Is Violence Ever Necessary for Animal Liberation? | Gary Y's Famous Quote

Bite Size Vegan

Vegan Fruit-Ninja
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Reaction score
212
Does violence have a place in the animal rights liberation movement? Vegan activist Gary Yourofsky thinks so and is a very controversial figure within the vegan community- particularly for a specific quote from on of his essays on violence. (the infamous "rape quote"). In this interview, Gary shares the full explanation of his stance on violence and when he feels it is necessary.
 
I think that Gary, like every other human, has the right to die for what he believes in. When someone has demonstrated his willingness to do that, then I might listen with a degree of respect to his views on using violence as a tool, but not before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
I think that Gary, like every other human, has the right to die for what he believes in.

Unfortunately he is also advocating for having the right to kill (or rape/torture/maim) for what he "believes" in, which is a very different thing.
 
Unfortunately he is also advocating for having the right to kill (or rape/torture/maim) for what he "believes" in, which is a very different thing.

Yes, which is one of the reasons I think he is an egotistical ***.
 
I think that violence has no place in vegan activism. Veganism is essentially about nonviolence.

But, even more important, I personally think that using violence for animal rights would be a very stupid thing and not change anything to a positive direction.

Let's face the reality. Vegans and vegetarians are very much a minority, something below 5 % of the population. 95 % of people think that consuming animals is a good idea, and there are huge industries that want to keep it that way. If somebody commits some act of violent (e.g. setting fire to a slaughterhouse) against animal exploiters, 95 % of the population will rather be horrified by that than feel sympathetic.

IMO, there is nothing that McDonalds managers or lobbyists from the Cattleman's association would be more delighted about than people committing acts of violence in the name of animal liberation - that way they can point out that people who do not want to consume animal products are actually violent extremists.

And let's face it, various law enforcement agencies, detective investigators or even mercenary corporations will be *much* better at using violence themselves and dealing with it than animal activists who think they have to try their hand at violent acts. Don't let us give them the opportunity to crack down on a peaceful movement.

I'd rather pursue vegan activism by standing in front of a restaurant handing out leaflets than by petitioning for vegan prison food.....

Best regards,
Andy
 
Yourosky, apparently, can see the distortion of truth that quoting "excerpts of excerpts" can cause. He then makes the mistake of distorting truth by quoting excerpts of excerpts by Gandhi anyway.

Gandhi believed that when only a choice between violence and cowardice exists that the lesser of the two moral failings is violence.

Violence by oneself against oneself takes more balls than does hoping for mercy from a merciless enemy.

Violence by oneself against oneself also takes more balls than does resorting to futile violence in self defence.

Only in the context that violence against self or cowardice were the only options available to them did Gandhi believe that the Jews would have been better off (the best off option having been eliminated and only a choice between two lesser evils remaining in play) committing mass suicides.

In virtualy no context that could possibly make any sense in instant-noodle world does Gandhi ever make any sense whatsoever, mind.
 
I don't necessarily disagree with him when he says that violence is necessary to push your agenda when people won't do it on their own accord, but in listening to him talk here, and in reading up on him, he comes off to me as narrow minded and short sighted, and his stated approval of violence in the situations mentioned tactically irrational regardless of whether or not they are ethical.

My own views of violence are more along the lines of what you'll find in these articles:

Violence is Golden - Jack Donovan

Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
some religions think that eating onions brings about anger, or something like that. Imagine them trying to use force to stop everyone eating onions. I think a lot of omnies don't see animals as much more than onions.
How would we feel if people used violence against the onion industry?:shrug:
I doubt it would achieve anything at all.
 
The prescription in (vegetarian) buddhism against the eating of "the five pungent roots" (Onion, garlic, leek, scallions and chives) comes mainly from the belief that they arouse aphrodisiac effects or feelings of anger in the body, which might distract from reaching purity of thought. (Supposedly their smell also keeps away benevolent spirits and attracts bad ones, but the other explanation makes more sense to me)

This prescription is for the practitioner himself, to make himself more immune against, e.g. violence. So it is rather unlikely that somebody (especially buddhists) would advise violence against the onion industry, as it does not make much sense.

Take a look here: Why Avoid The Five Pungent Roots? | Moonpointer : Buddhist Blog of Everyday Dharma
and here: Vegetarianism in Buddhism
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
This prescription is for the practitioner himself, to make himself more immune against, e.g. violence. So it is rather unlikely that somebody (especially buddhists) would advise violence against the onion industry, as it does not make much sense.

yes, it was only an example.....one could imagine some sort of Buddhist break off cult which is more extreme, and want to end the use of onions. I don't think it is impossible.

Just assuming that this cult exists, and use violence against the onion industry. Where would it get them?
 
Just assuming that this cult exists, and use violence against the onion industry. Where would it get them?

It would unite onion eaters in their belief that onion haters are a weird, extremist cult.
(Which is exactly why I am afraid of violent vegan activists)
 
I don't necessarily disagree with him when he says that violence is necessary to push your agenda when people won't do it on their own accord, but in listening to him talk here, and in reading up on him, he comes off to me as narrow minded and short sighted, and his stated approval of violence in the situations mentioned tactically irrational regardless of whether or not they are ethical.

