The true value of Mr. Francione's thoughts is that he promotes a total paradigm shift. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that his thoughts aim at nothing less that a complete rewiring of the human brain - a total change of thinking. I had always believed in what he says on a subconscious level, but only by hearing his words, those beliefs bubbled up to my consciousness. The dots in my head got connected. I'm vegan for life.
@@JappaKneads Why do you think a person like you with either 0 brain cell or 1 brain cell, aka, no brain or your brain is virtually nonexistent, can comprehend the vast complexity of nature and the vast complexity of life? You only see the surface of the problem and not even able to critically think a nanometer deeper than the surface, why do you think you can see anything?
This is quite a stupid statement of course you are for regulation of horror and injustice, humans treat others with horror and injustice--should we either ignore injustice or execute all who commit very small injustice against others since it "can't be regulated"?
Chris Namaste We already prosecute people who offend in any way. The worse the crime, the worse the punishment. This animal abuse is no very small injustice and hasn't received any legal action yet.
+DocRunaway I know we cannot convince everyone to stop being needlessly cruel, only those who actually care about the effects of their choices and actions. That was the one thing I disagreed with Prof. Francione about, that people are generally good and moral and will do the right thing once they realize how veganism is a moral imperative. Sadly, most people are self-centered and will continue to put their own conveniences and unnecessary habits before the rights of animals to live their lives without being exploited as though they are mere commodities rather than sentient beings with emotions and purpose outside of self-centered humans.
jbclegal Yeah, btw, have you considered that your computer is an unnecessary habit that exploits people and the underage that assemble its pieces and pollutes the planet enormously in its fabrication process (recycling of some of its pieces) but you won't give it up and yet you'll call yourself not self-centered but will accuse other of being it? Funny how that works, huh?
+DocRunaway Perhaps if I am educated about how computer parts result in the needless slaughter of billions of sentient beings I will give it up. As of now, I do not have such knowledge so I have no reason to believe that the manufacture of a computer is morally wrong.
I like to watch vegan and animal rights lectures to remind myself I am not alone and other humans love animals not just me. I just finished talking to someone that defends trophy hunting so I need a safe space. All hunting and fishing is wrong, both for food and for sport. I love all beings, all my fellow earthlings. In fact insects are more then welcome to come visit me in my home~ love to all my animal friends!
I believe in the right of self defense against hostile animal species. If you are a mosquito or fly trying to bite me or an army of ants invading my home I will not comply with THAT violence/himsa; that is I am not a pacifist.
@@chrisnamaste3572 That's just your interpretation of those animal's behaviours, though. The mosquito isn't trying to attack you, they're just feeding. The ant is not invading their home, they simply found a plentiful source of food and are sustaining their family. I'm not saying don't swat a mosquito or don't remove ants from your home - although I wouldn't exterminates them, simply cleaning up the scent trails they have left is enough to get them to leave. I just think you need to push back on that line of thinking, that animals interacting with you in the only way they know how is an act of violence. It must be a very stressful way to live. Life gets so much easier and more joyful when you can look at human and non-human animals alike without assuming the worst in them.
Wow. What a fantastic talk. It has put a lot of ideas I had in order, and help me understand them more. I knew we had problems in the vegan community, I knew we sometimes focused on things that are irrelevant in the big picture, but Gary has made me realize just how misguided our community can be and what we can do to fix it. Major props for this. It deserves millions of views.
V a n e, just a pro tip, vegans and vegetarians do not like when you see them again after a long time has passed and you ask them first thing whether they are still vegan or vegetarian. It's obnoxious, and shows you are using them as entertainment or something. It makes you look boorish and socially Clueless.
i love his job in showing how single-issue campaigns promote ethnocentrism, sexism, anti-semitism, racism, etc. because they do! he's absolutely right, and i applauded him through that entire section, out loud.
GREAT SPEECH! So well said, and anyone with half a brain knows that none of it can be disputed! If you truly are human then compassion should be completely natural!
I've been vegan for9 years and this is the first presentation I've heard from Gart Francione. I wish every vegan and ethical vegetarian could hear this.
***** Why would it NOT be like that? Moral imperatives would tell me to stop all carnivore species and make them eat something else, they would make scientists create artificial food that carnivores could eat and like that are not animals. This is but an onanistic food celibacy.
I feel he makes a lot of sense to me because I'm vegan for the animals. I do not know how it'd go if I reiterated his views to people who are not vegan, or don't care about animals and social justice. I'm looking into getting the book Dominion by Matthew Scully to better understand how to convince conservative, religious family to try veganism at least. I listen to all of Gary Yourofsky's 40-70 minute lectures couple times a month because they're inspiring. Glad to have found this lecture, thanks!
