CA prop 2-anyone know the status of this yet?

[nam78_two]

This is a big one for the animals.

[chatnoir]

1. Was looking for the same

What I found:

Proposition 2-Treatment of Farm Animals

All Precincts Totals

Yes 2,207,789 62.0%
No 1,352,269 38.0%

19% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/04 10:00PM


http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2008/11/04/CA/c/i_proposition/i_0_2_treatment_of_farm_animals/g_ballot_issue/c/california.shtml

[nam78_two]

2. Thanks

That is the first article I have seen on this!

[LeftyMom]

3. It passed

[XemaSab]

4. Passed by a LOT

:woohoo:

That was another one where the haters were spewing out mountains of lies.

Good to see that the voters are smarter than that, though.

[Ignis]

5. Happy Prop 2 Dance!

:yourock: :applause: :woohoo:

I'm so glad I went to the polls during a slow time yesterday. Someone started talking to me about Prop 8, and I told them they didn't need to convince me to vote against it. In return, I talked him out of skipping Prop 2 (because of food price scares) and into a solid YES on Prop 2.

:grouphug:

[flvegan]

6. Statements released:

Farm Sanctuary

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/mediacenter/2008/pr_prop2_victory.html

HSUS

http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/prop2_california_110408.html

This is a very, very good day for animals subject to intense confinement in California.

[superduperfarleft]

7. Not sure how this act helps animals in any meaningful way.

But at least the meat, eggs, and dairy that people consume will have the Seal of Approval from various "animal rights" groups. :eyes:

To clarify: you could drive a dump truck through the loopholes in this law, nevermind the fact that it doesn't even become law until 2015.

[Tumbulu]

9. It is a first step

I was a volunteer on Tuesday with the democratic party doing poll checks and phone calls. We were doing them for the Obama campaign, no on 8 and a local tax measure. I, being so involved with yes on 2 asked everyone to add something about yes on 2 to their phone call chats. All the people volunteering brightened up and said things like "oh my Yes! I could not believe it when I saw those pictures on the TV of those poor chickens all CRAMMED into those tiny cages" and other things like this. So, this tell me that so many urban people just don't know. These results tell me that despite a huge amount of money from the no on 2 forces people still were not fooled.

I see this a a huge victory for the beginning of minimal standards. Yes these standards are still not anywhere near enough. But they are a true beginning and with this first step, more can be made. I was thrilled that it passed with such a margin.

[superduperfarleft]

14. A first step?

First step towards what? These "reforms" have been touted as a win for animals since the Humane Slaughter Act, and animal consumption has actually increased, and conditions have arguably gotten worse. So how does history show that attempting to reform animal exploitation as opposed to focusing on abolishing it does anything to improve the lives of animals?

And like I said, now people can continue to eat animals with the blessing of "animal rights" organizations. Once again, how is this a win? If I donated money to HSUS (which I don't, for this and several other similar reasons), I'd be pissed that they were using my money to promote eating animals.

[Ignis]

16. I'll take a crack at it.

Ethical Vegans/Vegetarians believe in reducing animal suffering as a primary goal. The reduction of meat consumption is secondary to that goal.

Reducing animal suffering can easily (as we just saw with Prop 2) legislated, and enjoys broad public support. Passing legislation that would enforce a reduction in meat consumption is something that neither practical, winnable, nor even desirable for most Ethical Veg*ns.

A large portion of the population will continue to consume meat for the foreseeable future. Given that we cannot (in the short term) change this fact, the best thing an Ethical Veg*n can do is to focus on reducing the suffering that those factory farmed animals must endure.

To use a horribly flawed analogy, one can support the abolition of the death penalty while working on improving prison conditions at the same time.

Hope that helps. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

17. But I already said that this will not have any meaningful reductions in suffering.

If anything, it endorses the continued consumption of those animals. Not only that, the regulation is completely toothless and full of loopholes. Giving an extra couple of inches to an egg-laying hen (exceptions apply) doesn't seem like much of a victory (to the hen or to me). Making exceptions for animals at slaughter or pregnant pigs doesn't strike me as much of a victory. You don't think it's odd that numerous groups that are directly involved in the exploitation of animals supported this measure?