My own views of violence are more along the lines of what you'll find in these articles:

Violence is Golden - Jack Donovan

Law Puts Us All in Same Danger as Eric Garner - Bloomberg View

The Jack Donovan article is really insightful. Humans are the gods of murder - look around, it's what we do.

...though I was a little confused by Donovan's use of 'Free-Range Vegans.' Huh?
 
BSV, this video really sends a mixed message that boggles my brain. By virtue of stating violence has its place - and simultaneously stating that he personally, (and BSV for that matter) are not going to be the ones perpetrating it - or become otherwise involved in it....yeah I'm lost there. Isn't having others do the dirty work and getting blood on their hands what we vegans criticize meat eaters for?

If violence has it's place as Gary says - why doesn't he outline the strategy for that? A vegan revolution, whatever - make something up, but don't let it drop into thin air as if you expect it to be some random event that is going to come together to change things. Breaking into a slaughterhouse with guns is about the most assinine thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth. Very dissappointing.

Edit: In fact, I can't think of a single act more damaging to the vegan movement than for that to happen. The ripple effect of something so stupid would be incredibly detrimental. The amount of media attention that would garner - and the subsequent fallout and ramifications for how the rest of society would then veiw vegans...I can't imagine.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the example of the violence used to save the Jews from the concentration camps: Let's be clear. The Allies didn't fight a world war to save the Jews. And to the extent that the Allies even knew about "The Final Solution", they didn't realize the scale of it until the war was over. The Allies were fighting in order to protect their own interests, not for some altruist ideal.

Similarly, it's unlikely that anyone is going to wage an actual world war against industrial animal slaughter & exploitation due to a selfless concern for the animals. Small groups of Gary-inspired AR activists might do their part, but it's not exactly going to be a world war. Or even a small, regular war. And like others here have pointed out, this would be like a dream come true for our opponents.

So for the foreseeable future, I don't see a scenario where unlawful violence is going to be a beneficial approach.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Calliegirl
Very interesting.

So far, I had somehow a bit of a bad conscience, as I had not yet watched the interview with Gary Yourovsky. Simply as I normally rather prefer to read articles on the web than to view some kind of animated content (also has something to do with my company internet blocking streams).

This morning, however, I had a few minutes and could watch it.

Well, my opinion of Gary Yourovsky before was that he is a bit of a psychopath, and that opinion was totally reinforced by watching that interview.

Suggesting that it's very logical that in the near foreseeable future some people will have "had enough", take guns or knives and march into slaughterhouses and threaten to kill the employees there unless they stop slaughtering animals will not help the vegan movement a lot, in my humble opinion.

OF COURSE he is not suggesting somebody to do this (here I think I have to envisage a knowing wink into the direction of the camera) as he is TOTALLY PEACEFUL, but he absolutely understands this as it makes a lot of sense...

Psychopath. I am really wondering whether he deliberately tries to also come across as one for the camera. If so, he's doing a very good job IMO.

Best regards,
Andy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
Before anything else, can I just say that using the struggles of holocaust victims as a prop to support your cause is blatantly insensitive and offensive regardless of how good your cause might be. And yes, as mentioned before, the "Allies liberating the Jews" narrative is forced and historically inaccurate.

Now that this is out of the way...

Do I think violence has its place? Yes.

Do I think that a lot of the time, oppressors can only be stopped through violent action? Absolutely.

Do I think that, in the modern world, there is any sort of violence that can meaningfully alter the industries that operate on animal cruelty in any way? Of course not.

Gary's situation with the slaughterhouse workers is merely an act of terrorism. Even an organized effort like that would very quickly be taken down. And even if it wasn't... Imagine vegans seized every slaughterhouse in the United States. What then? Where do you go from there? You can't just declare victory only to have everything fall because you were just interested in the glory image of the ~liberator~ ending things through brave violence against the system.

There are certain social causes right now where making a massive fuss and reacting to violence with violence rather than peaceful submission is definitely reasonable and probably the only avenue toward real change. Animal rights is not one of these causes.

And Gary Yourofsky just seems like he's full of himself to be honest. Regardless of the few points he may have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
People are always saying(on some threads about such things) how their family make it difficult to be veg*n, with 'jokes' and general disparagement, and comparisons to Peta. I can only imaging that if people start using guns, that it will make being veg*n harder from some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
I can only imaging that if people start using guns, that it will make being veg*n harder from some people.

Indeed. And even if you think that guns are a good way to solve disagreements, simply consider for a moment who has more guns, vegans or non-vegans? Really not that hard to predict the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dedalus
Indeed. And even if you think that guns are a good way to solve disagreements, simply consider for a moment who has more guns, vegans or non-vegans? Really not that hard to predict the outcome.
yes, I could see that being an open veg*n might become quite dangerous in some parts of the world.
 
I guess it always was - and will be in the future - dangerous to be an open idiot in many parts of the world.

And, we peaceful vegans will be required to openly and publicly condemn idiot acts of violence and distance ourselves from them (like muslims are nowadays required to do that).