The A.L.F. (Animal Liberation Front) [Archive]

Invincible Summer

23rd February 2010, 20:13

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 20:30

I think the ALF has a pretty good pamphlet on security culture.

Although I'm a vegetarian, I don't really support groups like PETA, ALF, EarthFirst! (although they aren't really explicitly animal rights), etc. I am of the opinion that one's diet and lifestyle is one's own personal choice, so why should those things infringe upon others' diet/lifestyle? I suppose it's a sort of libertarian stance on things. Also, PETA exploits women and objectifies them to "sell" vegetarianism. It's pathetic.

Groups like PETA and the ALF make people feel shitty about "oppressing" animals, and even go out of their way to disrupt people who don't share their views on animal rights. I may be a vegetarian, but I'm also somewhat of a humanist. Is "saving" animals from laboratories worth it? What if that lab was about to produce a low-cost cure for a major disease?

I never want to see an animal tortured or mistreated, but we have to be realistic about the extent to which animal rights can go.

Well, we're at a point where animals are no longer needed for experimental test subjects to clarify whether or not a substance is usable or not. And when used on animals, we still don't get a clear answer for it could be different within a human given the difference between how the body works between the two. But I've never heard of ALF making people feel bad about themselves, but rather spoke out for animals & their right to live.

When it comes to EarthFirst!, I have to support their views because, quite frankly, I'd rather see the earth last instead of the human race, rather than the human race to survive if it meant the death of earth. I'd love to see both live on together in harmony, but we've got to be realistic here & we've got to understand that the Earth MUST come first!

And when it comes to women exploitation within PETA, if you're talking about the nude shots for vegetarianism, I've got friends who are related to thos: e that posed for those shots, & they were never exploited & merely signed up for it themselves to help spread a message against the use of fur & animal products. I see nothing wrong with it, & if people have something against nudity then that's of their own problem & shouldn't look at the pictures in the first place. Hell, even Che Guevara's granddaughter signed up for it to speak out for a 'Vegan Revolution':

http://i49.tinypic.com/2e0rcyb.jpg

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

23rd February 2010, 20:34

The ALF tends to save animals in non-controversial cases, though I'm sure that's not always the case. I consider myself a supporter of the ALF, but supporting something, to me, doesn't entail supporting everything they do. The only things I've read about them I have agreed with, which isn't a lot.

I'd say ALF is one of the most logically consistent and courageous activist organizations, regardless of what one believes of their politics. Most organizations don't enact their own messages. ALF regularly takes illegal measures and personal risk for the sake of their beliefs.

Invincible Summer

23rd February 2010, 21:12

Well, we're at a point where animals are no longer needed for experimental test subjects to clarify whether or not a substance is usable or not. And when used on animals, we still don't get a clear answer for it could be different within a human given the difference between how the body works between the two.
I don't think we're quite at the point where we can completely replace all types of animal testing with technology. Hopefully it will come soon (and I'm guessing probably within the next 5-10 years at most). But my point is that for now there may still be avenues in which the usage of animals for human gain may be needed.

But I've never heard of ALF making people feel bad about themselves, but rather spoke out for animals & their right to live.
Fair enough, I suppose that's more PETA. But to play Devil's Advocate, taking an AR position almost inherently is saying to people who are not into AR "Hey, it's because of your speciesism that we have to do this!"

When it comes to EarthFirst!, I have to support their views because, quite frankly, I'd rather see the earth last instead of the human race, rather than the human race to survive if it meant the death of earth. I'd love to see both live on together in harmony, but we've got to be realistic here & we've got to understand that the Earth MUST come first!
And I agree that the earth and life on it should live in harmony. Without the earth, we'd be nothing. However, my problems with Earth First! (I also consider the Earth Liberation Front an extension of Earth First), and similar groups, is that their activities really act against the working class for their own self-interest. Tree-spiking, arson, bombing, etc don't make people think about the environment. It makes people think about terrorists. It reinforces state security measures.