Secondly, re: reducing suffering since we can't magically liberate all animals tomorrow: this is a strawman that supporters of "reform" like to throw out, and it's a complete misunderstanding of what I am saying by opposing regulation like this. How about a better analogy - if this was the 1800s, would it be considered a great step forward in human rights if regulation was enacted that you could no longer beat your slave with a three-inch rod, but instead were allowed to beat them with a one-inch thick rod? So I'd disagree 110% with your assertion that supposedly "reducing suffering" is the "best" thing an ethical vegan can do.

And since the Humane Slaughter Act was passed, animal suffering and the consumption of those animals has increased exponentially, not to mention the other bits and pieces of regulation that has come out which purports to treat animals more humanely while we continue to exploit them. So where has regulation got us? The idea that so-called "baby-steps" like proposition 2 will lead to more vegans is not supported by history. At all.

Thirdly, I get the feeling that you think I need the concept of animal rights explained to me. I don't. I'd argue that the supporters of this proposition are the ones who misunderstand it. As an ethical vegan, I don't concern myself with reducing suffering, especially not as a primary goal, I advocate for animals to be recognized as creatures with their own interests that cannot be disregarded for selfish human reasons, and deserve to not be just the property of someone else. Veganism (not vegetarianism, not happy meat) is (or at least it should be) the primary goal of any philosophy that claims to be supportive of the concept of animal rights. And it should not in any way advocate the consumption of animal products. This is what Proposition 2 and its supporters in HSUS and Farm Sanctuary are doing.

[Ignis]

18. Yes, _YOU_ said it won't reduce suffering. I disagree.

So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here. The "few extra inches" may not seem like a lot to you, but I'm pretty sure it reduces animal suffering. Does it do so enough? No. But you can't expect to go from 0% to 100% overnight.

I'm no fanatic. I believe in working towards the reduction of suffering as a path, rather than the elimination of suffering as an all-or-nothing goal.

I don't know your ethical basis for being a vegan, but mine--and that of every other vegan with whom I've come into personal contact--is grounded in the fact that animal suffering is unnecessary and undesirable, and that animal products are not necessary to feed, clothe, wash, house, etc. the human population.

Given that ethical foundation, I do what I can to make progress towards the goal. Given the current deplorable state of regulation over the factory farming industry in the USA, I think that "baby steps" do a great deal to raise both public awareness of animal suffering and private consciousness that your food has a face.

If this puts me in the camp of horrible people who think that progress is a good thing, so be it. And yes, I would probably have voted in Victorian times for a "rule of thumb" law if most of the wife-beaters were using the "rule of wrist" law. Because progress takes time. Hell, the Civil War ended almost 150 years ago, and we just now have our first Black President.

To wit: Baby steps are necessary to make progress, and politics is often the art of choosing the least-awful alternative.

---

As a side note, I make the following recommendation for you to take or leave, as you see fit: We're all working towards a common goal in this forum. Let's try to treat each others as fellow travelers on that path.

:grouphug:

[superduperfarleft]

19. I'm not trying to sound disrespectful, if that's the way I came off.

But despite everything you wrote, you still haven't given me any evidence that this will result in any meaningful change.

And I'm not a fanatic either: my commitment to veganism and animal rights is based in reason and logic, not the concern that people are being mean to fluffy bunnies. That sounds flippant, but that's the crap that mainstream groups promote, and most of the ex-vegans I know are the ones that got into it because of admittedly legitimate concerns over cruelty but their veganism never had a strong theoretical basis, so the minute they were presented with a happy-meat alternative, they jumped at the chance.

"So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove here. The "few extra inches" may not seem like a lot to you, but I'm pretty sure it reduces animal suffering. Does it do so enough? No. But you can't expect to go from 0% to 100% overnight."

Reducing suffering is great. Prop 2 doesn't do that. And no, I don't feel good, and I doubt the chickens feel good, about "a few extra inches" after they're debeaked and killed while only a few weeks old, nor do the pregnant sows which can be confined, nor do all of the animals that can still be brutalized before being slaughtered, nor do the chickens who will still be confined in horrible conditions as part of the "free-range" sham, which is all ALLOWED AND ENDORSED by this law. All this law did was give animal exploiters cover to continue brutalizing their animals under the guise of "compassion," with the full endorsement of HSUS, and meat-eaters cover to continue consuming animals, also with the full endorsement of HSUS.

