply to Carolyn’s question above. I also support using videos of so-called “free range”
and “hobby” farms.

 

Roger Yates:

Thanks Jeff

Lorna was supposed to be here to ask her Q - but apparently not... Carolyn will step in...

 

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Rog. This is Lorna's question for you, Jeff:
HI Jeff, my question is: when you wrote "Exclusive Non-Violent Action: Its Absolute Necessity for Building a Genuine Animal Rights Movement", did you realise how controversial this essay was going to be, as i was
reading Daniel Peyser thoughts on this. Daniel Peyser wrote: "I argue that his essay, its premise, contents, and conclusion, are wholly incorrect". What is your reply to this, and did you do enough research?


Jeff Perz:
Thanks, Lorna. Yes, I realized there would be disagreement with my article, as passions tend to run high on this issue. And yes, I did do enough research. Here is my reply to Peyser:
http://theveganbus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/nonviolence_perz.pdf
I invite you to read my reply to Peyser linked above, and then e-mail me later (via Carolyn of ARZone) with your reaction. But let me also say this now: Aside from Francione's point that violence focuses on the wrong side of the demand-supply equation, and therefore does not save the lives of any animals, I would add the following. If I were sitting in an animal rights campaign office, how should I choose to spend my limited time and money?

Consider these three options:

(a) Spend 8 hours per day seeking out people who are in the process of
severely beating their dogs, and then I intervene and violently
defend the dogs.

Although option (a) would be an inefficient use of time, it IS analogous to self-defense, or the defense of others.

(b) Spend 8 hours per day planning the murder of a vivisector or slaughterhouse worker. 

Option (b) is NOT analogous to self-defense, or the defense of others, because the animals who were supposedly saved by the murder of the human could be saved by another means. Namely…

(c) Spend 8 hours per day encouraging the public to go vegan, including not eating or consuming the products of slaughterhouses and vivisection labs.

The fact that option (c) ALWAYS exists and is viable and effective means that option (b) is always unethical. Why? Consider this analogy:

You are visiting a prison. A three-time murderer is in a cell with an open door. He looks at you, picks up a knife, says "I am going to kill you" and slowly but determinedly starts walking in your direction. You can defend yourself by pushing a button that will close and lock the cell door before the prisoner can get out. Alternatively, you can defend yourself by shooting the prisoner dead. The latter option is unethical because it is not a genuine instance of self-defense. Similarly, murdering a vivisector or slaughterhouse worker is unethical because it is not a genuine instance of the defense of others. Just as many animals (many more, in fact) could be saved by doing vegan education. The above is true when the decision is made at the animal rights campaign office, or the “level” of a social justice campaign. In other words, the decision is not a response to a random event that is isolated from animal rights advocacy. 

Again, as Francione argues, no animals are saved by murdering vivisectors or slaughterhouse workers because the same number of animals they would have killed will be killed by someone else, perhaps at a different, distant facility.

 

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Jeff. And thank you also for such thoughtful and helpful responses! Great answer!

Jeff Perz: 

You're welcome

Carolyn Bailey:
Roger Yates has his very own question, and is next, Rog?

Roger Yates:
I get to ask one of my own! This is where the story really starts folks! (with apologies to Spike Milligan)...

Hi, Jeff, may I quote your definition of violence fromwww.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue05_exclusive.non.violent.jeff-perz.shtml

“Violence is the intentional infliction of physical or psychological harm upon a sentient being. Property destruction may or may not be violent, depending on the circumstances. “If someone burns down another’s home and cherished possessions whilst the home is empty, this form of property destruction is psychologically violent towards the people who lived in that home; they feel extreme loss, anger and fear. “On the other hand, if someone destroys a vacant construction site where a slaughterhouse was to be built, this act of property destruction is not psychologically violent. Some might object to this, “perhaps arguing
that the stockholders in the company will lose money, this will affect their ability to meet their needs and they will experience worry, panic or something else that could be described as psychological harm. This
concern, however, is “exaggerated. Whether an act of property destruction is psychologically violent is a matter of degree and is open to interpretation. “Gandhi destroyed the property of theGovernment of South Africa when he burned the permits that all Indians in that country were required to carry. Although property destruction is not necessarily violent, “it may nevertheless be counterproductive to building an animal rights movement at this point in history.” How have you developed this definition since 2005, if at all – maybe with more thoughts about the nonhuman animals who die in fires even on vacant construction sites – The apparently increased problems of defining psychological violence (Singer, for example, argued against ~any~ action that may cause psychological harm in the 1980s) –And particularly the issue you raise about ~timing~ at the end of the quote? 

