Some animal rights pics I made

[Stand Your Ground]

Nothing fancy just made with Paint.

http://i44.tinypic.com/w2dlyb.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/20iys0i.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/256a1lh.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/23wpp8n.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/5dv33o.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/2emfuah.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/1zlzy2x.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/296is9j.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/1zee71h.jpg
http://i39.tinypic.com/jtozya.jpg

[gorillafuck]

Holy christ I did not enjoy seeing those one bit.

That's gruesome.

[Foldered]

Holy christ I did not enjoy seeing those one bit.

That's gruesome.
Then they achieved their intentions.

and this is why I`m vegan.

[Stand Your Ground]

Holy christ I did not enjoy seeing those one bit.

That's gruesome.
Sorry about that, probly should have warned you lol.

[RedStarOverChina]

Gosh that's horrible, scared the shit out of me. I'll have to eat more beef to re-energize myself now. :(

[Niccolò Rossi]

I hardly see how severed pigs heads or carcases lying in the sun are examples of animal creulty.

Nic.

[Qayin]

I hardly see how severed pigs heads or carcases lying in the sun are examples of animal creulty.
He's showing the horrors of factory farming.

[Invincible Summer]

I would first like to say that I am a vegetarian, previously vegan.

However, I find some of the "All fur/meat usage is murder!" propaganda to be Eurocentric and a tad classist, but mainly the former. Are you going to judge people in SE Asia for eating meat maybe once a week (if at that) yet using every single part of the animal? Or some indigenous folk killing animals to survive?

Also the part about humans being the only creature to "consume without producing" is a bit erroneous. Cows don't produce milk for other animals, they produce milk for their young. Chickens don't produce eggs for others, it's a natural cycle. Human females produce milk for their young, it's just that other animals haven't decided to harvest the milk for food consumption.

Finally, although I'm a vegetarian, I am on the fence on the issue of animal testing. Although it's obvious that human test subjects would be best, most aren't willing to do it, and there needs to be a way to test shit. I guess animal testing is a "necessary evil" for now.

[Jazzratt]

I found myself wishing to reply to the text more than I cared much about the emotionally manipulative pictures. Most of your logic is pretty unsound ("The question is...can they suffer?" Why is that at all relevent?), you seem to be relying on pictures as some sort of crude appeal to disgust. Tut tut tut.

Then again, as a meat eater who is unapologetically indifferent to animals I'm probably not your target audience.

[Mendax]

Finally, although I'm a vegetarian, I am on the fence on the issue of animal testing. Although it's obvious that human test subjects would be best, most aren't willing to do it, and there needs to be a way to test shit. I guess animal testing is a "necessary evil" for now.

I've looked at animal testing a fair bit this year since I took Chemistry and all the research I've done paints animal testing as not just a bad method but a horribly in-effective one, that was put in place through panic with little thought to please the media (who where wipping up a shit storm about Thalidomine at the time).

Although this just from what I've looked at, so anyone with more experience/knowledge can feel free to destroy everything I just said.

[Dr Mindbender]

animal rights isnt a 'leftist' cause.

Its the domain of poncy middle class reductionist lifestylists, reactionary anti science apologists and moralists.

The last iota of my patience for ALF and its ilk was blown away when i visited south east asia last year and experienced first hand how peoples lives and livliehoods are dependent on animal produce and byproducts after conditions where frankly, animals probably didnt lead the best of lives but then that isnt really the point. Once human rights are sorted, then i may start caring about animals. FYI im not opposed to animal experimentation and vivisection as long as there is scientific return.

Seriously, fuck animal rights activists. In fact, im tempted to say you should be restricted for posting this shit.

[Ravachol]

I found myself wishing to reply to the text more than I cared much about the emotionally manipulative pictures. Most of your logic is pretty unsound ("The question is...can they suffer?" Why is that at all relevent?), you seem to be relying on pictures as some sort of crude appeal to disgust. Tut tut tut.

Then again, as a meat eater who is unapologetically indifferent to animals I'm probably not your target audience.

I'd like to point out,as a non-vegetarian, that your indifference to the commodification of animals bears striking similarity to the indifference of the bourgoisie to the commodification of living labor. I recommend you read this (http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/beast.htm) text. I'm not advocating any dietary choice, I'm advocating getting of your high horse regarding "I don't give a shit about animals", which is a disgusting attitude imo.