So what I'm trying to prove is that supporting regulation which makes people feel better about consuming animals while not doing anything meaningful for their situation has been proven over the decades to be well-intentioned but incredibly counterproductive. And yet people and the major so-called AR organizations keep doing it, making it worse for animals and confusing the general public as to what animal rights actually means. If you're advocating for the end of animal exploitation, this will make that so much harder, and that's not about me or you, it's about the animals which will continue to suffer while we congratulate ourselves for passing worthless regulation like this.

So I, as a militant extremist animal rights fanatic, would have voted no on this thing. I'm just trying to get people to give me logical reasons why they would vote yes, without the name-calling, strawmen, and accusations of "divisiveness" that supporters of welfarist reform like to throw at those who disagree.

And this isn't personal, it's just discussion.

[Ignis]

20. I understand your critique, but not your counter-proposal.

Why/How will the passage of Prop 2 make progress towards the reduction/elimination of animal suffering "so much harder?"

[superduperfarleft]

21. By giving people an excuse to continue consuming animals.

After all, if even the HSUS says these animals were treated humanely, why should we stop?

If these groups would spend those millions of dollars putting commercials up promoting veganism, as opposed to endorsing animal products with "Certified Humane" labels (HSUS) or encouraging people to eat at KFC (PETA), focusing on treatment as opposed to use, we'd see more vegans. This way hasn't really been tried yet; the reform way has, and it's failed. Miserably.

[Ignis]

22. Ah, so it's an argument of resource allocation.

Given that

1) We have fixed resources to spend on animal rights efforts, and
2) Factory farming causes both animal suffering and animal death, and
3) The vaaaaaaaaast majority of the American population is nowhere near being ready to even consider going vegan tomorrow,

I propose that

4) Spending money to reduce animal suffering in the short term is a worthy goal,

While

5) The ultimate goal of any true animal rights push should be to reduce the consumption of animal products.

---

I understand that you personally believe that there was absolutely, positively ZERO reduction in animal suffering via the passage of Prop 2. But please understand that most of us who post here and the big AR orgs feel differently. That's why we supported Prop 2.

At least, I hope I understand the disagreement properly now. :shrug:

[superduperfarleft]

23. Well, no.

I'm not saying do both at all, I'm saying promote veganism in various ways and don't promote or endorse the consumption of animals.

It's not about resource allocation, it's about the fact that, as a public representative of animal rights (whether they actually are or not), they should not be promoting the use of animal products. It's a matter of ethical consistency. That may sound like BS theory, but as long as we say that we're for the abolition of exploitation out of one side of our mouths while endorsing it out of the other, we continue the same hierarchies that cause the exploitation of animals in the first place, that exploitation is okay as long as it's humane, that animals' interests (if we even admit they have them) are only to be taken seriously unless there is a completely trivial, selfish conflict with our own. Like I said, the focus should be on use and not treatment.

And if you can show me some evidence that Prop 2 will reduce suffering, I'd like to see it. There's a lot of bluster and baseless opinions from supporters (not you personally, just in general), but I haven't seen a lot of facts in its favor. And as I mentioned regarding history, the history of these laws is that they don't do a thing to reduce any immediate suffering.

Full disclosure: while I've read the act itself numerous times, I've not read anything from HSUS.

[Ignis]

24. Well, that's a few steps ahead of where we are now.

Currently, we can't even reach consensus in the AR community around promoting vegetarianism. It seems silly, but there are many people out there who are happy to continue to eat meat while working very hard to reduce animal suffering.

:wtf: I know, I know! But that's just how it is.

I think that continuing to force these people to confront exactly how much suffering goes into ALL meat eating is the only way to turn that tide. Even getting people to consider the idea of vegetarianism (and the associated ethical framework behind it) is progress from our current way of life.

People fear change. If you try to change everything overnight, many peoples' primate brains will kick in and they'll become reactionary. Progress demands small, incremental steps that move society forward.

So, even if Prop 2 didn't directly help a single animal (and it won't for several years, in the best case), I think it's still worth it to get the AR message out in the public consciousness. Because we're not going to see any significant drop in meat consumption until people realize exactly how much suffering goes into the Big Mac they're eating.

We start with chicken cages that are 12" wide.
This year, we propose making the cages 15" wide.
Next year, we propose making the cages 18" wide.
Third year, we propose moving to real free-range solutions.
Etc.

Thanks for taking the time to hash this out.