Jeff Perz:
I stand by the above definition. I defend the above definition in my October, 2008 reply to Peyser, linked above in my answer to Lorna’s question.

 

That said, from a previous conversation with you and others, I recognize that putting this definition in to practice may be difficult. When you say that psychological violence may be difficult to define, I interpret that as meaning there will be “grey areas” or cases where we are unsure whether something is psychologically violent. The same problem, to a lesser degree, exists with the definition of physical
violence. Whether we are talking about grey areas with respect to physical or psychological violence, my answer is the same: Avoid instances of violence that are clearly violent and agreed to be such.
In cases where we are unsure, we should err on the side of non-violence, and further develop our views through constructive debate. Any difficulty in defining physical or psychological violence, or putting our definition into practice, does not mean that we shouldn’t strive to live by the ideal of non-violence. We should strive to be non-violent in deed, word and thought. Regarding your point that property destruction by arson kills insects and rodents, I maintain that this is violent and, as such, is immoral.

 

When I said that property destruction is not necessarily violent but it may nevertheless be counterproductive at this point in history, I was referring to a point that Francione has made. Namely, we currently live in a society where the violent exploitation of animals is considered as normal as drinking water and breathing air. In this context, even non-violent property destruction is viewed as absolutely crazy by the vast majority of people.

 

Consequently, property destruction has the effect of making abolitionist vegan education (directed at the public) more difficult.

Do you have a follow-up question, Roger?

 

Roger Yates:

I do...
Thanks for the answer Jeff. I feel we have to be careful about our thoughts on "psychological violence"

In theory, that could prevent us doing virtually anything...for fear of causing upset in others. That was the very point I made in my response to Singer in the 1980s. Violence is wrong - but there are limits to what can be defined as violence - do you agree?

Jeff Perz:
I agree that we have to be careful about defining psychological violence, and putting it into practice.

 

In my reply to Peyser, I used an analogy of Gandhi's: Slapping someone on the face is physically violent. But if the slap is intended to keep the person awake, because the person has been bitten by a snake, then the slap is non-violent. Similarly, Gandhi upset the British colonizers of India with his non-violent resistance. But this upset was temporary and transformative for the better. For example, Gandhi's arch opponent when Gandhi was in South Africa was General Smuts. Smuts later thanked Gandhi.

In sum, I agree with you Roger that we don't want our definition of violence (or psychological violence) to prevent us from doing non-violent action. In light of my reply above, however, I don't think it does. Perhaps I need a tidier definition of psychological violence. Do you have any further comments, Roger? (I ask because I think this is an important point.)

Roger Yates:
No - we need to move on - but I hope we can all discuss this after the transcript is published.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Jeff! Jason Ward has another question, but as he's been held up at work, Roger will ask this one for him as well. Rog?

 

Roger Yates:

OK. You’re obviously a strong advocate for abolition and non violent vegan education. My question to you is this: How do you react to people who are adamant that animal liberation must come now, today, and it must come by any means necessary. How do you respond when those people suggest abolitionists are merely “dietary vegans”, and have little care for animals which are held in terrible conditions now?

Jeff Perz:
Thanks, Jason. I ask these people what their reasons are. Then we debate the merits of their reasons vs. the merits of my reasons. Before starting reasoned debate, however, it is often very helpful to make it clear

that I fully understand the other person’s point of view. For example, I might say something like “It sounds like when you think of animals undergoing horrible suffering right now, you feel a sense of urgency. So, you would like me to see why you support violent resistance to animal exploitation. Is that right?” Then, the person will answer, and I will continue to empathize with her point of view until she feels completely understood by me. Then, the person will be receptive to having a reasoned debate, without anyone getting offended or walking away unsatisfied. I have stated some of the reasons I used.

Other reasons are found in my two articles on non-violence, one of which is linked above.

Regarding the false claim that abolitionists are merely people who advocate a plant-based diet, I simply reject that definition and explain that I define veganism as follows. Veganism is a political stance, which rejects violence and speciesism. In practice, veganism means not eating any animal products, not wearing any animal products, not using any products that contain animal ingredients or products that were tested on animals, not patronizing animal entertainment and not using animals in any other way. This prescriptive (moral and political) definition of veganism must then be linked with rational arguments for veganism, abolition and the basic rights of animals.

 

Roger Yates:
Thanks Jeff.
There is indeed a final Q - and it comes from the Mighty Carolyn.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Jeff. For taking the time to provide such insightful responses.