[Ravachol]

animal rights isnt a 'leftist' cause.

Its the domain of poncy middle class reductionist lifestylists, reactionary anti science apologists and moralists.
(..)
Seriously, fuck animal rights activists. In fact, im tempted to say you should be restricted for posting this shit.

You are delusional.

Whilst I agree on the remarks regarding people's material conditions depending on animals and their byproducts, an indifferent attitude towards animal suffering and/or commodification is anathema to communism of whatever variety. Whilst I oppose the reductionist 'consume green!' bullshit approach, this does not go for opposition against animal suffering at large in a revolutionary context, see the pamphlet in the previous post.

[RedStarOverChina]

It is very offensive to people in third world countries, that the lives of cats and dogs in the first world are worth more than their own lives. You can be sure Paris Hilton's chihuahua is worth more than a village full of people in India.

To me, this epitomizes the fucked-up realities of capitalism as well as the hypocricy of some middle class, urban dwelling animal-activists.

[Ravachol]

It is very offensive to people in third world countries, that the lives of cats and dogs in the first world are worth more than their own lives. You can be sure Paris Hilton's chihuahua is worth more than a village full of people in India.

To me, this epitomizes the fucked-up realities of capitalism as well as the hypocricy of some middle, class urban dwelling animal-activists.

Since when is struggling against third-world exploitation mutually exclusive with struggling against animal suffering? If you don't want to stop eating meat, you can say so without resorting to unfounded accusations.

[Foldered]

Seriously, fuck animal rights activists. In fact, im tempted to say you should be restricted for posting this shit.
That, sir, is a ridiculous thing to say.

[Stand Your Ground]

Non-humans can feel pain just as humans can.

It's not that I'm against people eating animals, as animals do it as well, I just find it extremely fucked up that humans use non-humans as commercialized products that mean nothing other than profit. Also animals are made into things that are unnecessary, such as fur, leather etc. We have our own skin to wear, we don't need to wear someone elses. And as for animal testing goes:

http://www.editing.org.uk/tanis/vivisection.htm
http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_11_How-the-animal-model-has-failed-patients

Animals are not toys, they are not meant to be used with how we please.

[Foldered]

I just find it extremely fucked up that humans use non-humans as commercialized products that mean nothing other than profit. Also animals are made into things that are unnecessary, such as fur, leather etc. We have our own skin to wear, we don't need to wear someone elses.
It's a commodification of living beings (as you say, commercialization), which is part of capitalism, and therefore is a concern of the left.

[Ravachol]

I just find it extremely fucked up that humans use non-humans as commercialized products that mean nothing other than profit.


This, mainly.



Also animals are made into things that are unnecessary, such as fur, leather etc.

Mainly since most uses of animal products have alternatives that are just not used because of the profit motive of our mode of production.

[Invincible Summer]

Since when is struggling against third-world exploitation mutually exclusive with struggling against animal suffering? If you don't want to stop eating meat, you can say so without resorting to unfounded accusations.

I don't think RSOC was saying that at all. I believe he was simply saying what I did in my post: that animal rights activism is Eurocentric and - to an extent - classist.

[Dr Mindbender]

Since when is struggling against third-world exploitation mutually exclusive with struggling against animal suffering? If you don't want to stop eating meat, you can say so without resorting to unfounded accusations.

obviously the point has gone right over your head.

In many of the least prosperous economies, animal products and meat form part of the stable diet due to them being the only readilly accessable forms of nutrition so eating these foods becomes a matter of survival, not of choice.

Get out of your first world comfort zone and broaden your horizons before you post shite on the internet. Go to Latin America, Africa or the east indies and see how far you get with your first world moralism lecturing on the 'rights of animals'. In the meantime i'll worry about the rights of workers.

[Foldered]

In many of the least prosperous economies, animal products and meat form part of the stable diet due to them being the only readilly accessable forms of nutrition so eating these foods becomes a matter of survival, not of choice.
I'm not sure any of these images refute eating meat for that purpose though.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://i44.tinypic.com/w2dlyb.jpgI get a feel for fur every time I put on my jacket or hat. It keeps me warm and dry. :thumbup1:

I've trapped a fair number of animals as well, from mink to foxes to raccoons.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not sure any of these images refute eating meat for that purpose though.

but as RSOC has said, it puts the lives of animals in a higher esteem of the lives of workers in third world nations as if to say ''this should be our priority''.