[superduperfarleft]

25. I disagree with a few things on that.

Specifically with this: "Progress demands small, incremental steps that move society forward." especially if you don't qualify it with specific examples, and about whether or not there was an AR message at all with the Prop 2 campaign.

But I think we'll need to agree to disagree with this one. Thanks for the discussion.

[Ignis]

26. You disagree with which?

Is it
1) the statement "progress demands small, incremental steps to move society forward", or
2) my assertion that the passage of Prop 2 is progress?

Also, if you don't think that "there was an AR message at all with the Prop 2 campaign," could you explain what you thought the underlying message was? The ads I saw seemed to appeal to core AR values (i.e., anti-animal suffering/abuse) rather than to health or sanitation appeals. Did we see different ads? Or perhaps I'm not understanding your point here.

I'm assuming that you agree that a core AR value is the reduction/elimination of animal suffering. If that's not the case, I think we will have to agree to disagree. But I'm convinced there's common ground here, damnit! :)

[superduperfarleft]

27. I don't agree that a core AR value is a reduction of suffering

because i don't believe that goes far enough. Slavery wasn't wrong because slaves were mistreated, it was wrong because it was reducing a sentient being with their own interests (one of which is avoiding suffering) to nothing more than property, a means to our own ends. Animal exploitation is not wrong because animals are sometimes mistreated, it is wrong because we deny them the basic right to have their interests taken into consideration. I don't care how nicely a farmer exploits his animals, it's still wrong. And convincing people that a farmer exploiting his animals "humanely" is okay is the antithesis of animal rights, and that's what a focus on treatment as opposed to use does. Of course, we may just be arguing semantics here, and I'm completely missing your point.

Regardless, the message with Prop 2 is that it's okay to continue eating animals as long as we treat them nicely while they're alive, with quite a few exceptions. That's not compatible with animal rights theory at all.

And I would disagree with the blanket statement of "progress demands small, incremental steps to move society forward," because you'll need to qualify it. For instance, I think the banning of grayhound racing is Massachusetts, from what I've read, is a great step. That's progress, because it recognizes that these dogs have value and doesn't then go ahead and say it's okay to disregard their value as long as we do it "humanely." But widening battery cages by an inch every year isn't progress, because it fails to address the root cause of why those battery cages exist in the first place, and says that it's somehow "better" when animals are continuing to be exploited.

I think our main disagreement rests on a different interpretation of what animal rights theory is, and possibly ways to implement it into everyday life and/or regulation.

And after all that disagreement: as far as common ground, I do agree with you that social and cultural change will be the driving factor in the abolition of animal exploitation, not regulation. That's why my irritation at this proposition is more directed at HSUS etc. for promoting an incredibly warped view of what AR actually is, as opposed to the industries that are going to exploit animals one way or another.

[Ignis]

28. That's just crazy talk.

I don't know of a single ethical framework, philosophy, or book for the animal rights movement that doesn't involve a reduction in animal suffering as a core principle.

Please provide examples of what you're talking about here. Thanks.

[superduperfarleft]

30. Everybody seems to hate the guy, but Gary Francione.

It's not that he doesn't care about animal suffering, it's that the reduction of animal suffering is not the basis for why animals should be members of the moral community. His focus is not on reducing suffering, but on equally considering the interests of animals in, among other things, not suffering.

Much like my opposition to human slavery is not because of the fact that a human slave might be mistreated, but because a human has an interest in, among other things, not suffering that needs to be respected and considered and not disregarded for trivial or selfish reasons.

Does that make sense? Like I said, we may be arguing semantics, is just that a focus on "reduction of suffering" sounds to much to me like it would be okay to exploit animals as long as we are nice to them in the process.

[Ignis]

37. Ah. Well, count me in the "everybody" camp.

I haven't heard that name in years, and then only from some very young Berkeley vegan punks. Because when you're young, Francione's absolutism sounds like a great way to "stick it to the Man."

I'm a utilitarian, and I think it's disingenuous of any ethical philosophy to ignore the very real impact of suffering in daily life. Life isn't black-and-white, and an ethical code that pretends it is is doomed to ineffectual, ivory-tower failure at worst, or a reduction to absurdity at best. What good is a modern ethical philosophy if it's not practicable?

1) Raping someone is wrong.
2) Murdering someone is wrong.
3) Raping and murdering someone is wrong.

