Especially those using the antispe logo :-)

Shame about the reformist stance (aka rights activism) but there ya go.

Also, I still don't understand why foie gras is targeted but other meat is acceptable, or why fur is targeted but another animal skins are acceptable. To me it seems utterly welfarist to target one form of abuse, but not another (at the same target). Yes I realise you are against all animal abuse, but if this is the case, then why are some more acceptable than others?

My point is welfarism comes in many different forms, sometimes its better conditions here or long lives there, and other times its accepting some forms of abuse in order to trarget others.

Don't get me wrong, I used to be a foie gras and fur demoing whore...just not anyway. Good anyway for getting the group together, as I imagine there won't be much rights activism such as begging government to make changes, but more demos to liberate animals.

I don't really think it's a case of some forms of abuse are better, or more acceptable, than others, but what can be achieved. For example, if foie gras is targetted it will destroy the industry and lives will be directly saved if the said product is not sold. It is gradually making a change as it would be naiive, if not extremely stupid, to think the whole world will go vegan so quickly. So therefore by targeting foie gras it is offering a short-term solution and saving lives, whilst advocating the long-term one.

Regarding the leather and fur issue, they can both be tackled in different ways. Getting fur off the streets is an easily achievable goal, and again saves the lives of the animals bred soley for their furs, resulting in destroying the said industry. However, the issue of leather is tackled by hitting the meat industry (after all without one another, both would go bust) and people going vegan.

Never used wordpress myself, can you view the IP logs to see who's visited? You'll no doubt find HLS, Novartis, and NETCU will be visiting your site fairly regularly. That's what happened when the Cambridge lot updated their site. Feel free to give them a wind up or two to piss them off when the click on.

Anyway good luck with any campaigns you undertake.

Firstly, just wanted to point out I really didn't want to start (another) argument, just have a problem with restraining from explaining my point of view / understanding of speciesism.

"I don't really think it's a case of some forms of abuse are better, or more acceptable, than others, but what can be achieved."

I pointed this out to ARA when they made this claim: Destroying animal industries and animal exploitaiton is achievable, so this isn't a good enough answer, or even a valid answer.

"For example, if foie gras is targetted it will destroy the industry and lives will be directly saved if the said product is not sold."

I think it's much more likely if there isn't foie gras people will just choice the next best thing, which lets face it isn't going to be a vegan pizza or vegetable roast! They are still going to be consuming meat, just one reared with better welfare conditions - what's the gain exactly?

"It is gradually making a change as it would be naiive, if not extremely stupid, to think the whole world will go vegan so quickly."

Nobody's saying that veganism is going to happen quickly, but that it can be achieved. It's not a case of stepping stones (unless your bound by socialist), but aiming for the end goal.

"So therefore by targeting foie gras it is offering a short-term solution and saving lives, whilst advocating the long-term one."

Let's not joke about, it does not advocate the long-term one. It advocates eating anything that isn't foie gras and that is not the long-term solution! Yes I understand that you promote veganism whilst demonstrating, but it's telling people that killing animals is fine as long as its not foie gras - which again is NOT the long-term solution, or even a solution.

"Regarding the leather and fur issue, they can both be tackled in different ways. Getting fur off the streets is an easily achievable goal, and again saves the lives of the animals bred soley for their furs, resulting in destroying the said industry."

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I get it that the fur industry can be crushed, I'm not denying this or saying it shouldn't happen. I'm pointing out that it should be done aloneside taking down the leather industry - which IS also an achievable goal.

I never questioned this myself until recently, until I realised Mexican anti-speciesists are targeting the skin trade as a whole and there must be a reason behind this. Only time will tell but so far what we have is no fur industry in the UK, but as a compromise of this, an expanded leather industry - because aparantly this "wasn't the issue", so it has only grown.

"However, the issue of leather is tackled by hitting the meat industry (after all without one another, both would go bust) and people going vegan."

You just said it! Without one another they would go bust, so why not target the leather industry along with the fur industry - afterall the meat/fur industry would then go bust!

Furthermore, can you honestly not see in the near future leather campaigns once all fur is removed from the streets, afterall aren't we a movement about going at it from ALL angles? It's just a shame it takes that first person/group to kick these things off, but it is happening.

I think this issue is to do with people needing to see 'instant results', instead of trusting that results will happen if they take the right path (and seeing less of them in general).

i understand the vegan point of view. But where does it start? Is honey ok? or are bees sentient? what about marmite. Yeast is a living organism, so surely the process of making beer or wine etc is harming a living thing. The yeast doesnt survive the brewing process. I think small holdings where the animals are part of the ecosystem can be ok. Its a case of eating mutton as opposed to lamb. The sheep can live a healthy life and provide lots of useful produce. Its more a case of people losing their inhabitions over offal etc. and making full use of the animal. If you eat meat you shud be able to look it in eyes and see a meal. Too many meat eaters are used to buying it without an image of a living animal in their head. Ive not had the opportunity to kill my own animal to eat, but when i do if i cant do it then i will be vege instantly.
To clarify. I oppose commercial/large scale farming. when i eat meat its either free and skipped or bought from a local butcher who is proud to tell ya where his meat comes from. (ive driven past the farm many times).
And what about my dog, shud he be vegan too........

Animal liberation is, suprisingly, about liberating animals. It starts with them and ends with them. Yeast is a fungi, similar to plants, it can not feel harm, although it is a living organism.

"If you eat meat you shud be able to look it in eyes and see a meal."

Funny that. Slave holders used to say "If you own a slave, you sud be able to look it in the eyes and see a worker". Somehow doesn't justify the exploitation though does it!

"And what about my dog, shud he be vegan too........"

Would be the healthy option -  http://www.veggiepets.com

A vegan diet for a dog is not the healthy option for a dog at all. After feeding my dogs on a vegan diet they struggled for years, after adding a little meat to their diet they were different animals altogether, full of life and free from health problems. I fed them Happy dog.

However I have to ask why an animal rightist would force their morals on a dog let alone own one in the first place, hypocrisy.