How beneficial do you think the Internet has been for abolitionist advocacy? What do you think of the effectiveness of blogging, social networking, and educating and/or debating (as the case may be) on public forums?

 

Jeff Perz:
My pleasure

Thanks, Carolyn. This is a difficult question for me to answer. A clear benefit of the internet for abolitionist advocacy is that activists can easily communicate with one another, network and organize together. In other words, the internet provides us with more opportunity for solidarity among abolitionists, and allows us to assist each other more in our efforts. We can also reach a wider audience, and -- as Francione notes -- the
flow of information is no longer restricted by gatekeeper organizations like PeTA.

My partner has helped *many* people go vegan simply by debating on public internet forums. So that is a great benefit of the internet.

All of that said, the internet is not the savior of animal rights advocacy, or of social justice generally. I highly recommend that everyone here at this guest chat today read the book “Necessary Illusions” by

Noam Chomsky. In a nutshell, Chomsky rightly concludes that ALL media reflects the interests of the powerful; in our case, animal exploiters and the public who empowers the exploiters. To paraphrase Chomsky: media corporations do not sell newspapers, etc. In fact, they lose money on the sale of newspapers. Rather, media corporations sell human beings. They sell audiences. They sell privileged, wealthy audiences to advertisers. So what would you expect to be in newspapers? Whose interests will be supported?

 

It is acceptable for a newspaper to express the view that the war and occupation in Iraq is justified--for whatever spurious reasons. On the other hand, it is also acceptable for a newspaper to express the view that the Iraq situation is not justified, because it fails to achieve the goals of “stability” (i.e. stabilizing economic exploitation), “freedom,” safety from WMDs, etc.

In other words, “fight it better.” But what never happens, what is never acceptable, is for a newspaper to oppose the war/occupation of Iraq on the grounds that it is inherently immoral -- with a list of cogent, compelling reasons. For, if a newspaper did this, where would the oil industry be? What would the companies that advertise gasoline-fuelled automobiles do? What would the airlines do with their ads, which sell jet-fuel powered flights? The list goes on. They would pull their ads and the newspaper would die. A relatively recent example of this is Bill Maher’s TV show, “Politically Incorrect”

being cancelled due to complaints from advertisers. Maher was talking about Iraq and oil too much. But it usually never gets that far; journalism school indoctrination makes sure of that, the culture of journalism makes sure of that. Or, executives, managers or editors will be fired, threatened or subtly pressured as a result of their decisions.

The alternative to the above model is building independent, advertising free, media institutions. Indy newspapers, indy radio, etc. have existed for decades. PBS television in America and ABC television in
Australia are commercial free. Yet even they are pushed and pressured by the government--which is in turn controlled by corporate interests.

So let us build stronger, more effective independent media institutions. When they get strong enough, there will be strong opposition from the powers that be. We must resist and struggle against
this suppression. The internet is an excellent medium for independent media. But the vast majority of the public does not go to Indy media websites. They do not go to abolitionist animal rights websites. Rather, most people go to mainstream media websites. Most people watch commercial TV, look at commercial billboards, listen to commercial radio and read commercial newspapers -- which all direct them to commercial media websites.

 

But, as Leonard Cohen says, “there is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” Let us use the internet and other mediums for independent communication to carry out our abolitionist strategy; namely, vegan EDUCATION. Education requires one kind of medium or another. Let us be the most effective educators we can be. We don’t have the budgets of multimillion dollar public relations firms, but we do have one thing on our side: the truth.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Jeff! That was officially the last formal question, and I thank you again for your fantastic reply.

Jeff Perz:
My pleasure.

Carolyn Bailey:
This ends the formal segment of Jeff’s chat, and I would therefore like to sincerely thank Jeff Perz for his time and insight today, which is very much appreciated by ARZone.

Jeff has agreed to open up the chat and take questions from all members at this point.

Jeff Perz:

Yes, please ask away everyone

Carolyn Bailey:

If any members therefore would like to engage Jeff, please, don't be shy!

Maggie Baker:

Thank you, Jeff. I have already started educating my friends and family on yr very truthful information

ohsooosara:

Do you ever get discouraged by people who know all the facts about why they should become vegan but still don't? How do you deal with this? How do you keep your spirits up?

Jeff Perz:

That depends: do they agree with the facts and arguments for veganism, or not?