Outside of a philosophical vaccuum, how can you not agree with the above three statements? They're non-exclusive. You don't get a free pass on rape just because the person's going to be murdered anyway.

:banghead:

(By the way, you really should state your philosophical bent at the beginning of any discussion of AR, though. It's like discussing economics with someone, only to find halfway through that they're a Georgist. :eyes: )

Thanks for being civil in your discussions with me, but I think we've reached an impasse. I just can't get over the hurdle that you don't think that the reduction of animal suffering is an important step in the progress towards the goal of ending animal slavery.

[superduperfarleft]

38. If you're a utilitarian, we've defintely reached an impasse.

And Francione's is the only philosophy that's ethically consistent out of all the ones I've seen (although I like the writing of Lee Hall as well). Not sure what being young has to do with it. But your unnecessary snark aside, I think if people gave him more credit, there'd be a lot less ex-vegans (like Peter Singer himself, if he ever was one).


But:
1) Raping someone is wrong.
2) Murdering someone is wrong.
3) Raping and murdering someone is wrong.

I'd agree with all three of these, not sure where I had indicated that I wouldn't.

[Ignis]

42. You find Singer, et al., to be ethically inconsistent?

Doesn't that seem like an unreal, impracticable purity test to you?

How could anyone ever be vegan "enough" to meet Francione's standards? You simply cannot avoid the use of all animal products in modern America. You touch, use, buy, etc. items that have animal products in them every single day whether or not you are a vegan.

I hate to steer the discussion away from public policy and onto personal use habits, but Francione's philosophy has always struck me as one that breeds defensive hypocrites. (Not that I'm saying YOU are one.) When one takes an absolutist, uncompromising stand that one cannot possibly practice in daily life, one simply gives ammunition to those who decry veganism/vegitarianism as impracticable, unrealistic, and rife with hypocrisy.

I mean, I haven't even seen Francione address real historical religious/ethical movements that aim to avoid the use/abuse of animals. How can you look at the present ethics of veganism without studying the history of Jainism, etc.? Again, this strikes me as philosophy in a vacuum.

---

I'm not ageist. There was no age-related slur. But experience comes with age, even if wisdom does not. What seems possible (even easy) as a teenager simply cannot stand up to 20+ years of daily exercise in the real world.

I've been a vegan for almost 20 years. I'm certainly not the same person I was when I started.

As I have matured, I have come to realize the value to the greater good of acts like PETA's endorsement of Burger King's attempt to serve (almost) vegan food. You can't win a battle overnight when less than 10% of the entire populace has even been exposed in a meaningful way to the core arguments against animal suffering...let alone animal slavery. Absolutism looks nice on paper, but it just doesn't get anything done.

---

If you agree with all 3 statements, then doesn't it logically follow that we have a moral obligation to protect the rights of others in all three cases? Because it sure sounds to me like your argument is that we should avoid criminalizing sexual abuse in the case of those who are condemned to death.

Why on earth wouldn't you want to decrease suffering as well as death? I understand the core "slavery" argument here, but I think the core "abolitionist" argument leads to turning a blind eye to the rape or abuse of a slave. If rape/abuse is an immoral act, how can any ethical person ignore it?

You can call it utilitarianism or consequentialism if you prefer, but ultimately any sound ethical code must work towards the furtherance of the good and the reduction/elimination of suffering. Any other approach leads to either fundamentalism or nihilism.

[superduperfarleft]

43. Singer eats meat. So, yes, that's inconsistent with his own theory.

Regardless...

My opposition to rape and murder is not necessarily just because the people on whom these acts are committed these will suffer (after all, a quick bullet to the head is a pretty painless way to die), but because the people that suffer these acts are having their interests in not suffering disregarded. I would argue that people have an inherent right not be raped and murdered, regardless of whether those acts cause physical/mental pain or not. But when it becomes a discussion on how animal use is wrong because they suffer, that leaves open the question "What about farmers who don't use battery cages, castration, debeaking, branding, etc.?"

Still, I have a feeling that I'm just not communicating myself properly on this. My opposition to Prop 2 is not because I don't care about suffering, it's because I don't think it will alleviate any suffering.

And there's nothing in Francione's theory that prevents me from driving a car or inhaling gnats. While I would definitely prefer that my tires did not have animal parts in them, it's unavoidable for most people (and me, for now, I hope to be car-free pretty soon). There's an enormous difference between my using a car to get to work to pay my bills as opposed to my eating an animal because while I may respect their interest in not having pain inflicted upon them, I don't respect them enough to override my own selfish desire to eat them.