I dont think its of any coincidence that the 'animal rights movement' [lol] has failed to establish a support base beyond the privileged west.

These images serve as little more than emotive appeals to 'save our furry friends' without providing any context. If these experiments provide medicines or other products that can reduce the suffering of humans then i support them.

[Ravachol]

In many of the least prosperous economies, animal products and meat form part of the stable diet due to them being the only readilly accessable forms of nutrition so eating these foods becomes a matter of survival, not of choice.


Where have I ever contested this? Or claimed otherwise?



Go to Latin America, Africa or the east indies and see how far you get with your first world moralism lecturing on the 'rights of animals'. In the meantime i'll worry about the rights of workers.

Where did I preach 'moralist lectures'. I linked you to a pamphlet describing the similarities in logic between commodification of Animals and commodification of living labor, amongst other things. The adhominem at the end wasn't necessary either, like I don't struggle against Capital :rolleyes:



but as RSOC has said, it puts the lives of animals in a higher esteem of the lives of workers in third world nations as if to say ''this should be our priority''.


Who said that? Obviously priorities can be made, there is nobody here who advocates letting workers in the Third world starve because of animal rights.

[Dr Mindbender]

Where did I preach 'moralist lectures'. I linked you to a pamphlet describing the similarities in logic between commodification of Animals and commodification of living labor, amongst other things. The adhominem at the end wasn't necessary either, like I don't struggle against Capital :rolleyes:
I'm not entirely sure that animals shouldnt be commodified. Animals are not burdened by a sense a duty to their fellow beings which is why they differ from humans.

Frankly i find your comparsion between the commodification of labour and animals an insult.

Moreover the point of the matter is 'animal rights' should not even register on the radar of priorities until such time that the house of human rights is sorted.

Capeesh?




Who said that? Obviously priorities can be made, there is nobody here who advocates letting workers in the Third world starve because of animal rights.

The point is entire single issue political campaigns have been made around the ideology of militant animal liberation. I fully agree with RSOC when he says how this can be percieved as first worlders putting animals on a pedestal, and i find this phenomenon deeply troubling. Especially since from the most part its cheerled by the reactionary ranks of the pro-primitivist lobby.

[Foldered]

but as RSOC has said, it puts the lives of animals in a higher esteem of the lives of workers in third world nations as if to say ''this should be our priority''.

I dont think its of any coincidence that the 'animal rights movement' [lol] has failed to establish a support base beyond the privileged west.
Why do we need to set heirarchical "priorities?" I'm just as much a supporter of the animal rights movement and the human rights movement, and I see no conflict of interest whatsoever.
If someone said "fuck the third world and fuck human beings, stop eating meat and let's save animals," there would be an issue, but that isn't what is going on here at all.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why do we need to set heirarchical "priorities?" I'm just as much a supporter of the animal rights movement and the human rights movement, and I see no conflict of interest whatsoever.
If someone said "fuck the third world and fuck human beings, stop eating meat and let's save animals," there would be an issue, but that isn't what is going on here at all.

i think it is.

Can you explain what motive the OP had by starting this point other than to emotively place enormous rose-tinted rubbish bins over the issue of vivisection (a practice which has clear benefits to fight human suffering).

[Foldered]

Can you explain what motive the OP had by starting this point other than to emotively place enormous rose-tinted rubbish bins over the issue of vivisection (a practice which has clear benefits to fight human suffering).
I'm obviously not the person to ask about that as I didn't make these.
Can you explain why you think wanting living beings not to be exploited somehow undermines humanity?

[Ravachol]

I'm not entirely sure that animals shouldnt be commodified. Animals are not burdened by a sense a duty to their fellow beings which is why they differ from humans.


If the issue of being commodified or not is reliant upon some mystical 'sense of duty' we are on a very slippery slope here. This implicitly states that it is somehow okay to exploit workers without this 'sense of duty'.



Frankly i find your comparsion between the commodification of labour and animals an insult.


I'm not stating they are EQUAL processes of commodification, i'm stating they are similar. Those are different kinds of relationships.



Moreover the point of the matter is 'animal rights' should not even register on the radar of priorities until such time that the house of human rights is sorted.