I'm sort of going off on a tangent. Anyways, I think in terms of the EF! concerns surrounding "McMansions" and urban sprawl, Technocrats seem to have a very good idea with their Technate concept. I think technology (if applied properly and without capitalist involvement) can solve a lot of the problems that both AR and environmental groups are concerned about. It just needs to be without profit motive.

And when it comes to women exploitation within PETA, if you're talking about the nude shots for vegetarianism, I've got friends who are related to thos: e that posed for those shots, & they were never exploited & merely signed up for it themselves to help spread a message against the use of fur & animal products. I see nothing wrong with it, & if people have something against nudity then that's of their own problem & shouldn't look at the pictures in the first place. Hell, even Che Guevara's granddaughter signed up for it to speak out for a 'Vegan Revolution':

Well I'm not saying that PETA rounds up women and forces them to be photographed nude. The individual women themselves may not feel exploited, especially since it was a voluntary thing. However, women as a social group are exploited through objectification. It's a similar argument against pornography. Yes, it's a personal choice to do a nude shoot, but it contributes to the oppression of women.
I don't have a problem with nudity, but it's not just nudity we're talking about here. It's the fact that PETA is perpetuating the notion of the woman as a sexual object. They're implying "If you're a veg, you can meet and possibly have sex with women like this."

And I don't see what Che's granddaughter has to do with anything, other than name-dropping her famous grandfather.

The Vegan Marxist

23rd February 2010, 22:06

I don't think we're quite at the point where we can completely replace all types of animal testing with technology. Hopefully it will come soon (and I'm guessing probably within the next 5-10 years at most). But my point is that for now there may still be avenues in which the usage of animals for human gain may be needed.

Fair enough, I suppose that's more PETA. But to play Devil's Advocate, taking an AR position almost inherently is saying to people who are not into AR "Hey, it's because of your speciesism that we have to do this!"

And I agree that the earth and life on it should live in harmony. Without the earth, we'd be nothing. However, my problems with Earth First! (I also consider the Earth Liberation Front an extension of Earth First), and similar groups, is that their activities really act against the working class for their own self-interest. Tree-spiking, arson, bombing, etc don't make people think about the environment. It makes people think about terrorists. It reinforces state security measures.

I'm sort of going off on a tangent. Anyways, I think in terms of the EF! concerns surrounding "McMansions" and urban sprawl, Technocrats seem to have a very good idea with their Technate concept. I think technology (if applied properly and without capitalist involvement) can solve a lot of the problems that both AR and environmental groups are concerned about. It just needs to be without profit motive.

Well I'm not saying that PETA rounds up women and forces them to be photographed nude. The individual women themselves may not feel exploited, especially since it was a voluntary thing. However, women as a social group are exploited through objectification. It's a similar argument against pornography. Yes, it's a personal choice to do a nude shoot, but it contributes to the oppression of women.
I don't have a problem with nudity, but it's not just nudity we're talking about here. It's the fact that PETA is perpetuating the notion of the woman as a sexual object. They're implying "If you're a veg, you can meet and possibly have sex with women like this."

And I don't see what Che's granddaughter has to do with anything, other than name-dropping her famous grandfather.

It's just to show that even important figures such as Che's granddaughter has shown her support for the cause as well. Besides, I don't think that that's the case on exploitation towards all women who see other women go nude for sexual references against fur. For men have done the same thing for PETA on the fur issue, I remember a football player did it for PETA as well, & I wasn't at all offended to such nor could care less if there was any sexual reference towards it, for the message was for people to stop using fur or any other animal product. I think the message gets through.

whore

23rd February 2010, 23:36

they are people who have an opinion, and are willing to use direct action in defence of that ideal. they don't hurt people, only property. any leftist who defends corporate property is crazy, delusional and/or not a real leftist.

i may not agree with them, but i can't fault radical action against capitalism.

Wolf Larson

24th February 2010, 00:07

What's your opinion on them? I especially want opinions from those that are vegetarians & vegans.