As far as him addressing historical movements, that would be interesting, I'd definitely like to see his take on it. But since he approaches his critique of the modern animal welfare movement from a purely legal perspective (and he does go back, but only about as far as Descartes, and briefly, seeming to focus more on Jeremy Bentham), I can see why he's overlooked that, and I'm not sure why the history of it would be relevant to just creating an ethical framework.

[Ignis]

44. No, not Singer's actions, his ethical philosophy.

What's inherently inconsistent in his approach? The greatest logical critique I've seen of Singer is that he's more of a consequentialist than a utilitarian, but that's more an argument of taxonomy than of core ethics or consistency.

---

Let me see if I can oversimplify my major problem with "abolitionism":

1. Enslaving a cow to produce milk is wrong.
2. Harming or causing suffering to a dairy cow is wrong.
3. Killing a cow to eat its flesh is wrong.
4. Causing "excess" suffering to a cow before killing it to eat is wrong.

Most people would agree with 4. Most people would agree with 2. Many people would agree with 3. Very few of us agree with 1.

Working within the legal framework of the United States, you need votes to get things done. If you focus solely on passing of laws to restrict #1, you are ignoring all of the inherent suffering in #2-4.

Or, to oversimplify further, you can't just make murder illegal. You have to focus on criminalizing rape and abuse, too.

[superduperfarleft]

45. I see what you're saying.

I agree with regards to working within our current legal system. I disagree though as to whether we should be focusing on laws which do little to nothing to end immediate animal suffering (bolded to prevent being taken out of context later) as opposed to focusing on a culture which, with a few changes, could prevent the suffering of millions more animals now and in the future.

#1 is certainly the main focus of abolitionism, and should be the main concern of any theory of animal rights. But for a practical standpoint, what Francione advocates is less of a regulatory approach and more of a cultural approach (or at least more of a far-reaching regulatory approach, such as removing the FDA requirement that all prescription drugs go through animal trials). Criminalizing rape and abuse is great, but criminalizing certain forms of rape while leaving others completely legal is problematic.

What needs to happen before a regulatory approach would work for food animals is a huge cultural shift, on this I'm sure we agree, which is why Francione focuses so heavily on veganism. As he says, "Veganism is the moral baseline." But AR groups should never be in the business of supporting people's choice to eat meat. Vegan outreach is not the only thing that can be done, but working with Burger King or KFC to more "humanely" kill their chickens only confuses the public as to what animal rights means and dooms far more animals to die in horrible ways as people become perfectly content eating their "happy meat."

My preference for Francione over Peter Singer (despite my personal feelings on the man) is that all Francione requires for beings to be members of the moral community is an interest in their own being. From that, he argues that these beings' interests then have to be considered fairly before being violated for some greater good. Singer (and to a lesser extent Tom Regan) doesn't seem to offer that protection, instead requiring that animals meet completely human-centric standards of intelligence before they can be protected, which leads to (admittedly ridiculous) discussions about whether his philosophy would allow a painful medical experiment on a mentally disabled human if that experiment could be shown to benefit a million other humans.

So yes, I guess from a purely theoretical basis and not a personal basis, Singer is consistent (although not with a philosophy of animal rights). It's the conclusions he reaches and their potential effects on both humans and non-humans that I find distasteful.

And because I didn't say it before, congrats on being vegan so long. That's amazing. I can't wait to be there someday too (and despite what all the ex-vegans I tell me, I will be :) )

[flvegan]

29. Yeah, and fuck those shitbag vegetarians that don't go all the way, eh?

No, seriously answer that. How do you feel about vegetarianism? Come on, abolitionist, be honest.

I remember a t-shirt that I think IDA was selling. It had the word "Vegetarian" across the back, but the letters for "Vegan" were highlighted. It stated that (the vegans) "didn't need your excuses" and that turned me off to the division forever. Vegetarians might eat eggs, milk, honey, wear leather...but fuck them, right? Not good enough. Those apologists that have reduced suffering in their personal lives are really just worthless when it comes to Animal Rights, right? Let me know when I misstate you.

I mean really, they reduce suffering but they don't have zero impact like us. You know, those of us that don't drive cars, use paint. Oh, wait. That's not me. My tires still have cow parts as does much of my paint.