Capeesh?


Because? That is about as nonsensical as stating that "first world worker's rights" should not even register on the radar of priorities until such time that the house of "third world worker's rights" is sorted. I do not see, again, how the struggle against animal abuse conflicts with the struggle against capital.




The point is entire single issue political campaigns have been made around the ideology of militant animal liberation. I fully agree with RSOC when he says how this can be percieved as first worlders putting animals on a pedestal


There have been entire single issue political campaigns against imperialism. Is this a stab in the back of first world workers? Is this somehow conflicting with international class struggle?



Especially since from the most part its cheerled by the reactionary ranks of the pro-primitivist lobby.

Well I have to fully agree with you here. As a firm believer in technological progress and a staunch critic of biocentrism, I find the primitivist current (the biocentric, 'deep ecology' variant associated with Zerzan cum suis, not so much the Perlman/Camatte tendency) to be anathema to human progress and the liberation of mankind. I just don't see how opposing animal cruelty (from a nuanced, anthropocentric point of view) conflicts with this and I find the attitude displayed by some in this thread who seem to delight in animal suffering deeply disturbing.

[Dr Mindbender]

Can you explain why you think wanting living beings not to be exploited somehow undermines humanity?
I'm not saying it does in principle, my problem is that putting such energy into the matter in the face of rampant human suffering suggests a certain amount of contempt for humans.

[RedStarOverChina]

The various "animal rights" movements (anti-whaling, anti-dog meat, ect) is at its core, euro-centric. But like many other euro-centric tendencies, it has gathered small numbers of followers in less developed countries as well---and surprise, all of them tend to be social elites, liberals, etc.

Occassionally you can spot a few "animal-rights activists" in China as well. It pisses me off so much because they can see migrant workers sleeping on the sidewalk when they go out for fuck's sake, yet they devote their attention towards helping puppies??!

How can anyone NOT be offended by that? This kind of "activism" is not a display of compassion, but that of malice and a lack of empathy.



If you don't want to stop eating meat, you can say so without resorting to unfounded accusations.The same applies to you. If you just don't want to eat meat, fine, go ahead, who cares? But stop trying to make other, more sensible people feel "morally inferior".

Oh wait, that's what "animal liberation" is all about...

[Vanguard1917]

Wow. Probably one the worst threads in the history of Revleft.

"Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities."

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php

[Ravachol]

The various "animal rights" movements (anti-whaling, anti-dog meat, ect) is at its core, euro-centric. But like many other euro-centric tendencies, it has gathered small numbers of followers in less developed countries as well---and surprise, all of them tend to be social elites, liberals, etc.

Occassionally you can spot a few "animal-rights activists" in China as well. It pisses me off so much because they can see migrant workers sleeping on the sidewalk when they go out for fuck's sake, yet they devote their attention towards helping puppies??!

How can anyone NOT be offended by that? This kind of "activism" is not a display of compassion, but that of malice and a lack of empathy.


Are you trying to evade the point on purpose? NOBODY here is promoting that kind of activism, single issue 'liberal' animal rights activism is indeed nonsensical and eurocentric but that's not the point I was making (you would have noticed if you had bothered to read even one part of the pamphlet I linked in my post)
You on the other hand seem to advocate dropping the struggle against animal abuse alltogether as if it's somehow incompatible with the class struggle.



The same applies to you. If you just don't want to eat meat, fine, go ahead, who cares? But stop trying to make other, more sensible people feel "morally inferior".

Not only are you full of delusions about my intentions, you seem to be unable to read as well. If you had bothered to read this thread you'd know I actually eat meat. It isn't a moralist matter out of some idealist conviction I'm discussing here, it's the fact that some in this thread claim animal rights struggle is incompatible with class struggle and feel the need to display a disgusting attitude towards animal suffering. The points I made still stand and haven't been rebutted at all and neither have those in 'Beasts of Burden'.

[RedStarOverChina]

You on the other hand seem to advocate dropping the struggle against animal abuse alltogether as if it's somehow incompatible with the class struggle.
It has absolutely nothing to do with class struggle.

And I don't want anything to do with "the struggle against animal abuse". I'm a dog lover but dogs do not have rights that humans do. If people in China and Korea or some other countries like eating dog meat, that's fine by me.


it's the fact that some in this thread claim animal rights struggle is incompatible with class struggle They may not be diametrically opposed to each other, but the so-called "animal rights struggle" is a pretty annoying distraction.