Me personally, I see them as a very useful activist organization that are practically the only ones that are doing something for the animals & are not killing any themselves, unlike the known reports of PETA & their mass euthanization program ever since they went corporate.

Unless the majority of people are on your side or willing to accept your actions as just the establishment will use any so called illegal activity [vandalism/property damage] to further marginalize any leftist cause. Civil disobedience is a good thing but it must be done in a way that attracts people in lieu of repelling people. EDIT: Sorry- I was thinking about the ELF. Also, we're not even free ourselves. The environment and animals cannot be liberated until capitalism is abolished. Is pushing for reform within the capitalist system i a waist of time and or does it simply benefit capitalism by making it more palatable to the people? Sometimes I wonder if we should let them create the free market capitalist world they want to create where anything goes in the name of profit. This is already the case BUT it would be worse if we did not resist it. What would happen if we let conditions get as bad as they were during the industrial revolution? What would happen if we never fought for concessions within the capitalist system? It would probably get so bad people would overthrow the entire system all at once. Maybe. Would it be conscionable to let things get so bad in the name of revolution? Would capitalism have made life marginally better for American working class if we didn't fight for concessions? Do we do more damage by softening the blunt force trauma of capitalism? I'm not a fan of parliamentary socialism/or Keynesian economics. If anything it's saved capitalism and I sometimes wonder if our efforts to fight for justice do the same.

black magick hustla

24th February 2010, 00:09

GatesofLenin

24th February 2010, 00:14

Can you folks imagine the ol' USSR feeding it's citizens on a vegan diet only? :laugh:
Those type of diets are considered bourgeois inventions.

whore

24th February 2010, 00:15

black magick hustla

24th February 2010, 00:18

they aren't trying to blow up a social relationship. they are tryin to "free animals" and stop animals getting hurt. they succeed to some extent.

it's still action against capitalism, it is still damaging profits for those corporations that sponser animal testing. etc.

and, they aren't hurting the real revolutionary movement. so more power to them i say!

its not action against capitalism. capitalism is not just profit. capitalists try to damage each others profit all the time. capitalism is more akin to some sickness than just a bunch of money and factories.

Weezer

24th February 2010, 00:38

modbreak: picture of sitcom character alf deleted

Ironic isn't it, that Alf eats cats, while A.L.F. 'liberates' them.

Dont post pictures outside the designated fora (chitchat, arts etc) verbal warning. oh and dont flame as well.
double verbal warning - psycho

Tablo

24th February 2010, 00:43

However, my problems with Earth First! (I also consider the Earth Liberation Front an extension of Earth First), and similar groups, is that their activities really act against the working class for their own self-interest. Tree-spiking, arson, bombing, etc don't make people think about the environment. It makes people think about terrorists. It reinforces state security measures.
To try and be fair, ELF does these things in order to make the environmentally damaging activities of corporations too expensive to continue. That makes sense to me. Plus they are against hurting humans and animals.

Not that I like them a whole lot. They are not anti-working class in their actions, but they certainly are not in any way supporting the working class either. I have yet to see a single increase in state security from these measures. The only security increases I have seen have come from things like school shooters and Al-Qaeda attacks.

The Vegan Marxist

24th February 2010, 00:49

To try and be fair, ELF does these things in order to make the environmentally damaging activities of corporations too expensive to continue. That makes sense to me. Plus they are against hurting humans and animals.

Not that I like them a whole lot. They are not anti-working class in their actions, but they certainly are not in any way supporting the working class either. I have yet to see a single increase in state security from these measures. The only security increases I have seen have come from things like school shooters and Al-Qaeda attacks.

I agree. At most, they put them down as warning groups for citizens to be aware of & to contact authorities if seen. They're about as much of a threat to them as we are right now. I would love for people like the ELF, EF, & the ALF on our side though. Fighting for the animals & working class people. Liberation for all!

Tatarin

24th February 2010, 01:25

Fighting for the animals & working class people. Liberation for all!