Ohsooosara:

Yes they do

Jeff Perz:

Ok…

Ohsooosara:

They just say that they are too selfish to change

Jeff Perz:

First, I think the arguments we give them should be of the highest quality we can provide. I often summarize Gary Francione's argument in Introduction to Animal Rights. If they agree with that argument, but still don't go vegan, then I say something like... "I have given you an argument for going vegan, and for why non-human animals have basic rights, just as humans have basic rights.

"You say you agree with the reasons I've given you. That means the conclusion of going vegan automatically follows." "But if, for whatever reason, you cannot go vegan right now, why not try going vegan every Monday? (or, as Francione suggests, one meal per day)

Ohsooosara:

Yes, i guess i am having a hard time breaking through to people. it is depressing at times. Thanks

Jeff Perz:

"Then, after enough time has passed, being vegan every Monday will become easy. Then, when you're ready, you can increase it to 2 days per week."

(Ok, I have a bit more to add)

ohsooosara:

please :-)

Jeff Perz:

“Eventually, in this way, you can become totally vegan. Note that, while you are in the process of decreasing the animal products in your life, you are still not living in harmony with your values. You said you agreed with the argument I gave you and its vegan conclusion. But, eventually, you can become vegan.

At that point, your actions will be consistent with your view that animals have rights, and veganism is essential to respecting those rights." Then I say "How do you feel about starting this process out by going vegan every Monday?" If they agree with the argument I previously gave then, in my experience, most people are receptive to this gradual approach. RE: keeping spirits up I remember that it's not about me; my spirits. It's about non-human animals. Also, I get empathy from people in my life, which makes me feel better.

Carolyn Bailey:

Great advice, Jeff. Thanks very much!

Ohsoosara:

I appreciate your thoughts....thanks

Jeff Perz:

You're welcome. ohsooosara, I hope you have at least one vegan who you can get empathy from, to give you strength.

Carolyn Bailey:

Are there more questions for Jeff?

Roger Yates:

If not, can I butt in again?

Carolyn Bailey:

You go Rog!

Jeff Perz:

Please do

Roger Yates:

OK

If you don’t mind, Jeff, I’d like to ask the “bubbling under” question about Joan Dunayer.

Jeff Perz:

OK

Roger Yates:

A few people have said to me on knowing of your visit appearance on ARZ that your critique of Dunayer was rather unkind. In particular they wonder whether you have in a sense prevented Dunayer continuing in animal advocacy. I’ve been asked to ask you whether you regret attacking Dunayer and whether you make a distinction between “Animal Equality” and “Speciesism.” (As you’ll know, I think the former is a fine text.)

Jeff Perz:

In my view, the two articles I wrote in response to Joan Dunayer's book _Speciesism_ objected to the reasons and arguments that Dunayer presented. In the same way, one could object to the reasons and arguments that Peter Singer uses. This is not a personal attack on Singer or Dunayer.
Rather, it is objecting with reasons.

I hope Dunayer continues to do animal advocacy.

I also regard Dunayer's book _Animal Equality_ as a fine text.

I don't agree with the premise behind the above question that I "attacked" Dunayer. I objected to her statements with my own reasons.

The major reason why I wrote the negative review of _Speciesism_ is this: I provide evidence and arguments that Dunayer misrepresents and distorts Francione's views. Based upon these distortions, Dunayer makes recommendations to animal rights activists. These recommendations, therefore, may not be effective in helping non-human animals and furthering their rights. My review was intended to un-do that consequence of Dunayer's book. In a perfect world, I would love to see Dunayer publish a 2nd edition of _Speciesism_ that removed the misrepresentations of Francione. I would then be happy to use her book and recommend it to others.

Roger Yates:

Thanks Jeff - much appreciated.

 

***************

 

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 a chat by starting a forum discussion or by making a point under a tran

 

 

[red dog]

I like the way Mary Martin put it in a recent chat: "I also think  that the argument against liberating animals because they will be replaced or because there are so many more  still imprisoned and suffering is utilitarian and speciesist. I wonder what people who are against the liberation of animals would  do/say if these were people we are talking about." Whether it's better for activists to save healthy or sick animals is an impossible dilemma when you look at it that way.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Also from Tim Gier's blog is this response to Jeff's above comment:

 

TIMGIER wrote:

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

There are two ways to look at your contention that the theft of five supposedly healthy chickens would have a direct causal link to the purchase of five additional chickens by the chicken farmer. The first is to consider the matter strictly in a theoretical way, the second is to consider it practically.

