Cockfighting loan

[Guest]

.

[tomviolence]

One other aspect of this is control.

Does loaning money to someone give you the right to direct them, force them to follow your vision ? What if someone who also loaned $25 (out of let's say $400), give them the right to tell them to do something differently ? Do we get together into sides and say the people who loaned the most have the right to direct the borrower how to live ?

There are several examples of loans listed for one purpose, then being used for something completely different - (Famous example of the case of the hunting dog)

Certainly, we expect the listed purpose to be clear and completed. But if the money is paid back on time, do we have any recourse ? Even if it is NOT paid back, do we have any recourse ? Loans refunded are not loans denied.

No, we lend - we hope for the best.

Is the bottom line to try and help people who are willing to work and use the "adam smith" captial we provide to increase their health, wealth and prosperity ?

Are our loans a moral wedge we use to force others less fortunate than us into living life as we envison it ?

[Harvey:)]

And again, it is important and instuctive to point out that violence and cruelty against animals is intrinsically connected to violence and cruelty against people. 

Judy


"Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human life". ~ Albert Schweitzer

[Diane R]

I accept and understand that many caring KivaFriends feel animals and humans are intrinsically connected in this way.  Others of us do not.


--Diane.

[TheTatiana]

It's not a matter of me forcing anyone to do anything.  It's just that if cockfighting loans are on kiva, then kiva becomes the sort of place with which I don't care to be associated.  It's a matter of me choosing where to be myself, and where to put my money.  I'm not trying to force someone across the world to change their line of work.  My feeling is that cockfighting worldwide has no dearth of fans nor funding.

However, if by making these good choices together, we collectively cause someone who has never questioned the rightness of blood sports to stop and wonder, then that's not a bad thing at all. 

[Harvey:)]

"To clarify a misunderstanding of my previous post:"

While I do feel animals and humans are intrinsically connected, that is not at all what I was saying in my post. What I was saying was/is that humans who are cruel to animals usually are also cruel to other humans. Cruelty to animals is intrinsically connected to cruelty to people. Violence against animals is directly connected to violence against humans.

Cruelty towards animals leads down the slippery slope of cruelty towards humans.

We don't want to start down THAT slippery slope.


Judy

[wthepoo]

I accept and understand that many caring KivaFriends feel animals and humans are intrinsically connected in this way.  Others of us do not.

OK, Diane, I will have to accept that, too, then, I guess.

I don't know enough about the studies Ginni mentioned here, and I believe Eli first mentioned in the other thread, and thus cannot say if these "others" are proven wrong by them (Judy and Ginni referred to violence against humans and violence against animals and the proneness to such violence being interconnected; not to humans and animals as such [EDIT: while I was busy typing this, Judy already clarified that]).

To avoid any misunderstandings: I know that you don't support cockfighting, never loaned to one of the cockfighting loans and probably won't, should the "opportunity" arise again.

So just a few remarks:

And once again it's instructive to point out that prostitution and other loan uses disallowed by Kiva are related to human suffering and oppression.

Even though I tend to disagree with the statement that e.g. prostitution (EDIT: or in fact drug trafficking) necessarily is related to human suffering and oppression (it is in many, if not most cases, though, I am sure), I will accept this - at least for argument's sake - as an underlying reason for the whole of Kiva's guidelines.(EDIT: *)

And still, with these restrictions they have entered - as Ginni rightly pointed out - the "slippery slope" (that still is none). With any filter beyond legality, they replace the MFIs' judgment they have repeatedly claimed to rely on and accept for reasons of cultural sensitivity with their own. This decision IMHO invalidates the "slippery slope" argument completely - even if it were valid in the first place (which IMHO it is not, see my post here: http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,1025.msg58154.html#msg58154).

So there just remains the question where Kiva should draw the line - and that is a difficult decision, and I am certain a decision that will continuously be questioned by lenders. Yes, some lenders won't want to be associated with an organization supporting (and that's what posting the loans on Kiva comes down to - at least as long as Kiva sticks with the story of peer-to-peer-lending instead of "just" supporting the MFIs) bingo parlours (see a recent post on the KF team board), moonshiners, butchers, coca leaf or cigarette sellers, etc. So Kiva will have to reconsider their decision again and again - and that's a good thing IMHO -, and decide (a) which businesses - to quote Gerard - they don't feel comfortable enough with, and (b) which businesses are harming their own business interests too much to be posted on the website.

