DISQUS

Bob Torres Elaine: My so-called "attack" is backed up with argument and logic. You claim that my argument is "untrue," though you obviously did not bother to read my post -- I know, it was long, and there are a lot of big words -- but I discuss why these reforms will ultimately fail. On top of it all, there is always the argument that I posed about globalization, which would indicate that even if I am wrong about the nature of rights for animals and the relationship of property in that equation, that the regulationist ideals that you espouse would still be next to worthless without a vegan movement to change overall demand.

On top of that, no one can muster any evidence to prove your assertion, namely, that public opinion has meaningfully shifted in a way that has produced any notable reduction in overall consumption of animal products. You yourself say that the amount of meat people eat has increased (though you also say that it hasn't increased, so I can't really even hold you to your own argument here).

Minku (called in sick!) Elaine,

I don't think Bob's reply to Ryan's blog post is an attack. And if anything in it constitutes an attack by whatever criteria you're using, then it follows that Ryan's blog post is an attack on Gary Francione and everyone who agrees with him.

In other words, if you're going to basically accuse whose who agree with Francione as being "fundamentalists" and trying to be "pure", with all of the negative connotations that implies, and knowing that's a pretty illogical argument on its face, then it's only fair to reply by saying you're shitting yourself.

Anyway, I should bow out of this discussion and let y'all continue to do what you do.

Bob Torres Perhaps you should stick to your entries on the advantages of getting naked for PETA, Elaine, because it seems clear to me that you don't understand much of anything beyond that. To wit:

"As I understand it, meat eating hasn't increased. What has increased is a) the population of meat eaters and b) the amount of meat those people eat."

Logic wasn't my strongest class in college, but I walked away with enough to know that what you say above is a logical impossibility. There is no way that you can argue that "meat eating hasn't increased" while also arguing that both population has increased AND that the amount of meat people consume has increased. If we have, as you say, more people eating more meat, I'm at a loss to understand how you could "understand" that "meat eating hasn't increased."

Also, your idea about pragmatism is ridiculous. This is precisely what veganism seeks to do: to change habits. What the welfarist agenda seeks to do is not to change habits, but instead to change productive conditions. It is sad when I understand the premises of what you're arguing for better than you do. (Then again, this is emblematic of new welfarist thinking as I've seen it.)

Elaine Vigneault PS - did you see that Bob Torres attacked you?

Torres says, "until we can overcome this barrier of the property status of animals, any reforms we make will ultimately fail to accord animals any true recognition as persons in the long run."

Which, of course, it simply untrue. Reforms can shift public opinion, move the middle, and encourage change. The children of vegetarians are VEGANS.