He’s so right! Once you go vegan everything changes, until you go vegan nothing changes. That is so true on both an individual and spiritual level and a global level. God bless you Gary Francione. I love you!
I Agree with everything except the last section. Violence is not always bad. We would still be living in Slave Owning society or Monarchy if not for violent revolution. Furthermore, Capitalism is not purely driven by consumer demand, not even close. Much of production is induced by Capital firms ahead of any demand for the goods they produce, in a bid to monopolise the market and strangle their smaller competitors by flooding the market with cheap products that undercut their rivals. After their competitors go bankrupt, they buy up what is left of their rivals’ firms fixed Capital and expand again. They will also sometimes overproduce just to destroy the excess product - in order to have all the suppliers contracted to their corporation - while simultaneously creating artificial scarcity on the market for their goods, so they can charge more for them to customers. As to the demand side, A very large percentage of demand is induced through sophisticated marketing strategies and psychosocial indoctrination, and another large chunk is caused by artificially deflated prices on Meat and dairy products due to government subsidies. So no, it is not JUST “Capitalists are neutral” and it’s all down to consumers to demand less animal products. We also have to tackle the Capitalist political system in order to end animal slavery.
This is a good video, I disagree about the baby steps however. I don't like the term baby steps, but I accept that people have been raised in a culture which normalised meat, and just like addicts I don't expect it to be easy for them to switch and completely change their life style instantly, I don't expect it to take years either, but they have to learn how to cook, they have to learn how to prepare new meals, they have to learn how to buy products not tested on animals, possibly environmentally friendly if they're changing for ethical reasons then that will be in there too, so I don't expect them to make massive life style changes instantly. It took me time to learn how to cook, and be in a position where I could accept the ethical position without being conflicted with feeling like I couldn't do it. So to me I think change takes time. I accept that in all areas of life, I don't expect to take up a new hobby and master it in a day. So I expect a whole life style change to take time. I'm not making excuses I just think realistically it's not rational for a person to just change instantly, it's all not rational for moral view points to just instantly sink in and them change instantly. I think most people need time to process new ideas work out if it's true or false and come to term with those ideas. So I think realistically you have to expect people to change over time, as they learn more and more.
Is there a less edited version of this talk? The cuts are a bit drastic, including Gary's humorous quips showing how he engages an audience to maximum effect.
@@v.a.n.e. Because you're a severely confused misogynist as a result of a neurochemical imbalance caused by watching pr0n and consuming animal products.
misogynist? where did that come from? If there's anything I love, it's women. I would even leave the meat for them. like most real men do, after all. @@Stichting_NoFa-p
The words 'vegan/veganism' Have been so badly and profusely distorted by society, culture, social media, that most ethical vegans activists are spending too much time & energy simply on explaining *WHAT* veganism is. All activists talk about the animals being sentient beings and that it's because they are sentient beings, experiencing pain, joy, suffering, fear, love etc. that we are vegan. It's all about sentience, so I'm now labelling myself as a sentientist. A sentientist who by default has to be an anti-speciesist and vegan. Looking at it this way puts sentient beings and their negative rights at the top of the tree.
I wonder if Gary Francione, with access to a time machine, would have accused himself of being involved in a "single-issue" campaign when describes the sit in at the NIH 30 years ago.
He would probably try to explain himself what's wrong with single issue campains, rather than accused himself calling himself names. That's what I think, based on the way he has given this speech: he knows the people he's talking about, and has probably discussed a lot with them about these topics. "Morality is morality." "Well, but, business is business."
Is the word "REJECTS" a mistake in the slide stating "I. THE ABOLITIONIST APPROACH // TO ANIMAL RIGHTS REJECTS // MAINTAINS THAT ALL SENTIENT // BEINGS HAVE THE BASIC RIGHT // NOT TO BE TREATED AS THE // PROPERTY OF OTHERS"? I don't 'parse' it as it is, but I 'parse' it right without the word "REJECTS".
Yes, I understand but just because we cannot make the world vegan NOW or grant all animal fundamental rights NOW does not mean that people like Michael Vick, Andre Robinson, Luka Magnotta, etc., or the thousands upon thousands that are committing horrible violent acts on animals should not be punished?! I think we can use these cases as a platform to point out/ make the comparison to the enslavement, torturing & murders of the animals in the animal agriculture industry.
@@ezquerzelaya They clearly oppose Francione's views on ending domestication in Zoopolis, and promote animal use in their new book. www.academia.edu/39005248/Animal_Labour_in_a_Post-Work_Society_2019_
sorry but we cant change the world. been vegan for 9 years and with all my efforts can not change a single damn person in my life to accept the message. not my son my mom or my dad who recently passed away from ms. hopeless. ive never even meet a vegan in real life only on internet.