The easiest decision, namely avoiding any step onto the "slippery slope" at all and choosing a perfect laisser-faire attitude, is (again: IMHO) a fundamentally wrong one for any ethical organization - and one that Kiva does not take.

So, should "bloodsports" be excluded? You know my answer to that is "yes, without doubt or second thoughts" (as is the answer of many KFs). I repeatedly posted about the whys and wherefores, and won't bother you with them, yet again. I just want to repeat here that it's my answer despite (at least) three more or less valid arguments for a different decision that I see and appreciate to a varying extent - which make me, I think, at least understand the opposite position, though I am far from sharing it:
- cultural sensitivity: cockfighting has a long tradition in many countries, and any denial of support to such an activity comes as a depreciation of local culture,
- borrower orientation: Kiva is borrower-focused and wants to help borrowers (more or less) in need; policy concerns like environment, animal rights, maybe also human rights issues come second or are none of Kiva's business,
- ineffectiveness: the borrower will (probably) get the loan regardless of Kiva's decision (or has already received it); the roosters of this particular entrepreneur will those have to suffer anyway.

Despite all these arguments (I still don't really see the first, and think the other two [just like the first, should it have any value] are superseded by the need to take a stance against cruelty towards animals for entertainment purposes worldwide [the third argument in a way even providing a reason why the second isn't that striking; and potential ineffectiveness never being a good enough reason not to take a stand...] - and yes, that is a moral judgment on my part that others might and obviously do disagree with) I have to agree with TheTatiana that I'd prefer not to be associated with any organization supporting cockfighting and other bloodsports in any conceivable way.


You mentioned a compromise in an earlier post, Diane - since reading that, I have been wondering what a compromise could look like. I haven't come up with anything, as I don't think Kiva could realistically differentiate by the degree of need the borrower is in, by the amount of cruelty involved or the proximity of the business to the actual fight (the CEVI loan was for someone "just" raising the roosters and selling them, the Finca loan was for someone owning the roosters, an earlier loan was for someone running the cockpit) or by any other criterion. So, so far I believe it's a "yes or no" decision; but I'd be happy to learn about your ideas.


I think I will leave it at that, and to quote one of your earlier posts, Diane: "I still love you all." - That holds true for me as well.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang.

* EDIT: One other thing... in the case of prostitution, a loan might actually help to lessen the "suffering and oppression", whereas with cockfighting businesses it most likely will rather add to the tortures inflicted on animals. I don't really think the more or less categorical exclusion of prostitution related loans serves well to prevent human suffering and oppression.

[Visitor Number 1]

The most extreme example I can think of - and I hope you'll forgive me for this, as it is a difficult area and, frankly, is highly unlikely to ever involve Kiva in any way - is female circumcision, which is culturally desirable (even mandated) in parts of the world.  Would any of us condone a procedure resulting in bodily trauma, disfigurement, possible infection, extreme pain and future dysfunction on a screaming, terrified pre-teen girl in the name of culture?  
 
If someone wanted a loan to open a clinic to perform female circumcision in a country where such a thing is legal, would Kiva accept that?  

What about a house of prostitution, where it's legal?

Yet, many in the developed world wouldn't hesitate to donate to organizations such as Planned Parenthood that supports clinics performing abortions under the banner of "family planning services".  Many believe that abortion is a barbaric procedure that is as traumatic to the mother as it is to the unborn child, yet it is "legal" in many developed countries while deemed "illegal" in many developing countries.

So in terms of cultural sensitivity and legality, where does Kiva draw the line?

[Diane R]

Thank you for the thoughtful responses, I am encouraged that we can continue to discuss even though we have some fundamental differences on some of the underlying issues.

