Comments - Transcript of David Sztybel's ARZone Guest Chat ~ Part 1 - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-28T13:18:18Zhttps://arzone.ning.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4715978%3ABlogPost%3A17401&xn_auth=noHello David. You said this -…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179902011-01-25T13:50:17.000ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p>Hello David. You said this -</p>
<p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Thank you for the quotation. I am glad that you brought this misspeak to my attention. I should have said something like "Francionist ideas are immoral" because as I said, I don't believe that Francionists themselves are necessarily unethical. Again, it does not make sense to me to class someone trying to be ethical as unethical. I apologize for the error. Kate, could…</p>
<p>Hello David. You said this -</p>
<p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Thank you for the quotation. I am glad that you brought this misspeak to my attention. I should have said something like "Francionist ideas are immoral" because as I said, I don't believe that Francionists themselves are necessarily unethical. Again, it does not make sense to me to class someone trying to be ethical as unethical. I apologize for the error. Kate, could you please amend the transcript to take out the offending language? I wrote it in haste since I had to prepare much before the chat, including my report on the AR-AW debate. I agree that my wording that you cite is not fitting, but it was a typo and I do not think that it is a reflection that I lack in kindness (not that you said that; you critiqued what I said rather). I appreciate that you brought this to my attention. -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is the quotation being referred to</p>
<p> <em>I conclude that Francionists are immoral inasmuch as they are inconsistent with all of the above principles to the fullest possible degree.</em></p>
<p>The proposed typo correction is to change the plural "Francionists" to a singular "Francionist" followed by the word "ideas" - so then it will read as this</p>
<p>"Francionist ideas are immoral"</p>
<p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Previously it was possible for me to exchange your supplementary reply to Tim Marshall's question with an updated version of it. This is because your responses were as comments like this one. It was easy for me to add a new comment with your updated response and to delete the older version of it. I don't have access to the actual transcript after it's publication, so I cannot make later ammendments to them. My role as transcriber is simply to record the chat as it happens and then to send this on to Carolyn who tidies it up ready for it's publication. To make the ammendment you propose it would be necessary to ask her about it. As she may not see this comment, I recommend that you ask her about it directly.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Greetings</p> Hello there, Barbara,
Thank…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179862011-01-25T12:46:44.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
<p>Hello there, Barbara,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for the quotation. I am glad that you brought this misspeak to my attention. I should have said something like "Francionist ideas are immoral" because as I said, I don't believe that Francionists themselves are necessarily unethical. Again, it does not make sense to me to class someone trying to be ethical as unethical. I apologize for the error. Kate, could you please amend the transcript to take out the offending language? I wrote it in haste…</p>
<p>Hello there, Barbara,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thank you for the quotation. I am glad that you brought this misspeak to my attention. I should have said something like "Francionist ideas are immoral" because as I said, I don't believe that Francionists themselves are necessarily unethical. Again, it does not make sense to me to class someone trying to be ethical as unethical. I apologize for the error. Kate, could you please amend the transcript to take out the offending language? I wrote it in haste since I had to prepare much before the chat, including my report on the AR-AW debate. I agree that my wording that you cite is not fitting, but it was a typo and I do not think that it is a reflection that I lack in kindness (not that you said that; you critiqued what I said rather). I appreciate that you brought this to my attention.</p>
<p>I realize, Barb, that your time is limited, but I do not think you registered what I wrote in other respects. You write:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"It appears to me that you believe that Francione and those who follow his brand of abolitionism do not care what is happening to animals in the present. Instead, it appears to me that what he is saying is that the efforts to improve their lives in the present have failed dismally and continue to do so. Some of the emphasis on treatment has resulted in more people, once vegetarian, returning to eating animals."