As humans are the dominant species on this planet, the most logical end would be to improve the conditions for humans. Sure, actions against meat and animal-harvesting corporations can be damaging, and could (with some luck) even shut them down. But even if we so to say "liberate the animals", then it would only be an elimination of an aspect. All of humanity could turn to vegetarianism and synthetic clothes, it would in any case mean exploitation.

Also, as the environment is connected with humanity and our activity, stopping the exploitation of animals isn't really effective as such. Toxic waste would still be dumped in the ocean to cut recycling and environmental regulation costs. Forests would still be cut down to make way for "wage-cities" and luxury resorts of choosing for the rich. Factories would have to be built, ports, etc. While these animals wouldn't directly be tortured, they would still suffer by the expansion of capitalist industry.

The "reverse" is also true. Good environment is good for humans, so it is in our interest to keep nature in a healthy condition, which is increasingly difficult even in western nations as business always comes before any social or natural needs. Thus, a society based on the working class would almost automatically generate a clean environment and put an end to many unnecessary animal experiments, simply because the whole motive of profit isn't there anymore, but of society.

bcbm

24th February 2010, 03:07

I have yet to see a single increase in state security from these measures. The only security increases I have seen have come from things like school shooters and Al-Qaeda attacks.

animal enterprise terrorism act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act)? sb6566 (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100217221254363)?

hugh and tiga (http://mostlyeverything.net/)? scott and carrie (http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/)?

---

Can you folks imagine the ol' USSR feeding it's citizens on a vegan diet only? :laugh:
Those type of diets are considered bourgeois inventions.

vegetarianism has a long history in human societies.

ComradeOm

24th February 2010, 11:54

Me personally, I see them as a very useful activist organization that are practically the only ones that are doing something for the animals & are not killing any themselves, unlike the known reports of PETA & their mass euthanization program ever since they went corporate.An opinion that depends entirely on whether you think there is anything particularly noble or revolutionary about "doing something for the animals". Personally I prefer those groups that "do something for the working class" or "do something to challenge capitalism"

Fighting for the animals & working class peopleAgain, the assumption being that these 'oppressed groups' have something in common. Personally I find it vaguely insulting, for a number of reasons, that you would consider both rights movements to be equal or even similar

and, they aren't hurting the real revolutionary movement. so more power to them i say!animal enterprise terrorism act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act)? sb6566 (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100217221254363)?

hugh and tiga (http://mostlyeverything.net/)? scott and carrie (http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/)?

No? The real damage that morons like these cause for the "real revolutionary movement" is in strengthening the power and resolve of the state security apparatus. Such pointless acts of violence can only hinder the revolutionary left... one reason that most of the latter effectively renounced such campaigns about a century ago

bcbm

24th February 2010, 12:37

Such pointless acts of violence can only hinder the revolutionary left

i'm don't think that freeing animals, which is primarily what the alf does, is "violence."

Tablo

24th February 2010, 13:05

animal enterprise terrorism act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act)? sb6566 (http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100217221254363)?

hugh and tiga (http://mostlyeverything.net/)? scott and carrie (http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/)?

I stand corrected.

Steve_j

24th February 2010, 21:54

I dont support them actively how ever the ethics behind it in my opinion is spot on. If someone was abusing an animal for personal pleasure, no doubt a members of the public would ask them to stop, if the individual in question continued, i think most people would agree that physical intervention is justified.

So why would intervention by means of removing the animals in question from harms way or decomisioning the property used in harming the animals be any less justified because the abuse is undetaken simply for profit?

However in regards to the actions of the A.L.F, although we are talking the imediate emancipation of a few (although some times more) animals, unfortunatly there are at times a public backlash which does not further the cause, and possibly hinders it. Although at times they may shut down companies, as long as there is demand there will be some bussiness willing to fill those shoes.

Its a tricky balancing act, i think there will be a point in which we will have a larger shift in public concious in regards to animals and their wellbeing. Once that occurs i think both boycott and direct action (ie the A.L.F or similar groups) will be major tools in delivering the final blow to the industries involved.