On the first analysis, your contention is mistaken. It cannot always be the case that every theft of any chickens would be the cause of every affected chicken farmer’s purchase of an additional five chickens. The theft of chickens, as it might relate to the purchase of additional chickens, is simply not the same kind of cause and effect event you seem to see it as. To use perhaps too elementary an example, the application of sufficient heat to water will cause it to boil, all other things being equal, and were we to know the quantity of water and the amount of heat applied to it, we could, with reasonable certainty predict when the water will boil. There is no such causal relationship between the theft of chickens and the actions of chicken farmers. We might be able to guess, or assume, or even forecast with reasonable accuracy the actions a given farmer might take in the event that some of his chickens were stolen, but that is not to say that we could actually predict his actions, or that it would be the case that theft caused those actions.

On the second analysis, your contention is also mistaken. One need only imagine that a chicken farmer finds himself in a situation where his farm is producing eggs beyond the capacity of the market to consume those eggs at a price which delivers sufficient profit. It must be acknowledged that the market for eggs fluctuates, that the profit margins per laying-hen per year are small, and that all commodity markets experience periods of excess supply. In times such as these, one can easily imagine that individual chicken farmers might not replace those laying-hens who die in captivity. It isn’t reasonable to assume that every chicken farm always maintains exactly the same number of hens, regardless of market conditions. So, when the market is down (when, for example, the US market for eggs contracted by 1.6 Billion eggs from 2006 to 2007) fewer hens would be needed. Obviously, in a down market it is perfectly reasonable to think that a chicken farmer who had five hens stolen from him would not replace them at all. (Assuming that he knew they had been stolen, which he may very well not know.)

So, it is not the case on either analysis that the theft of five chickens must result in the purchase of five replacement chickens. Therefore, you are mistaken when you say:

“Similarly, an animal advocacy group whose primary activity is rescues — as a political action that is part of a public(i.e. open) “campaign” — will, if it has any measure of success as intended, contribute to reducing the supply of animals in farms, thus increasing the demand for new animals at the breeder.”

It may well be the case that if a farmer is in a good market for eggs, and if he knows with certainty that five of his chickens had been stolen and if he has a replacement policy which operates at the level of five or fewer birds on a daily basis, then he might indeed choose to replace those birds which have been stolen. But even then, it does not have to be the case that the farmer would invariably do so, and it certainly isn’t the case that it must be so. It’s not as simple as cause and effect.

You make the point that my argument could be used to justify the eating of other animals. What if it could be? Would that, in and of itself mean the argument isn’t a valid one? No, it might mean that it could lead to unwanted conclusions in other cases, but it wouldn’t mean the argument itself is a bad one.

In any case, how would we answer a person who could use the argument to support the eating of other animals. In other words, what can we say to the person who rightly says, “My individual actions (eating chickens for example) will do nothing to change the overall number of chickens killed this week, this month or this year”?

Well, in the first place, we must acknowledge the truth. One person who chooses to ‘go vegan’ will not change the overall supply of other animals in the market. Ironically, this fact undercuts your argument as well, but I’ll come back to that.

Since one person’s eating habits will not immediately save the lives of any other animals, then why should anyone go vegan? If for no other reason, a person should be vegan to be a witness for the values they hold. One must live in accordance with one’s deepest convictions as fully as possible, and if one believes that it is wrong to use and kill others in the absence of compelling reasons, then one should live in accord with that belief. If, however, one believes that there is nothing seriously wrong with using and killing other animals, one will not be vegan, and one won’t care about whether the animals they eat are being replaced by farmers or not. In other words, no-one who actually accepts that other animals ought not to be harmed and killed would be convinced to continue to eat other animals by my argument in support of open rescues and no-one who actually does not accept that other animals ought not to be harmed and killed would need to rely on it.

Now, the fact that becoming vegan does not actually save any other animals does, as I mentioned, undercuts your argument. In your ARZone chat, you said: “Or, instead, one could spend that same time doing vegan education. Helping just one person in her 20s to go vegan would save*(i.e. prevent _thousands_ of animals from being bred into existence, exploited and killed) NOW.”

We now know this isn’t true, and you accept, at least, that it isn’t necessarily true. In your comment here you said:

“Similarly, one person going vegan may not change the number of animals bred into existence and subsequently killed.”

We also understand that unless we can know with certainty that a chicken farmer will replace the five chickens we liberate through open rescue, we can assume that by liberating them we’ve actually saved five individuals from a cruelly short lifetime of exploitation (followed, for certain, by slaughter). As part of a larger campaign of vegan education, this open rescue might also help other people understand why other animals ought not to be harmed by us. Some of those people might decide to become vegan. That sounds like a win-win situation to me: Five animals saved and an opportunity to educate and show people a path towards veganism.