I can see how supporting Korean union workers while calling them "puppy-killing murderers" can cause confusion.


and feel the need to display a disgusting attitude towards animal suffering.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/22441-attempting_to_give_a_fuck.gif

[Ravachol]

It has absolutely nothing to do with class struggle.


I was talking about them not being mutually exclusive, not about them being related.



And I don't want anything to do with "the struggle against animal abuse". I'm a dog lover but dogs do not have rights that humans do.


Who said that?



If people in China and Korea or some other countries like eating dog meat, that's fine by me.


Disregarding the matter of animal rights, such a cultural relativist position is a highly dangerous one to take. One could say the same about female circumcision or intolerance of homosexuality.



I can see how supporting Korean union workers while calling them "puppy-killing murderers" can cause confusion.


Now you're just being backwards. Nobody is calling all koreans 'puppy killing murderers'. Secondly, I do not see what that has to do with the struggle against animal suffering. Obviously you don't want a proper discussion as you've not rebuted a single point I've made, but instead cling desperately to rethoric and some unfounded grudge against animal rights activists.



http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/22441-attempting_to_give_a_fuck.gif

This is plain trolling, very mature! Proves my point more than anything else really...

[bailey_187]

"Catch us on the corner wearing black chinchilla shit, we organised, disciplined plus we militant"

[RedStarOverChina]

Who said that?

The very idea of "rights" is a human invention. It's made up by humans and for humans, because in order to have rights, an individual has to have responsibilities and restrains that is expected within human society. Like not giving in to your urge to devour random people on the sidewalk.

There's no universal law that says animals have the right to a shelter or education. If you're really serious about it, good luck trying to provide food and shelter for every rodent in the wild.




Disregarding the matter of animal rights, such a cultural relativist position is a highly dangerous one to take. One could say the same about female circumcision or intolerance of homosexuality.
Yes, allowing people to eat their traditional food is "highly dangerous". Who knows if those damned Asians aren't going to start eating white babies? :lol:

There's nothing wrong with eating dog meat, there's no difference to eating beef. How you connected the dots between THAT and female circumcision is beyond me.



Secondly, I do not see what that has to do with the struggle against animal suffering. Obviously you don't want a proper discussion as you've not rebuted a single point I've made, but instead cling desperately to rethoric and some unfounded grudge against animal rights activists. On the one hand, you purport that animals "have rights". On the other, you suggest there's nothing wrong with eating meat---unless it's dog meat because that'd be cruel. :rolleyes:

However, the most basic of the right is obviously the right to live. You can't be for "animal rights" and for killing animals and eating their flesh.

[Ravachol]

The very idea of "rights" is a human invention. It's made up by humans and for humans, because in order to have rights, an individual has to have responsibilities and restrains that is expected within human society.
(..)
If you're really serious about it, good luck trying to provide food and shelter for every rodent in the wild.


I do not recall where I advocated that, care to quote me? Also, there is no sane animal rights group that holds that animal 'rights' entail 'food' and 'shelter', most concern themselves with a reduction of objective suffering by animals AS animals. Obviously they aren't comparable to humans.



There's no universal law that says animals have the right to a shelter or education.


There's no universal law that says humans have that right either. Again, you're just misrepresenting my positions on the matter with a reductio ad absurdum.



Yes, allowing people to eat their traditional food is "highly dangerous". Who knows if those damned Asians aren't going to start eating white babies? :lol:


Again, you're trolling and accusing me of borderline racism, something I find HIGHLY offensive as a dedicated antifascist. What I called dangerous whas your relativist position, you know very well what I was talking about yet refuse to comment on my remarks regarding that position. Again, it only shows how you dodge this issue at hand.



There's nothing wrong with eating dog meat, there's no difference to eating beef. How you connected the dots between THAT and female circumcision is beyond me.


There is no difference at all. I never claimed there was any. The argument you put forth however was that actions, whatever they may be, are somehow okay if originating in a certain cultural context. And THAT position, cultural relativism, is a dangerous one as it has been used to excuse other practices. The argument was aimed at the logic behind your comment, not whether or not eating dogs was wrong.