StalinFanboy

25th February 2010, 19:22

Can you folks imagine the ol' USSR feeding it's citizens on a vegan diet only? :laugh:
Those type of diets are considered bourgeois inventions.
I think someone needs to get off Lenin's dick.

I'm not a fan of the ALF. And I'm not into animal rights or liberation. I think the way animals are used and treated after capitalism will be different, but there is this thing called a food chain. We have the capabilities to be on top.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 20:00

I think someone needs to get off Lenin's dick.

I'm not a fan of the ALF. And I'm not into animal rights or liberation. I think the way animals are used and treated after capitalism will be different, but there is this thing called a food chain. We have the capabilities to be on top.

We also have the capabilities, unlike our ancestors, to make the right choices of food & where our nutrition comes from. This 'top of the food chain' is b.s. primitive ideals, for there's no such thing as being 'at the top' for none of us are special & are equally diverse in abilities.

StalinFanboy

25th February 2010, 20:26

We also have the capabilities, unlike our ancestors, to make the right choices of food & where our nutrition comes from. This 'top of the food chain' is b.s. primitive ideals, for there's no such thing as being 'at the top' for none of us are special & are equally diverse in abilities.
Shut the fuck up hippie. We are designed to eat small quantities of meat. The best way to get the proper nutrients is to have a diverse diet. This means lots of fruits and vegetable and nuts and some meats.

Don't give me your stupid moralistic arguments about right and wrong.

P.S. top of the food chain isn't bullshit.

dumbass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predators)

tophat

25th February 2010, 20:34

I'm a vegetarian turning vegan. I do not support the ALF, however.
This is because:
1) I think tactically they are poor - saving the odd animal is not the best way to alleviate unnecessary animal exploitation. It is also FAR from revolutionary. How on earth is it (and the odd sabotage, arson attack, etc.) ever going to bring about a radical change in the fundamental workings of society? How? It is not. And thus is destined to forever be a fringe, alienated group with few supporters.
2) They do not challenge the root of the problem. If you save a couple of animals, more will be bred to take their place. Even if you burn down a building, another will be built - the money that ALF costs is minimal compared to State and corporate finances.
3) The cost to the activists themselves is severe - especially given the work they do, however admirable, is not effective.
4) They see their ideology as one whole thing. Personally, I am an anarchist (and most ALFers claim to be too), however I recognise what that word means and honour it. It does mean vegan. I have not been convinced by any approach that attempts to interweave the issues surrounding human and animal liberation. They seem seperate to me, and human liberation is NOT dependent on animal liberation (though hopefully it'd result from it.
5) They fail to define what it is in an animal (human as well) that gives them their value. This is a serious intellectual point and it has huge implications for how we should approach work to help suffering animals.
6) They seem to care more about media friendly animals than other animals. How many rats have they 'rescued'? I suspect they's rather save a few monkeys than a larger quantity of less cute and univerally liked animals. This exposes their aforementioned intellectual flaw - how do we measure their value? Are some animals more valuable than others?

tophat

25th February 2010, 20:39

Shut the fuck up hippie. We are designed to eat small quantities of meat. The best way to get the proper nutrients is to have a diverse diet. This means lots of fruits and vegetable and nuts and some meats.

Don't give me your stupid moralistic arguments about right and wrong.

P.S. top of the food chain isn't bullshit.

As you can see I'm no fan of ALF but this is hysterical, needlessly agressive, and just irrational. A huge amount of the world's population is vegetarian/vegan. India, for example, is almost all at least vegetarian, and that's a population of 1 billion. So, people can healthily survive on a meatless diet. This means that all discussion of what is 'natural' is pointless.

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral. [sic]

Leo Tolstoy

I don't like the use of moralistic arguments, but his point still stands.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 20:59

Shut the fuck up hippie. We are designed to eat small quantities of meat. The best way to get the proper nutrients is to have a diverse diet. This means lots of fruits and vegetable and nuts and some meats.

Don't give me your stupid moralistic arguments about right and wrong.