Of course, we must admit, and I hope that you are willing to admit as well, that there is no guaranty that any person would become vegan as a result of any particular education campaign we might undertake. Whether a person or group spends hours and days planning an open rescue & the subsequent public awareness initiatives which should accompany it, or whether a person spends hours and days preparing for and staffing a tabling event, the end result might very well be no new vegans. Even if one or two or even 10 people do become vegan as a result of either campaign, we know that none of the other animals currently living in the systems of exploitation would be saved from certain death NOW. However, at least with the open rescue education campaign, even if it failed to bring people to veganism, we could know one thing for certain: Five individual lives would have been saved.

In your comment, you go on to defend your argument that rescuing only those who are most unsuited for exploitation by relying on your mistaken analysis of cause and effect. You also mention that it might be easier to rescue the sickly ones, although you don’t mention why it would be. Perhaps because rescuing sickly individuals would be done through cooperation with the farmers? I don’t know; you don’t say. But I take it that you would object to taking these sickly individuals off the hands of the farmers if by doing so we saved the farmer the costs of medical care, or the costs of disposal, or if it was necessary that the farmer dispose of the sickly individuals in order to make room for more healthy ones. If that’s true, I don’t know how any part of that process would be easy. In any case, in the end you say that by rescuing sickly individuals we don’t cause other healthy ones to die, whereas the effect of rescuing healthy ones would be the death of others, but as we have seen, your analysis of cause and effect is mistaken.

With regard to releasing some other animals into the “wild”, I accept that you and I recognize that the question is not one of black and white, but one of shades of grey. As such, we appear to be quite close to agreement on this particular aspect of the issue.

You ask, of non-zero-sum games, that I “provide one clear example of this kind of thing within animal advocacy.” I have above, which you will probably not accept, unless you correct your views on cause and effect. More importantly however, Francione is the one making the claim that advocacy is definitely a zero-sum game, and the burden is on him to prove his case. He has not, and he cannot do that, for the reasons already stated in the original post. As I said there: “open rescues can be vegan education and therefore every second spent doing open rescues would be a second spent doing vegan education.” In your comment, you suppose that could be true. You’re right, it could be true and therefore it is not necessarily the case that advocacy is always a zero-sum-game. As I said, Francione is wrong.

You go on to say that we already have enough footage of open rescues and that it doesn’t matter whether that footage is current or whether it was filmed locally. Advocates I’ve spoken with, based on their years of experience, disagree completely with your assessment.

Finally, despite having just supposed the opposite, you close by saying:

“Open rescues cannot BE vegan education, because more vegan education can be done without the open rescue element. In other words, more time planning and carrying out rescues (which saves tens of lives) means less time on the street (or wherever) helping people go vegan (which saves multiple thousands of lives). Tim deludes his readers when he pretends to play a negative sum game.”

I must say, I’ll assume you aren’t using the word “deludes” according to its dictionary definition. According to dictionary.com, to delude is to impose a misleading belief upon someone; to deceive; to fool. This implies some nefarious intent on my part me, and I hope that you are not saying that I am actually trying to mislead, deceive or fool anyone. I accept that I may be mistaken, or that my arguments may be unpersuasive, but I am honest and well-intentioned, as I assume you to be as well. I think, when it comes to the answer you gave on ARZone to the question about open rescue, you’re mostly wrong, that’s all.

Open rescues, when properly planned and executed, actually are vegan education.

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

I disagree with Jeff's insistence that open rescues cannot BE education. Of course they can, and often ARE vegan education. As are protests, like the one Animal Liberation Victoria were involved in this week at a chicken factory outside Melbourne. 

I believe vegan education is the only thing which will bring about an attitude change from the general population in regards to the way we continue to violate the rights of other animals, but vegan education can take many forms, often the more creative the better. 

Seeing an open rescue and hearing commentary of such on a mainstream news broadcast can hardly be compared to Jeff showing one individual footage of a rescue from any number of years ago. The impact of the two on most individuals, in my opinion, can't be compared.

 

 

[Jeff Perz]

I've had a shake too.  (On Tim's blog)

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

I feel it's necessary in order to make a name for yourself to roll as you do.

 

Roll on!

 

[Tim Gier]

I reject almost entirely Jeff's analysis of Open Rescues in one of his responses above. Rather than post my lengthy comments in full here, I've posted them on my blog (notice this bit of shameless self-promotion? That's how I roll, I am an American after all.)