Talked much but didn't answer main arguments against veganism: 1)You say animals not property but say plants are property, don't see any inconsistency? Why sentience matter he doesn't want to prove. 2)You want to limit humans options, perhaps self defeating? 3)If we don't use animals why bother to produce them, animals then become extinct, why support extinction?
@@cracked229 1)Suffering irrelevant you kill plants and mushrooms, killing and then saying but they don't suffer meaningless. 2)Limiting options is always bad even if the other options are bad(which it isn't). 3)Did you read what i wrote? I said use not eat. Dogs, cats, horses, zoo animals etc. not generally used for food but they are used by humans for other purposes that is why they didn't become extinct..
@@bunymn1Anyone that proposes that "suffering is irrelevant" matter doesn't know what suffering really is, and is most likely a psychopath to be avoided at all cost... even in discussion.
@@JappaKneads You kill plants and mushrooms anyway but say 'they died without suffering' i say this is irrelevant. Main question will always be is killing right or not, i say right you say false. During killing it suffered is irrelevant it doesn't change the moral situation. You can avoid me no problem since i think veganism is unethical(especially to animals but also humans), uneconomic(since it limits food options) and causes mass extinction on animals(because of non use of animals noone will want to produce animals), even if all vegans avoid all non vegans veganism will die anyway it has inner problems..
@bunymn1 Comparing the obvious torturing and killing of sentient beings with non sentient things is the closest thing I've witnessed to the abuse of the human intellect. It's laughable that you even entertain that argument far less being convinced by it... Try comparing the so-called "ethics" torturing and killing of a calf, puppy or a kitten with the "killing" of a pathogen, bacterium or virus. Good luck...
I agree it can better but I think you don't give enough credit to the animal activists in the last year. The fact that vegans are growing in population is testimonial to the fact it's working some what.
If it is wrong to kill a healthy animal then what is the status of carnivores/omnivores on this planet? What happens to those earthlings? Should we humanely wipe them out? Just watch when a drought, fire, or other illness strikes? Or do all animals, including wild have a right to health care? (Most humans, even Americans don't even have that.)
Chris Namaste Carnivore and omnivore animals have one single, extremely important purpose... to feed themselves and their offsprings with the blood and flesh of weak, sick and deceased animals. Cleaning our environment and preventing deadly diseases from spreading. We are not carnivore nor omnivore, we are 100% herbivore. So, What other animals do is none of our business! Animals don’t need health care assistance and care. They are smart enough, not to eat foods that aren’t theirs to eat in a first place. Drugs, alcohol, junk and other unnatural, unhealthy ( animal) foods are the reason for diseases, not grass, seeds, nuts, grains, veggies and fruits. Thanks
Just out of curiosity, how do vegans feel about driving a car? What about air travel? Using concrete for your house foundation? Using toilet paper? All of these things are just as responsible for the loss of habitat and animal life as actually consuming the animals yourself. I would argue that driving and air travel are more disastrous for the environment and the animals that live there than actually consuming the animals for food. I fully respect and support one's commitment to veganism; it's just hypocritical when you really get down to the facts.
It's not hypocritical when ' you get down to feelings' Empathy. I don't as a human need to feed from an animal let alone torture and abuse them before hand. Reasons for being vegan may vary, but honestly driving a car or air travel have no part in empathy for the abused being.
Veganism is about not actively participating in animal exploitation to the extent possible and practicable. It follows necessarily from the belief that it is wrong to impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. It is wholly unnecessary for us to eat animal products. While I think that we ought to be concerned with the things you mentioned (e.g., restrict driving/air travel, buy a "used" house instead of building a new one, use recycled toilet paper, etc.), I think there is an argument to be made that it is not practicable to dispense completely of all of those. Your comment is a dressed-up tu quoque fallacy. Also, the consumption of animal products is responsible for more ecological harm than the transportation sector.
I've heard that before and I also watched a video about a vegan responding to it, it's a stupid excuse because it implies "just because you can't do everything 100% to stop animals from being killed you better don't do anything" . I think why maximize the suffering, torture and death of animals if they already have to die because we live on this planet. Why maximize it?! That excuse is just beyond stupid. Factory farms and slaughterhouses are hell holes and I'm very happy that I don't contribute and support that cruel industry that systematically abuses, tortures and kills animals for no good reason because we don't need to eat animal products to be healthy. I think that it's wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals. By "unnecessary" I mean for reasons of pleasure, amusement and convenience which is the case with animal products.
I think his statements about buying animal products is accurate; however, using them after they are created is ethically pragmatic. Is it ethical to destroy/disuse all existing animal created products and create more environmental damage?