I agree that where Kiva draws the line, and why, is the important missing puzzle piece here.  Knowing that they are working now to clarify their position and justify it makes me even more eager to hear what they've come up with and why.  I don't think there's anything near an easy answer, and I believe they may alienate some of their lending constituency regardless of what decision they make.  One possible compromise position I envisioned earlier was that Kiva might stick with its version of non-judgmental neutrality (while remaining focused on alleviating human poverty), and the MFIs themselves would decide not to post certain loans at Kiva for funding, which in fact is what has happened in this recent case. 

We're going to have to agree to disagree on some of your other points, Wolfgang.  I can very easily see that if Kiva makes statements about forbidding posting of loans which pertain to certain activities involving animals, it is a very short step to then forbidding all loans involving animals.  While you may see 'bloodsports' as unconscionable but a beef steak or lamb curry or chicken stew as just fine for dinner, others will say just as firmly that there is no difference, that it is just as cruel to kill an animal to eat as it is to allow its death for some warped version of 'sport'.  These others feel just as much passion and can plead their case just as strongly, and might then pressure Kiva to remove any loans relating to using animals for any purpose, and soon Kiva becomes merely a clearing house for loans that could never insult or offend anyone in any way.  And there probably aren't very many of those.  (PS: As a former vegetarian, I know that humans don't need to eat animal products and I can provide cogent reasons for not raising animals for food.  These reasons can sound just as convincing as those decrying 'bloodsports', so I know this next step could be a possibility.)

Perhaps Kiva will eventually decide to be explicit about excluding 'bloodsports' loans from the site.  My only hope is that if they do, they have a coherent and well-thought-out rationale, so they do not open themselves up to round after round of demands to modify their 'prime directive' which would whittle down their mission of connecting people through lending to help alleviate poverty.

You are correct that I think cockfighting is wrong and would not support it in any way.  I am glad I have the choice to invest my Kiva lending dollars in other loans instead.  I draw a distinction between an MFI presenting such a loan request, and Kiva providing a neutral platform for lender opinion and choice.  A distinction I meant to make in my previous post, which I didn't do a very good job at, is that I see Kiva as concerned with human rights and not animal rights, so it's perhaps easier for me to see the line drawn at the point where Kiva has it right now.

I keep hoping the clarification from Kiva will come sooner than later, so we can have a new kind of discussion about what they've declared.  I'm glad again for our ability to talk about our positions and differences without resorting to any sort of personal attacks or insults.  We're all better for this, as a community and individuals, I think.  Thanks again.


--Diane.

[TheTatiana]

I think the slippery slope reason for not banning bloodsports is a fallacy.  Nobody has called for kiva to ban ALL loans involving animals.  So far as we know, nobody will.  Why use the threat of that as a reason not to ban something else entirely?  Cockfighting involves profiting from a slow, brutal, cruel death for animals while humans watch for enjoyment.  The neural mechanisms of pain are quite similar in chickens and humans, so there's no scientific reason to believe the animal doesn't suffer the same death agony that a human would in similar circumstances.  It's completely different than killing an animal quickly and humanely in order to butcher and eat it.

As for cultural sensitivity, kiva already draws a line, as Wolfgang pointed out.  They already choose to ban certain types of loans.  The only question is where the line will be drawn.  Looking at it as a purely business decision, if cockfighting loans are allowed, kiva will continually be mired in controversy over it.  Is that good for kiva's business model or not?  It seems to me it would drive away a lot more lending than it attracted.  I think the MFI in this case saw that it makes more business sense to pull it, and not try to fund such loans through kiva anymore.  I hope kiva itself will come to the same conclusion.

I wonder what Jessica thinks about this. 

[tomviolence]

I do not see the issue as having to do with cockfighting loans, but rather, is kiva a portal to bring MFI's and lenders together, or is it a vendor of loans ?

I think there is a subtle but critical difference here.

Yes, they do have some filters in place, but honestly, do you think the MFI's would post loans that are illegal in their country ? To add a second layer, Kiva, as a police, changes the fundemental nature of the relationship between lenders, kiva and the MFI.

Perhaps this is the 30,000 foot view, but I think it is critical.