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I never said that Francionists do not care about what happens to animals in the present. You are putting words into my mouth there. I agree that they do not care adequately for animals in the present by trying to obstruct efforts to formulate meaningful relief legislation. In my "Animal Rights Law" paper which I referenced (I do not expect you to have read that, of course, since everyone's time is limited for one thing) I cite Francione as saying that he cares for animals on a "micro" level but resists enacted laws to address animals on a "macro" level. I have criticized him as incoherent on this point, but it is acknowledged just the same. Also, I point out in this discussion and quite widely that Francionists advocate veganism, which of course cares about animals now. In "Animal Rights Law" I also point out that Francionists think they are acting in animals' best interests altogether with their approach to animal law. You are plainly mischaracterizing what I say.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You put to me all of PETA's troubles, whereas if you read my chat answer about PETA, you would have read me repeating the same criticisms you make. But I also pointed out many positive things that they do, and I do not think those should be washed away from peoples' minds in a tide of negativism. Fortunately, PETA's achievements cannot be washed away from reality due to peoples' negativism.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have dealt with the points you mention about AW laws failing. All Francionists I find ignore cases that WORK, and that are substantive, and that completely contradict Francione's totally negative model, e.g., the Sweden example I gave. I also gave a link to deal with the increased consumption objection which shows that the spike is inevitable and that there would be much MORE suffering and death for animals (really the heart of this objection) on Francione's approach, not mine. Again, please see:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://sztybel.tripod.com/pragmatism.pdf">http://sztybel.tripod.com/pragmatism.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>People can ignore that, of course. But I think that would be too bad for activists, and especially for the animals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I know Francione has rescues in his home; so do I. Also, it is not as though I advocate treating animals as things or that Francione offers the only sort of approach to that idea. Most of your complaints about my perspective seem to be based in an absence of awareness of what I am actually saying. But you are not alone. I find that is the rule with people who try to critique what I am saying about AR-AW. It was the case when I tried to dialogue on ARCO, and when Rob Johnson, a Francionist, tried to mount a blog critique of some of my writing. My approach advocates considerings animals not as things to the maximum possible extent by respecting their interests to the fullest possible degree. There can be no better treatment of animals, present and future, than that. Neglecting the possibilities of relief legislation is neglecting something that can be done for animals. The public does support substantive changes so we should push for that. To characterize all AW law as weak is simply false. To mix that up with what I am advocating is actually misleading.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Obviously I am not stating that you are intentionally misrepresenting my ideas. Far from it!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Ah yes, the burnout thing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I can respect that you are a Francionist trying to do the best you can for animals. Thank you also for your note of appreciation. I have truly benefited from this opportunity for dialogue.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>David</p> I believe that I will have to…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179852011-01-25T12:08:34.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
I believe that I will have to let Eduardo have the last word here. The language barrier is proving to be too much for me. Thank you for all of your thoughts and questions, Eduardo. I'm sorry I was unable to do better justice to them. Cheers, David
I believe that I will have to let Eduardo have the last word here. The language barrier is proving to be too much for me. Thank you for all of your thoughts and questions, Eduardo. I'm sorry I was unable to do better justice to them. Cheers, David Hola Eduardo, my comment was…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179842011-01-25T12:03:20.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
Hola Eduardo, my comment was addressed to Barbara.
Hola Eduardo, my comment was addressed to Barbara. Hi
I don't understand...
Do y…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179682011-01-25T09:32:13.000ZEduardo Terrerhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/EduardoTerrer
<p>Hi</p>
<p>I don't understand...</p>
<p>Do you consider my perspective as francionist?</p>
<p>Or are you telling to Barbara thinking in other questions that are out of our comments?</p>
<p>Is only for try to nuderstand what are you understanding of my words</p>
<p>Hi</p>
<p>I don't understand...</p>
<p>Do you consider my perspective as francionist?</p>
<p>Or are you telling to Barbara thinking in other questions that are out of our comments?</p>
<p>Is only for try to nuderstand what are you understanding of my words</p> I think that a framework of i…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179652011-01-25T03:13:17.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
I think that a framework of ideas that permits avoidable cruelty is cruel to animals, in the sense of passive cruelty as Regan calls it, or allowing cruelty to happen. That is different from active cruelty or setting out to cause suffering. That does not mean that Francionists, say, are necessarily cruel themselves as persons. They do not act for reasons of cruelty at all, and seek anyway to act out of sufficient caring for animals.