P.S. top of the food chain isn't bullshit.

dumbass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_predators)

Like tophat said, there are lots of cultures where a vegan diet is how they go by on living. Go to any doctor, health advisor, etc., & ask them if we need meat in our system to be healthy. Every one of them will tell you that meat is unnecessary & you could be a lot healthier without the use of meat of its entirety.

StalinFanboy

25th February 2010, 21:21

As you can see I'm no fan of ALF but this is hysterical, needlessly agressive, and just irrational. A huge amount of the world's population is vegetarian/vegan. India, for example, is almost all at least vegetarian, and that's a population of 1 billion. So, people can healthily survive on a meatless diet. This means that all discussion of what is 'natural' is pointless. Tight, bro. Except I never said it was impossible to be healthy and be vegan. I said to be healthiest one would need a diverse diet that includes certain types of meats. Especially if someone is really active. And I never said eating meant or not eating was natural or otherwise. I said we are physically designed to process meat. You can disagree if you want, but you'll be wrong.

What I was referring to being natural was the fact there are food chains and natural hierarchies. We can not escape these, and are subjected to them as a species.

Leo Tolstoy
n
I don't like the use of moralistic arguments, but his point still stands.
His point is entirely moralistic. Either you agree with his moralistic argument or you don't.

His "point" is that all life is somehow equal. Which it is not.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 21:32

Tight, bro. Except I never said it was impossible to be healthy and be vegan. I said to be healthiest one would need a diverse diet that includes certain types of meats. Especially if someone is really active. And I never said eating meant or not eating was natural or otherwise. I said we are physically designed to process meat. You can disagree if you want, but you'll be wrong.

What I was referring to being natural was the fact there are food chains and natural hierarchies. We can not escape these, and are subjected to them as a species.

His point is entirely moralistic. Either you agree with his moralistic argument or you don't.

His "point" is that all life is somehow equal. Which it is not.

Yes, one must have a diverse use of foods to be healthy, but meat is not included, & every health advisor, doctor, etc., will tell you this.

red cat

25th February 2010, 21:45

I think that animal-liberation will come only long after communism is established, and we are able to create our food in the laboratory. At present, these topics are of far more concern than veganism :

1) Conservation of forests and other natural habitats in general.

2) Prevention of poaching and providing alternative jobs to poachers.

3) Raising awareness to create cultural condemnation for bushmeat, providing alternative jobs to everyone associated with the trade, preferably in the farming industry to bring the prices of other meats down.

4) Prevention of whaling of endangered species, providing alternative jobs to those involved in the industry.

5) Preventing the of use of great apes as laboratory animals as far as possible. Improving their living-conditions in the labs.

6) Improving the condition of animals in zoos. All animals in the zoos must be a part of some captive breeding programme and should be released into the wild if fit enough.

7) Strict government monitoring and regulation over keeping of exotic pets. All exotic pets should part of some breeding programme and should be released into the wild if fit enough.

tophat

25th February 2010, 21:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by tophat
As you can see I'm no fan of ALF but this is hysterical, needlessly agressive, and just irrational. A huge amount of the world's population is vegetarian/vegan. India, for example, is almost all at least vegetarian, and that's a population of 1 billion. So, people can healthily survive on a meatless diet. This means that all discussion of what is 'natural' is pointless.
Tight, bro. Except I never said it was impossible to be healthy and be vegan. I said to be healthiest one would need a diverse diet that includes certain types of meats. Especially if someone is really active. And I never said eating meant or not eating was natural or otherwise. I said we are physically designed to process meat. You can disagree if you want, but you'll be wrong.

What I was referring to being natural was the fact there are food chains and natural hierarchies. We can not escape these, and are subjected to them as a species.

Quote:
Leo Tolstoy

I don't like the use of moralistic arguments, but his point still stands.
His point is entirely moralistic. Either you agree with his moralistic argument or you don't.

His "point" is that all life is somehow equal. Which it is not.