:eyes: Because vegetarianism isn't good enough. :eyes: again

Oh, and fuck those fur/greyhound/puppy mill protesters that wear leather.

Here's your challenge. Give me two good examples where HSUS in regards to Prop 2 does what you've suggested. Where HSUS says it's okay to eat animals, and secondly advocates and promotes it. I respect how you'd vote on this. A big no. Not good enough. So when the day rolls around that veal crates, battery cages would be abolished, you'd not be there. A vote against intensive confinement. I should have rethought my vote for Obama. He's not Kucinich, so I should have voted for McCain I guess.

This coming year, I think you've convinced me to throw HSUS and Farm Sanctuary under the bus. Worthless, useless organizations them.

Oh, and your support for the banning of racing. Great! But still...folks breed and kill dogs there. Shouldn't we be about abolishing any profit in obtaining/using companion animals and vote against any measure that takes a step forward? I mean, it's all or nothing, right? The voters in MA who are activists really should have voted against this measure because it only eliminates a PART of the usage of animals, right? I mean, that's what you said.

Have you ever been to a battery farm? If you really think that outlawing this type of confinement is shit, and you vote against it, then you support it. You know, Obama isn't perfect. I'd not vote McCain because of it. Same thing.

The message with Prop 2 is that it's NOT okay to treat animals in certain fashion. Again, I challenge you to find where it was suggested it's okay to eat animals.

I guess at the end of the day, I'd love to read your grand theory on animal rights and that implementation of same.

It's like...imagine it would be the first day of a veal crate ban in CA. You, animal rights activist, had the chance to "talk" to a veal calf chained in a crate. "Sorry, I voted against your shitty intense confinement, but I have my personal beliefs and this Proposition wasn't good enough. It didn't end the eating of meat." Fucking selfish. Might as well have a veal cutlet, that.

Sorry that I voted to keep you confined like this today. At least I feel pure.

Fucking shame on you, "activist".

[superduperfarleft]

31. So many strawmen...

Don't even fucking respond to me if all you're going to do is throw out a bunch of macho bluster and put words in my mouth. I've explained my position to you quite clearly, but since you're too busy proving what a badass you are, I guess you didn't have time to read it.

Fucking shame on you too, PETAphile. It's people like you who disregard theory in favor of a mindless "FUCK YEAH!!!111" that make all the ex-vegans I have to deal with.

[flvegan]

32. Thanks.

Point proven.

[superduperfarleft]

33. You don't have a fucking point to prove.

You have baseless bluster, strawmen, personal attacks, and bullying. Like most welfarists. And I'm through attempting to talk to you.

In b4 divisive, want animals to suffer, GF cult member, "shame," etc. :eyes:

[flvegan]

34. I posted several questions

regarding your ideology. You got personal.

Point proven. You answered nothing. I read all your responses here. I had to intervene when you stated that as a proper animal rights activist :eyes: you'd have voted no on Prop 2. And there you'd be, helping the non-passage of the biggest reform in factory farming ever. Standing in the middle of a 300 foot long battery hen building, amongst 100,000 suffering animals, cloaked in righteousness, uttering how sorry you were that you couldn't make it just a bit better for them. BUT, it just wasn't good enough.

You could stand, Prop 2 defeated because of votes like yours, amongst the 200 head of calf on the new veal operation. With animals that will never move, never really eat, never stand up, never see the sun, never for one moment enjoy the bit of life given to them, never so much as get out of their own shit and piss. But, cloaked in righteousness, you can say that you're sorry that you couldn't vote to make that not happen. It just wasn't good enough.

Honestly, there was a time when the likes of you calling me a welfarist would bother me, considering. But, I realize, I'm in too good company as whatever I am. Better a "welfarist" than an enabler, I say.

[superduperfarleft]

35. I got personal?

You got nothing but personal. I didn't see that thing you posted below which you quickly edited, but I'm sure you edited it because it was a big ray of sunshine. And then you tried to "shame" me after that ridiculous flurry of strawman arguments that you posted above.

If you'd read my responses, I've stated over and over why Prop 2 does NOTHING to help animals. Nothing. There will still be battery cages just a horrible as the ones that exist now, there'll still be "free-range" chickens housed in filthy warehouses as there are today, there will still be pregnant sows confined, there will still be animals brutalized before slaughter. The biggest reform in factory farming ever? Please, don't make me laugh. Have you even read the thing, or do you just go by what HSUS told you?