[Jeff Perz]

You're very welcome, Roger.

It's not clear to me why a similar kind of numbers game regarding purchasing animal products would not also apply to removing animals from situations of exploitation. Regarding the age of the replacement animals, wouldn't it be a case of increasing the order next time? I think we would need to ask an economist these questions, because I don't really understand the numbers game.

Roger writes:

"What if, by rescuing the 200 victims, a good deal of positive media coverage resulted, leading several people to go vegan? ... As you suggest, if there is an educational element to rescue - and people and the media tend to react positively to rescue cases (or used to at least) - then it is all good it seems to me."

Patty Mark of Animal Liberation Victoria (Australia) is well known for doing open rescues. The ALV website pays lip service to some abolitionist ideas, but the organization is fully regulationist. The ABC (Australia) news program Lateline is one of the most widely watched mainstream news shows in Australia. Lateline interviewed Mark and showed video footage of one of Mark's rescues. The transcript and video can be seen here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2856547.htm

In response to Mark's descriptions of the conditions, and to the video, the Lateline editor decided to interview Peter Singer, who said "People are buying more free range eggs, for example. They're looking for free range meat." The presenter and other interviewees went on to complain that labeling laws are not good enough, and this should be changed. Then they cut to scenes of a "happy" meat farm where everything is "wonderful." Mark then complains that the anti-cruelty laws are not being enforced. The report concludes with Singer: "If we are going to eat animal products then I think there's a heavy responsibility on us to make sure that the animals didn't suffer. And that might involve a bit of going to local markets, or, at the very least, buying certified organic, given the present system."

As I argued during my guest chat, mainstream media coverage must ALWAYS be like the counter-productive report I describe and link above. In the rare and unlikely event that someone like Francione is interviewed, he is characterised by the interviewer as impractical and extreme (I'm thinking here of a NY Times interview a few years ago) and his commenhtary is limited compared to that of others--who are regulationist. Again, it is impossible for the mainstream media to do anything else, as I argued in my guest chat. There might be a Gary Steiner or Victor Schonfeld that slips through every now and then, but these are always followed by a deluge of regulationist comment. Steiner said veganism was difficult and self-sacrificing and Schonfeld interviewed mainly welfarists, but thankfully ended with Francione's vegan message.

Do you have one example of media coverage in response to a rescue that does not involve an overwhelmingly regulationist message? If you do, please send me the link.

In any case, it is not necessary to spend time doing rescues in order educate the public directly or get media coverage. I think time (and the cost of running sanctuaries) is better spent on educational efforts alone.

Roger writes:

"In my experience of doing street stalls, periodic production of new "evidence" is essential otherwise people say that the material being shown is dated and therefore unlikely to be representative of the contemporary situation of animal use. I have also found that the most "useful" material is that which has been obtained in the country in question otherwise, again, people are given an "easy out" by them suggesting that the pictures may be a true representation of what occurs elsewhere but they are sure welfare standards are higher in their own nation."

The above is my experience as well. So maybe you're right that new and local videos need to be produced from time to time. On the otherhand, when I do vegan education and people make this objection, I simly reply that "although there will be small variations in practices from place to place and from time to time, practicles are generally the same all over the world and have not changed since they were implemented in the 1950s. Why? These practices are the same everywhere simply because they are efficient and the most profitable." When I tell this to people, they accept it and do not persit with their objection. SO, perhaps it is not necessary to be constantly getting new video footage.

[Jeff Perz]

Thanks, Jose, for your comment. You wrote:

"They will not phone his supplier because there are 50 hens less one day as your claim maintains. In fact, if you don't break anything or leave anything behind, they will not notice that there are 50 or 200 hens less."

What you say above may be true. But this same logic could be applied to being vegan. One could eat one pig meat hotdog per year and otherwise have a completely plant-based lifestyle. This small amount might not cause a grocery store manager to order extra hotdogs, which would in turn not result in more pigs being bred and killed. So where do you draw the line? Two hotdogs per year? 60? I don't know anything about economic theory, but I nevertheless strongly believe that eating any amount of animal product contributes to demand for exploitation and death.

That said, consuming an animal product is not at all the same as rescuing an animal. For this reason, I am not making a 1:1 analogy between consuming animal products and rescuing animals. Suppose rescue work became more and more popular. How long would it be before so many activists were doing rescues that the exploiter would have to respond to the reduction in numbers? Should activists be part of this spectrum of risk? Part of me says "no," while part of me says "yes"--as I mentioned in my chat ... I am not entirely opposed to rescuing healthy animals.