Firstly, I don't like the sexist undertones to you addressing me as "bro". You don't know what gender I am, and the constant use of "bro", "man", etc. are part of a somewhat sexist laddish culture.
It is not necessarily the healthiest diet either. Most people in the 'Western' nations eat too much protein, and plenty of iron and too much fat - the main things meat provides. There is nothing innate in meat that makes it healthy, rather, the properties it contains are useful (protein and iron) - these can be gained from other sources with some change in diet relatively easily. Also, the health debate is pretty unimportant, if it only makes a minimal difference then other factors are probably more important.
And yes, our physical design is well suited to eating meat, however it will do fine without so I don't see why your point carries any relevance. We don't have to do everything we've evolved to be able to do.
The debate over what is moralistic is much more complex than you make it out to be. When you say all creatures are not equal (ie some have more worth than others), you are at base making a moral judgement, whether you like it or not. Having said that, I agree that all creatures are not equal, and consider humans to have more value than non-human animals (I do not completely embrace ALF's biocentrism, it lacks intellectual justification). Tolstoy does not say all animals are equal, you are wrong. Instead, he points out that we won't need meat, and eating meat causes undue suffering so we shouldn't do it.

I eagerly anticipate your response.

StalinFanboy

25th February 2010, 22:37

Firstly, I don't like the sexist undertones to you addressing me as "bro". You don't know what gender I am, and the constant use of "bro", "man", etc. are part of a somewhat sexist laddish culture.
It is not necessarily the healthiest diet either. Most people in the 'Western' nations eat too much protein, and plenty of iron and too much fat - the main things meat provides. There is nothing innate in meat that makes it healthy, rather, the properties it contains are useful (protein and iron) - these can be gained from other sources with some change in diet relatively easily. Also, the health debate is pretty unimportant, if it only makes a minimal difference then other factors are probably more important.
And yes, our physical design is well suited to eating meat, however it will do fine without so I don't see why your point carries any relevance. We don't have to do everything we've evolved to be able to do.
The debate over what is moralistic is much more complex than you make it out to be. When you say all creatures are not equal (ie some have more worth than others), you are at base making a moral judgement, whether you like it or not. Having said that, I agree that all creatures are not equal, and consider humans to have more value than non-human animals (I do not completely embrace ALF's biocentrism, it lacks intellectual justification). Tolstoy does not say all animals are equal, you are wrong. Instead, he points out that we won't need meat, and eating meat causes undue suffering so we shouldn't do it.

I eagerly anticipate your response.
"Bro" and "man" are used by both male and female bodied and gendered people in my crew. I can assure you that it is not from a sexist standpoint, but rather the way people from where I live talk. When I say "bro" I am not even thinking of gender, and therefore I am not implying that you are male.

I agree that people in the West have poor diets. This is due to too much consumption of red meats, and the hormones and shit that are in almost everything. When I am saying that people should be eating meat, I am saying that they should be eating small portions of wild caught fish and a few others. It is a lot harder to be an active, healthy vegan because of the amount of food that needs to be eaten. As well as the fact that certain animal products (such as fish oil and other essential nutrients) are either impossible to get from a strict vegan diet, or are not as well processed. Of course, if someone is not interested in being that active, then it really doesn't matter.

It's possible to argue that the base of every argument is moralistic. But what I'm referring explicitly to is the use of "right" and "wrong" arguments that can't be justified other than through someone's personal morals.

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 22:42

"Bro" and "man" are used by both male and female bodied and gendered people in my crew. I can assure you that it is not from a sexist standpoint, but rather the way people from where I live talk. When I say "bro" I am not even thinking of gender, and therefore I am not implying that you are male.

I agree that people in the West have poor diets. This is due to too much consumption of red meats, and the hormones and shit that are in almost everything. When I am saying that people should be eating meat, I am saying that they should be eating small portions of wild caught fish and a few others. It is a lot harder to be an active, healthy vegan because of the amount of food that needs to be eaten. As well as the fact that certain animal products (such as fish oil and other essential nutrients) are either impossible to get from a strict vegan diet, or are not as well processed. Of course, if someone is not interested in being that active, then it really doesn't matter.

