This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A couple of years ago I wrote about whether it's a good use of my time to be a purist about the term "animalrights" when most of the world doesn't have the same understanding of the term as I do. would call HSUS an animalrights group (after all, HSUS doesn't even do that).
First I have to say that my husband and I were in our courtyard last night, with wine, vegan pizza with shiitakes, portobellos and chanterelles (still working through that five-pound bag of Daiya cheese), and Diana Krall playing. But today's post is about World Vegan Day, so onward. Some go vegetarian first, then vegan.
In " 'AnimalRights:' Pernicious Nonsense for Both Law & Public Policy ," Massachusetts attorney and "sportsman" Richard Latimer is on the mark with some concepts, and way off with others. Now, I know you're saying: That's not what animalrights is. For an attorney, that's awfully weak.
I've written about my ambivalence regarding "pet" ownership/guardianship/insert-whatever-term-you're-comfortable-with, and also about my strong belief in helping individuals, but I don't recall addressing whether the having of pets is not vegan. I remember the first time I read an article by a prominent vegan--maybe it was David Cantor ?--who
I was going to change Animal Person to Vegan Atheist 40+ Parenting and come back to blogging. Doesn't have a ring to it at all, but a young man at Whole Foods yesterday called himself an "animal person" while ordering a roast beef wrap and I thought: Note to self-must change blog name if going to resume blogging.
Image via Wikipedia I found The Goode Family disappointing on the vegan side. One complaint many of us have with "liberals" and "progressives" is that they tend to leave veganism and animalrights out of their sphere of concern. Are Baby Boomers killing Facebook and Twitter? Maybe it's me. macworld.com).
Hal Herzog’s “ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat ” (Harper 2011), though fascinating, is ultimately depressing for vegans and animalrights activists. Well, as it turns out neither a trip to a slaughterhouse nor killing an animal yourself is powerful enough to make people go vegan. All day long.
That brief trailer could be a gift in the disguise of paradoxical message about how we can still kill and eat fish, yet not be at war with them. That tells me that we're still at war, as we are going to continue to kill fish because we can and we want to. You don't need a widget to do the right thing.
Let's deconstruct: The interview reminds me of how the industry views us and how little they know about the community of people who care about the lives of the animals brought into this world for one reason only: to kill and eat them. Are we pinning people down and force-feeding them vegan burritos? .
I've been having a difficult time blogging both here and at AnimalRights & AntiOppression lately because I feel like my thoughts are like " Groundhog Day." There are few animalrights stories in the news. Lipka introduced me to the idea of killing "respectfully." That one left me speechless. "My Respectfully?
Finally, if you know someone who gravitates toward the philosophical issues around our use of animals, this is a good book. I say "if you know someone" because this isn't a book I'd recommend to vegans for their vegan education efforts. Then again, he is not against the consumption of animals, " in general " (198).
Because I've been thinking about the evolution of my own thinking--and languaging--regarding animalrights. Both animalrights groups and animal welfare groups use "compassion" frequently. Then again, so do people who killanimals for a living. After all, they "love" the animals they kill.
And their lives of exploitation, torment, torture and slaughter cannot be compared to an animal's life in the wild. The next argument is usually something along the lines of: But animals in the wild might starve to death, and get injured, maimed or killed by predators! Yes, that's true. Besides, we have choices.
And how, for the love of God, people have got so stop saying things like Vegan Before 6! See Vegan Between Meals for more). From the vegan equals vegetarian discussion, to the nonviolence does or doesn't include property damage, to certain abolitionists deciding that they are in fact the only real abolitionists, it has gotten comical.
William Horden's, " The Sacred Space of the Shared Heart " is exactly the type of piece I am talking about when I express frustration over "spiritual" people who kill nonhuman animals or who have them killed for a meal. "My And for the animal, it means death. In this case, the spirit of the corpse.
First, check out " The Vegan Solution: An Ideal Whose Time Has Come " over at Care2. And former vegan, Chuck Roomi, who says veganism isn't practical "For people who do not have a desire to eat exotic foods from thousands of miles away, or mechanically-formulated suplements" also warrants a response. " which includes a poll.
While spending hours in the car I've been thinking about various issues related to sentient nonhumans, animalrights and veganism. Trying to program kids to accept the killing of someone they love is cruel. And vegans are accused of imposing our belief systems and brainwashing kids? What kind of lesson is that?
And managing means killing them, breeding them, and otherwise fiddling with their populations. Here's the good news: This is a very readable explanation of how animals in the Hundred Heartbeat Club (there are 100 or fewer individuals in the wild today) got to be in the club. This is all very unveganly, but I went for it nevertheless.
I think this is why I understand the thinking of people who don't want us to use animals but who promote changing the way we use them to decrease their numbers or their suffering. I understand the impulse to do " something " that alters the number of animals created to be used and killed and the suffering of the ones created.
First, Chris directed me to ePub Bud , which appears to be a timely and fantastic idea given my recent plea for more books for children about veganism. and What does the market/world/animals need? I wrote about " The End of the Line " over at AnimalRights & AntiOppression, so I won't rehash. Finally, two films.
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Virtually everyone agrees that: (1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason. Animal abuse is a crime in all fifty states, and rightly so.
Most moral vegetarians list fish and fowl as animals one should not eat. Vegan vegetarians who eat only vegetables, fruit, and nuts do not completely remove all microorganisms from their food, even with repeated cleaning. Neither is it obvious, however, that eating microorganisms does not kill them. Killing a hog can be avoided.
In fact, animals used for food do suffer a great deal. Not only are they killed in cruel ways, but it is well documented that they are raised in ways that cause them great discomfort and agony. KBJ: Singer’s claim is that one should not contribute, even incrementally, to animal suffering. causing a decline in U.S.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content