On the one hand, you purport that animals "have rights". On the other, you suggest there's nothing wrong with eating meat---unless it's dog meat because that'd be cruel. :rolleyes:


First of all, again you are misrepresenting my positions. I never said eating dog meat was worse than eating other meat or that eating meat was a problem at all (one can eat meat and still object to unnecessary animal suffering). I merely stated the cause of animal rights (which stretches further than diet, by the way) doesn't conflict with class struggle.

[gorillafuck]

Animal welfare is a good thing (obviously we shouldn't put unnecessary harm to animals, I don't know why someone would think we should), but "animal liberation" is pretty ridiculous. It's distracting and pointless.

[Dr Mindbender]

the bottom line is:

animals for food= good
animals for scientific gain= good
animals for fur and luxury apparell= inexcusable.

Or to quote Oscar Wilde, ''it is inexcusable to pursue the inedible''.

[Klaatu]

the bottom line is:

animals for food= good
animals for scientific gain= good
animals for fur and luxury apparell= inexcusable.

Or to quote Oscar Wilde, ''it is inexcusable to pursue the inedible''.

animals hunted and killed for sport only= criminal

By "for sport" I mean shot solely for amusement, and left to rot.

[Dr Mindbender]

animals hunted and killed for sport only= criminal

By "for sport" I mean shot solely for amusement, and left to rot.

Im not a fan of bloodsports by any length, in this country at least it is the domain of the rural bourgeoisie anyway.

I find the unnecessary suffering of animals upsetting but i have no patience for the ignorance of animal lib extremists who wish to put a millstone around the neck of science and the pursuit of the end of human suffering.

I have always seen it this way. Intensive farming and corner cutting methods, such as battery chickens is down to cutbacks of capitalist planning. Much of the suffering created by this would be greatly reduced by a post capitalist system of planning but i do not see why animal liberation should even come near to being considered a primary motive. We need to be arguing against these for the sake of having better, fairer and more efficient farming means, not for the sake of making the chickens happier.

[Stand Your Ground]

I'm not entirely sure that animals shouldnt be commodified. Animals are not burdened by a sense a duty to their fellow beings which is why they differ from humans.

Frankly i find your comparsion between the commodification of labour and animals an insult.

Moreover the point of the matter is 'animal rights' should not even register on the radar of priorities until such time that the house of human rights is sorted.

Capeesh?




The point is entire single issue political campaigns have been made around the ideology of militant animal liberation. I fully agree with RSOC when he says how this can be percieved as first worlders putting animals on a pedestal, and i find this phenomenon deeply troubling. Especially since from the most part its cheerled by the reactionary ranks of the pro-primitivist lobby.

i dont see how anyone can put one liberation over another, thats just as saying capitalism isnt as much of a problem as homophobia, all freedoms are equal

[Stand Your Ground]

I'm not entirely sure that animals shouldnt be commodified. Animals are not burdened by a sense a duty to their fellow beings which is why they differ from humans.

Frankly i find your comparsion between the commodification of labour and animals an insult.

Moreover the point of the matter is 'animal rights' should not even register on the radar of priorities until such time that the house of human rights is sorted.

Capeesh?




The point is entire single issue political campaigns have been made around the ideology of militant animal liberation. I fully agree with RSOC when he says how this can be percieved as first worlders putting animals on a pedestal, and i find this phenomenon deeply troubling. Especially since from the most part its cheerled by the reactionary ranks of the pro-primitivist lobby.

also why should animals have a duty to us? what do we do for them?

[Stand Your Ground]

i think it is.

Can you explain what motive the OP had by starting this point other than to emotively place enormous rose-tinted rubbish bins over the issue of vivisection (a practice which has clear benefits to fight human suffering).

why stop one suffering while inflicting another? im all for finding cures but not with blood on my hands

[Stand Your Ground]

Oh wait, that's what "animal liberation" is all about...

wrong, that may be what some others feel, but it is just wrong to accuse people on a leftist forum of such

[Stand Your Ground]

It has absolutely nothing to do with class struggle.

And I don't want anything to do with "the struggle against animal abuse". I'm a dog lover but dogs do not have rights that humans do. If people in China and Korea or some other countries like eating dog meat, that's fine by me.

They may not be diametrically opposed to each other, but the so-called "animal rights struggle" is a pretty annoying distraction.