Look at any thread on DU regarding veganism: people make the excuses that they only eat "humanely-raised" animals, so that's enough. You ever wonder why they think that animal rights theory is concerned only with making exploitation nicer as opposed to abolishing exploitation? It's because of you and your enabler buddies in PETA, HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, etc. that constantly make the discussion about treatment but never about the inherent right animals have to have their interests fairly considered. Then HSUS does cost-analysis for the meat industry and PETA gives awards to Burger King and praises KFC. But god forbid I ever criticize the vanguard of the faux animal-rights movement, because then I'm just being divisive. :eyes:

I've said over and over again how history is not on your side on this one, that the exploitation of animals increases despite all the "reform" that has been couched as the next best thing for animals, and yet you just want to say, "Trust us, this time it'll be different!" without any evidence whatsoever, just accusations that those of us who advocate abolition of exploitation as opposed to making exploitation nicer are utopian, enablers, or "shameful."

I'm an enabler? You're a fucking enabler. All those people who feel good about consuming animals because the HSUS said it was okay now since Prop 2 passed have you and your welfarist buddies to thank. Congrats on you for allowing your donations to be used to encourage people to eat animals. Congrats on all those animals that will continue to suffer because you and HSUS made it okay to eat animals again. A real victory for animals that is.

[flvegan]

36. I see something differently.

In regards to DU threads that in any way relate to animals used as food, I see something very differently than you do. Yes, we'll always have the "mmm...bacon" responses from the few. Whatever. BUT, I see more and more responses from posters that are "trying to eat less meat" or "I have been vegetarian for a year now". Or those Meat-Free Monday threads we had. IIRC, there were more positive responses that I'd have been shocked to see a few years ago.

Like PETA giving praise to KFC and BK, I also give praise to folks here on DU that are taking a step or a leap in having a diet less heavy in meat. Personally, I think it's fantastic when someone chooses a Boca Burger over a hamburger. Praise the action, and the thought behind it. Doesn't make me an advocate for any other choice made, just like it doesn't make HSUS an advocate for eating meat in regards to Prop 2.

Prop 2 did two things. First, it will make it illegal to intensely confine millions of animals when enacted. Second, it caused a majority of people to agree that the current practices are inhumane and need to cease. People across this country, like it or not, were faced with the reality of how some of their food is raised.

Where did I or HSUS advocate/make okay eating animals?

Yes, my enabler buddies, indeed. Fact is, animals are going to be raised for food right now. It's an unfortunate reality right now, and isn't going to be changed anytime in the near future. Making the lives of those animals better is an unfortunate necessity right now.

So, you go on shouting at people. My enabler buddies and I are going to continue to raise awareness and consciousness while making what lives these animals have a little better, until we can end their use altogether.

[superduperfarleft]

39. "Where did I or HSUS advocate/make okay eating animals?"

To the average meat-eater in California, their meat will now have the approval of HSUS.

"First, it will make it illegal to intensely confine millions of animals when enacted."

Not really. Once again, have you even read the thing?

"Second, it caused a majority of people to agree that the current practices are inhumane and need to cease."

Not really, but now they can feel comfortable that the dead cow they are eating supposedly was treated nicely before it was killed.

Making the argument about treatment and not use is doomed to failure. But I guess this time is somehow different...

And as far as shouting, take a look at who started shouting first. I've tried to have civil disagreements with you numerous times, and this is how they usually end up, with you blathering on about shame and how dare I etc etc etc.

[flvegan]

41. I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, me and my enabler buddies will continue to do our good work. You abolition-only folks please continue doing whatever it is exactly that you do.

Good day.

[flvegan]

10. Nevermind.

Censoring myself because it just isn't fucking worth it.

[LeftyMom]

11. .

[flvegan]

12. Nevermind #2.

[Chan790]

13. ...

:yourock:

[superduperfarleft]

15. Wow, sorry I missed it. n/t

[nankerphelge]

8. Massachusetts banned greyhound racing too..

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/bid_to_ban_dog_racing_succeeds_on_2d_try/

[Critters2]

40. Yeah! I was pleasantly surprised to see this!! I used to work near a track,

and it was really popular. This is a great thing!