I think that a framework of ideas that permits avoidable cruelty is cruel to animals, in the sense of passive cruelty as Regan calls it, or allowing cruelty to happen. That is different from active cruelty or setting out to cause suffering. That does not mean that Francionists, say, are necessarily cruel themselves as persons. They do not act for reasons of cruelty at all, and seek anyway to act out of sufficient caring for animals. And: I thought I added anothe…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179642011-01-25T02:59:23.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
And: I thought I added another entry but maybe not. Barbara and others, permit me to draw a distinction between evaluating a PERSON ethically, and evaluating a set of ideas and ensuing actions ethically. I think Francionists and related kinds of abolitionists are doing their best to be ethical. Therefore as persons they are not unethical at all. You can't do better than your best. So it is important to try not to take my remarks personally. "Immoral Francionist" is Barbara's phrase, so far as I…
And: I thought I added another entry but maybe not. Barbara and others, permit me to draw a distinction between evaluating a PERSON ethically, and evaluating a set of ideas and ensuing actions ethically. I think Francionists and related kinds of abolitionists are doing their best to be ethical. Therefore as persons they are not unethical at all. You can't do better than your best. So it is important to try not to take my remarks personally. "Immoral Francionist" is Barbara's phrase, so far as I can tell, and it applies immorality to the person, which I do not agree with either. However, I am free as an ethicist to assess moral theories or parts of them as morally right or wrong. That is at a very impersonal level of looking at the ideas themselves in universal terms. Francionists may think I am well-meaning but misguided, and I may think the same in return. Not all do though. I have been slurred as diishonest by Roger Yates. And another prominent Francionists slandered me as diishonest and malicious. That I do not countenance as morally right, but I also thinks it reflects on someone's character if they are habitual mud-slingers. Thankfully, the people on this list are by far mostly not. I hope I have explained my stance somewhat adequately. And: It is the set of ideas a…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179632011-01-25T02:32:08.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
And: It is the set of ideas and consequent actions that I am saying differs from my idea of what is ethical. That does not mean I am calling any PERSON immoral. There is an important distinction here. Any person who is doing his or her best to be ethical, like ANYONE on this list I reckon, is not an "immoral Francionist" or an "unethical person." At most, I would have to say such a person is well-meaning but misguided, as I expect others would think of me that way too.
And: It is the set of ideas and consequent actions that I am saying differs from my idea of what is ethical. That does not mean I am calling any PERSON immoral. There is an important distinction here. Any person who is doing his or her best to be ethical, like ANYONE on this list I reckon, is not an "immoral Francionist" or an "unethical person." At most, I would have to say such a person is well-meaning but misguided, as I expect others would think of me that way too. Also: I believe it is wrong t…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179622011-01-25T02:25:11.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
Also: I believe it is wrong to do contrary to what is best for animals, but I would not consider Francionists to be unethical the way a violent criminal would be for example, who cares nothing for others. I believe Francionists are, more or less, trying their very best to be ethical and committed to their principles. And I respect that. In a broader sense there is profound ethical commitment, and in many cases to shared ideals such as veganism and so much more, which of course I think is…
Also: I believe it is wrong to do contrary to what is best for animals, but I would not consider Francionists to be unethical the way a violent criminal would be for example, who cares nothing for others. I believe Francionists are, more or less, trying their very best to be ethical and committed to their principles. And I respect that. In a broader sense there is profound ethical commitment, and in many cases to shared ideals such as veganism and so much more, which of course I think is admirable. We can have ethical disagreement without being offended by that very fact. However, it would not be fair for Francionists to have the chance to call animal rights pragmatists immoral without me having theh same right, in accordance with my own principles. I don't follow what Barbara i…tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-01-25:4715978:Comment:179612011-01-25T02:21:42.000ZDavid Sztybelhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/DavidSztybel
I don't follow what Barbara is saying. When did I call someone an "immoral Francionist"? I would not say that Francionists or abolitionists of that sort do not care about animals. I think Francionism is unethical, but I realize that they believe what I advocate is also unethical. I hear that quite a bit in fact. I am sorry if you think I was "unkind." Since we differ on key points then I am not surprised when Francionists call my advocacy unethical and impractical. I think both sides realize…
I don't follow what Barbara is saying. When did I call someone an "immoral Francionist"? I would not say that Francionists or abolitionists of that sort do not care about animals. I think Francionism is unethical, but I realize that they believe what I advocate is also unethical. I hear that quite a bit in fact. I am sorry if you think I was "unkind." Since we differ on key points then I am not surprised when Francionists call my advocacy unethical and impractical. I think both sides realize that the other side thinks the opposite in this respect. I do think it is cruel to discount or minimize the cruelties that can be prevented through anti-cruelty legislation for ideological reasons. I realize that those who disagree with me will believe it is not cruel but sufficiently caring, but I do not agree. Again, Barabara, I am sorry I offended you. Any further clarification would be welcomed.