I can see how supporting Korean union workers while calling them "puppy-killing murderers" can cause confusion.


http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/22441-attempting_to_give_a_fuck.gif

whose RIGHT is it to say who has rights and who doesnt?

[RedStarOverChina]

whose RIGHT is it to say who has rights and who doesnt?
:confused:Dude, do you listen to yourself when you speak? You are the one asserting that animals "have rights" in the first place.

"Rights" is a philosophic construct that exists only in human imagination. You're attempting to enforce your own ideas on nature itself, when nature doesn't allow for such a thing. That's idealism.


Plus, no one has yet to explain to me as to exactly what those "rights" that animals supposedly have consist of.

The right to live? The right not to suffer? How do you enforce that, when animals have natural predators besides us humans? I don't think they themselves know what they're talking about.

[Rusty Shackleford]

On the issue of factory farming. yeah the animals live in deplorable conditions and are fed shit food and pumped full of other nasty shit(RBST) the industrialization of agriculture and meat production has been a HUGE goal of the communist movement. what is one of the most necessary things for people? food. sure capitalist excesses in meat production have distorted the problem(shit mcdonalds quality beef) and tends to over produce. it is because of capitalism that many animals are dealing with this.

we overproduce milk yet capitalists seek to produce more to increase profit.
they create unnecessary demands to be partially satisfied(profit).
we seek to wholly satisfy necessary demands.


i am not against factory farming. i am only against the overproduction that capitalists brought it to.

[Dr Mindbender]

also why should animals have a duty to us? what do we do for them?
I just said animals don't have any duties which is why their entitlement to 'rights' is far from analogous to humans.

Humans have the capacity to rationalise and conceptualise what their rights should be which is why the point of endowing rights upon them isnt lost on humans.

The well being of animals is probably in more danger from disease and their natural predators in the wild than it is from humans while in captivity. At least we provide them that much.



why stop one suffering while inflicting another? im all for finding cures but not with blood on my hands

who knows maybe post capitalism, there will be some alternative way to find cures with the same speed and efficiency as vivisection. Until then i will trust the scientists, not the animal lib extremists who would be content with hijacking the hopes of dying people who might be saved from treatments brought about from animal experiments.

Theres no making omelettes without cracking eggs.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

animals for fur and luxury apparell= inexcusable.

Huh?!?

So, humans can only utilize natural resources for bare survival and nothing more? Because... you say so? And the person who determines what is necessity and what is "luxury apparell [sic]" is... also you?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Huh?!?

So, humans can only utilize natural resources for bare survival and nothing more? Because... you say so? And the person who determines what is necessity and what is "luxury apparell [sic]" is... also you?

Since when did fur clothing become necessary to move beyond bare survival? :blink:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Why should we limit ourselves to just the most basic neccessities? In that case move out of your house and apartment because its construction destroyed habitat and displaced animals. Stop riding in cars, busses, trains and planes. Stop drinking treated water. Stop wearing shoes.

And yes, fur is a neccessity that allowed humans to leave Africa and settle into areas with cold weather. To this day it remains one of the best materials to shield humans from severe weather. It's also a unique, aesthetically pleasing material.

By harvesting an animal and turning its pelt into wearable fur we give it value.

It's no different than killing a cow to produce steaks or killing a rat to test cancer medicines.

[Vanguard1917]

Buy harvesting an animal and turning its pelt into wearable fur we give it value.

Exactly. And a purpose in life, something it does not have if it has no use to humanity.

[Stand Your Ground]

:confused:Dude, do you listen to yourself when you speak? You are the one asserting that animals "have rights" in the first place.

"Rights" is a philosophic construct that exists only in human imagination. You're attempting to enforce your own ideas on nature itself, when nature doesn't allow for such a thing. That's idealism.


Plus, no one has yet to explain to me as to exactly what those "rights" that animals supposedly have consist of.

The right to live? The right not to suffer? How do you enforce that, when animals have natural predators besides us humans? I don't think they themselves know what they're talking about.
Why shouldn't animals have rights? Rights are something that belong to everyone, not just humans. It is humans rights not be exploited for our labor, just as I feel animals have the right to be free in the wild, not locked in cages, lined up and slaughtered as nothing more that a commercialized product. Eating meat is natural, but 'using' animals the way humans do is not.