I wrote in my guest chat:

"As Francione notes, we’re in a zero sum game: every minute spent doing a rescue is one minute less that we could have been doing vegan education, saving more lives. "

Jose replied:

"As I've explained, that's a false dilemma. A rescue can be vegan education too, saving animals directly and many others by the education opportunity it provides."

Yes, one can rescue some animals, go on TV (or on the street) and say "here are the animals I rescued. Their brothers and sisters are suffering and dying. You can stop this by going vegan." And then, the same thing can be said at the sanctuary where the rescued animals end up. Putting aside (just for the moment) the individual animals rescued -- and focusing only on the educational component -- one would have more time and more money to spend helping more people become vegans if one simply did educational work without the rescues. Consider:

At the level of individual action, it is ok to spend one's time and a significant portion of one's money caring for a rescued animal. At the level of social change, one should consider the choice between (a) spending 2 hours at a rescue and saving 200 animals vs. (b) spending 2 hours on the street, helping one person go vegan, and saving tens of thousands of animals. Or this choice: (a) spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on a sanctuary that houses 10,000 animals or (b) spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a vegan education campaign that created 1000 new vegans--and therefore saves millions of animal lives.

But, if someone has a passion for doing rescues, then I would not discourage that person. Rather, I would just encourage activists generally to concentrate on education only, as that may result in more vegans and bring about abolition more quickly.

Jose writes:

"Also, you could say: every minute spent going to a shelter to adopt a dog and taking care of that dog is one minute less that could be spent in vegan education, however, I don't read any rejection of people spending their time adopting other animals or helping in sanctuaries, quite the contrary. Why such a difference when it comes to other kind of rescues?"

When someone adopts a dog or seven, or when someone goes vegan (just him/herself) I don't consider that to be animal rights advocacy. Rather, I consider that to be respecting animal rights in one's individual life. The advocacy only begins when a person starts helping others to go vegan, OR spends all of one's time one a campaign to get all dogs adopted and sterilized. I maintain the former will save more lives and bring about abolition more quickly.

Let me close, Jose, by saying our disagreement on this issue might not be that big. As I said in my chat, I am ambivalent about rescuing healthy animals. I don't object to what you do if that is where your talents lie.

Kind regards,

Jeff

[Jose Valle]

Regarding this "On the other hand, rescuing healthy animals will cause more animals to be bred into
existence to replace those rescued. In other words, the act of rescuing one healthy animal is casually connected to the response of the exploiter, who will respond to the demand that the rescuer has created, phone his supplier, and ask that more animals be bred into existence, used and killed."

This statement ignores some basics on how farms work. For example, exploiters of hens for egg consumption buy the animals in batches (this applies the same to pigs and chickens). They buy 60.000 hens to the breeding company, put them inside the cages (or sheds) when they are 4 1/2 months old, keep them there for 13 months more collecting their eggs and then, after that time, they send them all to slaughter, clean the sheds and buy another "batch" of 60.000. They will not phone his supplier because there are 50 hens less one day as your claim maintains. In fact, if you don't break anything or leave anything behind, they will not notice that there are 50 or 200 hens less.

Regarding this: "One could spend days (or more) planning and executing an open or covert rescue. Perhaps that would save 10-50 animals. Or, instead, one could spend that same time doing vegan education."

I don't know the background you have to claim how long it takes to rescue some animals. You can certainly spend days for that if you want but you can also do it without spending all that time. Depending on the place you are, you can do it straightforward in a few hours -most of the time is usually spent driving to the place and back-. Aside from saving the lives of the rescued animals, the material showing the rescue, the insides of the farms and the life of the individuals saved in a sanctuary IS vegan education and very efficient to help people become vegan, I have tested this myself.


"As Francione notes, we’re in a zero sum game: every minute spent doing a rescue is one minute less that we could have been doing vegan education, saving more lives. "

As I've explained, that's a false dilemma. A rescue can be vegan education too, saving animals directly and many others by the education opportunity it provides. Also, you could say: every minute spent going to a shelter to adopt a dog and taking care of that dog is one minute less that could be spent in vegan education, however, I don't read any rejection of people spending their time adopting other animals or helping in sanctuaries, quite the contrary. Why such a difference when it comes to other kind of rescues?

[Carolyn Bailey]

We missed you, Jay!

Jeff was awesome, he gained my respect for his ability to educate in a soft and genuinely understanding manner. He showed his genuine interest in vegan education. It was an honour to host such a genuine and intelligent person. Sorry you had to work!