It's possible to argue that the base of every argument is moralistic. But what I'm referring explicitly to is the use of "right" and "wrong" arguments that can't be justified other than through someone's personal morals.

It's almost impossible to acquire such because of the corporate demand within the food distribution companies. Which is where I agree that things like liberating animals & going all vegan wouldn't really be possible until we achieve communism, because then every person would have the equal chance of attaining a certain lifestyle, to what foods you truly want to eat.

StalinFanboy

25th February 2010, 22:48

It's almost impossible to acquire such because of the corporate demand within the food distribution companies. Which is where I agree that things like liberating animals & going all vegan wouldn't really be possible until we achieve communism, because then every person would have the equal chance of attaining a certain lifestyle, to what foods you truly want to eat.
Acquire such what? Are you talking about wild caught fish? Because there is in fact some at my local super market...

The Vegan Marxist

25th February 2010, 22:51

Being a vegan isn't exactly cheap, so it's hard for me to keep a vegan lifestyle. I make it but for most people, it would be hard for them to maintain it.

black magick hustla

25th February 2010, 23:31

I love the song of the mockingbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mockingbird), Bird of four hundred voices, I love the color of the jadestone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade) And the enrapturing scent of flowers, But more than all I love my brother: man. -Nezahuacoyotl

Pirate Utopian

25th February 2010, 23:53

to what foods you truly want to eat.
I truely want to eat spareribs.

The ALF and their ilk are not revolutionary forces, all they care about is small cute animals while they attack proletarians in the labs they raid.
They hold very anti-modernist sorta primitivist views I want nothing to do with.

StalinFanboy

26th February 2010, 00:00

I truely want to eat spareribs.

The ALF and their ilk are not revolutionary forces, all they care about is small cute animals while they attack proletarians in the labs they raid.
They hold very anti-modernist sorta primitivist views I want nothing to do with.
To be fair, as far as I know, there haven't been any humans harmed from their raids.

But I do agree with the fact that they aren't revolutionary. I'm not even sure they claim to be revolutionary. In all honesty, they are just like every other activist group, but with teeth. They want to change policy rather than society.

Steve_j

26th February 2010, 01:56

The ALF and their ilk are not revolutionary forces, all they care about is small cute animals while they attack proletarians in the labs they raid.

Your an idiot who doesnt know what you are talking about.

They hold very anti-modernist sorta primitivist views I want nothing to do with.

Point in case.

Raúl Duke

26th February 2010, 05:02

It's just to show that even important figures such as Che's granddaughter has shown her support for the cause as well.

Uhm....I don't see how Che's grandaughter is important in any way besides being related to Che Guevara...

Plus, there's a name for this...it's like the appeal to authority fallacy but instead of using a "specialist" they are using celebrities/etc. I noticed that many PETA ads employ this.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

26th February 2010, 09:16

I am saying that they should be eating small portions of wild caught fish and a few others. It is a lot harder to be an active, healthy vegan because of the amount of food that needs to be eaten. As well as the fact that certain animal products (such as fish oil and other essential nutrients) are either impossible to get from a strict vegan diet, or are not as well processed. Of course, if someone is not interested in being that active, then it really doesn't matter.

I think it's better to stay away from arguing against vegetarianism for health reasons. If anything, vegetarianism is slightly better for you. However, you can eat healthy as a vegetarian, omnivore, or vegan with relatively little difference. You just have to manage what you eat carefully. There are pros and cons with each.

You don't necessarily have to eat more on a vegan diet if you eat nutrient dense foods. And even if you had to eat more, it's better to eat small amounts regularly than large amounts often, and calorie restriction is showing life expectancy benefits anyway.

You can get the benefits of fish elsewhere. It can be expensive, but there are sources. I'll agree with you that it's harder to be an active healthy vegetarian, but it's not because vegetarianism is harder. It's because it's less common. I suspect it's harder to be an active and religiously devoted Muslim in America than in Iran, for instance. It's probably also easier to be vegetarian in India.