And, at first, a couple of his comments didn’t sit right with me. The first;
“Putting aside that most people would, if in a situation which they were forced to choose, sacrifice the lives of countless other humans to save those close to them…”
Not because I necessarily have any objections to the validity of such a statement. I don’t. But, I guess, the fact that the plausible reality of such a comment is, more than likely, true, struck me as depressing. I can’t say why, or that I disagree with the seeming logic that would go into arriving at such a conclusion. Hell, if I had to choose, I’m not sure, I’d choose many over the one who is “close” to me. But he is absolutely right, “the animal issue is beside the point.” It’s neither here, nor there, in an argument for vivisection, at least…
But a second comment he made;
“Violence against institutional exploiters is not only immoral but it is incoherentâ€“it makes no sense. The institutional exploiters are not â€œthe enemy.â€ We are the ones who demand animal products. If we stopped consuming animal products, institutional users would shift their capital elsewhere. We are the ones who continue to believe the myth that vivisection will make us live longer and better lives and, as a result, we continue to support it, if only by not demanding of our politicians that they ensure that the alternatives that Penman mentions are used and that others are developed…”
I’m not trying to argue to the whole of what he said, I can’t say I disagree, with any of it. That said, I got to thinking, certain specifics didn’t add up. Is it not the law, in the U.S. at least, to perform “experiments” on animals to ensure products are “safe” for human use? Again, not that providing that “excuse” here is, by any means, an attempt to condone the brutality and utter non-sense of vivisection. Especially since I’m referring to one specific instance of what “vivisection” really is. My point is I’m merely saying, in this instance, refusal to perform such a “test” would be illegal, no? So it’s not really “us” creating the demand, it’s the law, right?
That, sadly, was the extent of my thought process prior to being distracted by something that I’m sure was truly unimportant or, better yet, ridiculous. Until this morning, that is. He, being Professor Francione, made an “appearance” on, in what will hopefully (Bob & Jenna’s word) become a regular segment with, “Vegan Freak Radio.” Where he discussed much of what he wrote and posted to his website yesterday. Which, finally, got me to his point. Laws are established to protect “us,” because — wait for it — we demand protection. And there it is.
Speaking of vivisection, might I suggest listening to a recent Vegetarian Food For Thought podcast, A Dog’s Tale: A Short Story by Mark Twain?
That is all…