Thursday, January 26, 2006

egad, i think we might actually be getting somewhere.


i didnt mean to imply that your blog was your only contribution to the world. its just the forum in which this debate is taking place.

now that thats out of the way i feel you totally skirted the issue. because had you simply answered the hypothetical situation you would had to have said that you would use direct action possibly even violence. you failed to acknowledge that in certain cases you would indeed physically intervene. it would just take an extreme circumstance involving other humans or your own family. which goes for every single person i have ever met. i have yet to find a person who said they would not intervene if a loved one especially a child were being subjected to violence. but you may say i would simply call the police. that wouldnt be ok either using sn principles because you would just be advocating another individual do your violence for you.

in choosing my hypothetical situation i simply changed fur bearing animals to babies. it definitely sounds more gruesome to most to say human babies but its a very real situation on fur farms all over the world.

your charge that direct action creates more of a problem by actually expanding the offending operation rings hollow. you used the two elk lodge in vail as an example. hers your link you were looking for

they have rebuilt the building slightly larger but the expansion wasnt larger.

this one action isnt an all encompassing example of the failures of direct action as a tactic. its much much easier to find many examples of businesses that have been closed down, fur farms forced out of business and research projects halted because of direct action. the same cant be said of those following gene sharps tactics. i have yet to read of any real success in animal rights from the proponents of sn since it has been tried for the past 8 years. the greatest thing has been a handful of chicken liberations that were great for the chickens liberated but totally ineffective against the battery cage industry because it was so easily ignored by the farm. had the sn campaign been effective why is not still ongoing? it certainly didnt close any farms. the conditions at the targeted michael foods arent any better. its been five years! i think its time to move on to other proven effective tactics like those utilized by s.h.a.c. do you feel their campaign is failing? they certainly arent swept under the rug by hls like crystal farms did to ca4a.

i appreciate this debate. its fun. even if i did start it being really confrontational.

on another note the millenium restaurant is hands down the best there is. for those who have a chance to go there and cant afford much then skip the meal and order dessert. theirs are the best anywhere. the food is indescribably fantastic.


i'm not sure how it is that i skirted the issue; rather i think that i expanded it to include my point or platform or whatever, one that you have further explained in this last round that you disagree with; not sure where that leaves us...agreeing to disagree?

i will say this, however. initially i drew parallels to martin luther king; he was influenced highly by gandhi, and while both men might have had some minor skirt-chasing issues, their movements were incredibly successful and a testament to the efficacy of nonviolence. conversely, i've no doubt that violent direct action can make similar claims of success (you do above, and to be honest, i'm not familiar with those cases and so i'll withhold comment). ultimately, then, i think it comes down to personal choice.

minor point one: as a somewhat recent victim of some random-ass violence (cited elsewhere in this blog, see last september), i understand the impulse towards same. i was attacked and mugged down the street from my house and it was all i could do to keep myself from getting in the car and running down my attackers. ultimately i had to look at the larger picture; i work with kids very much like the ones who attacked me, and if i were to do violence to my attackers, i may as well do violence to every student i work with, robbing them and myself of the very reason i'm working there in the first place. not a direct parallel to animal rights, i understand, but an illustration of how our well-intentioned and easily justified actions can often have far-reaching consequences that we have to squint to see.

minor point two: while i agree that an infant is a cat is a chicken, i also understand that many people aren't there with me, and if i want them someday to be my ally, the best thing i can do is to not engage in something they're likely to call terrorism.

minor point three: should we just agree, then, that all that combustion and paint and whatnot is bad for the environment?

minor point four/subject changer one: i've often wondered how much thought goes into the aftercare of animals that are "liberated" from their situations. seems like i here a lot of stories about very dependent animals wandering confusedly about cityscapes after being freed, and i wonder if this can truly be looked at as a positive outcome. i also understand the phenomena of urban myth and media spin, so i really am asking with a certain degree of sincerity.


i didn't make it to milennium when i was in san fransisco, probably because i didn't know it existed. i'll have to go back one of these days, and hope to maybe live in southern california (it's really much better than it's reputation) in the next few years.


Blogger Spoon said...

Hi. You're cool. I came here following my nose around the internet for Asian tofu recipes, and SURPRISE! you're in Mpls. Neat-o, man.

So, y'know, here's a little sunshine. Pay it forward.

8:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home