[Stand Your Ground]

I just said animals don't have any duties which is why their entitlement to 'rights' is far from analogous to humans.

Humans have the capacity to rationalise and conceptualise what their rights should be which is why the point of endowing rights upon them isnt lost on humans.

The well being of animals is probably in more danger from disease and their natural predators in the wild than it is from humans while in captivity. At least we provide them that much.




who knows maybe post capitalism, there will be some alternative way to find cures with the same speed and efficiency as vivisection. Until then i will trust the scientists, not the animal lib extremists who would be content with hijacking the hopes of dying people who might be saved from treatments brought about from animal experiments.

Theres no making omelettes without cracking eggs.
As I said before, why should they have duties to us? We have none to them. I believe animals may have some degree of what their rights are. Just because you don't speak their language or may not understand them doesn't mean they don't understand certain things. If you put a dog in a cage he will bark to try to get you to let him out, you may think he's just making annoying noise but that's just you not understanding. He knows he shouldn't have to be crammed in a cage. Disease in animals in the wild is less common than those in captivity. The unhealthy conditions in factory farms is more harmful than the wild. Just the other day while I was at the store I saw a sign posted saying highly diseased chicken meat was being sold to stores in the area. I will respond to your vivisection statement later.

[Stand Your Ground]

Huh?!?

So, humans can only utilize natural resources for bare survival and nothing more? Because... you say so? And the person who determines what is necessity and what is "luxury apparell [sic]" is... also you?
Wearing someone elses skin is unneccessary, we have our own. We have alternative resources that don't cause pain.

[Stand Your Ground]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Why should we limit ourselves to just the most basic neccessities? In that case move out of your house and apartment because its construction destroyed habitat and displaced animals. Stop riding in cars, busses, trains and planes. Stop drinking treated water. Stop wearing shoes.

And yes, fur is a neccessity that allowed humans to leave Africa and settle into areas with cold weather. To this day it remains one of the best materials to shield humans from severe weather. It's also a unique, aesthetically pleasing material.

By harvesting an animal and turning its pelt into wearable fur we give it value.

It's no different than killing a cow to produce steaks or killing a rat to test cancer medicines.
That was back when cotton wasn't discovered, I assume. We when we have access to other methods, we should choose those first.

[Stand Your Ground]

Exactly. And a purpose in life, something it does not have if it has no use to humanity.
Humanity is NOT the only living beings on this planet. Show some fucking respect for other life. Capitalist corporations see humans as profits not people, so why should we see animals as profits not living beings?

[Stand Your Ground]

I have a couple questions for people.

1. If it's ok to kill and eat animals, why not humans eating humans?

If someone came along and wanted to eat your child, mom, dad etc., would you be ok with it? Would you try to stop them? Why?

2. If it's ok to test on animals and take countless lives a year, why not test on humans?

I don't see it as any different. Why don't scientists kidnap humans and lock them in cages? Shove chemicals down their throats? Burn their flesh? Oh I see cause humans can say no and we understand it. If a cat hisses or cries out in pain we claim not to understand, they don't have rights? Right?

3. If something more powerful and more intelligent came to earth, would you be ok with you and the rest of 'humanity' being used by them as humans treat animals?

Yes, that sounds farfetched but for the sake of argument this is a valid question. Would you be ok with watching your mom being grabbed by the legs and slammed on the ground till she can't fight back any longer? Then cut and skinned alive? Or how about being locked in cage eating shit food until they decided they wanna eat you, cut your head off while you're still alive and let you bleed out? I'd want some compassion shown to me.

[Vanguard1917]

I have a couple questions for people.

1. If it's ok to kill and eat animals, why not humans eating humans?

If someone came along and wanted to eat your child, mom, dad etc., would you be ok with it? Would you try to stop them? Why?

2. If it's ok to test on animals and take countless lives a year, why not test on humans?

I don't see it as any different. Why don't scientists kidnap humans and lock them in cages? Shove chemicals down their throats? Burn their flesh? Oh I see cause humans can say no and we understand it. If a cat hisses or cries out in pain we claim not to understand, they don't have rights? Right?

3. If something more powerful and more intelligent came to earth, would you be ok with you and the rest of 'humanity' being used by them as humans treat animals?

Yes, that sounds farfetched but for the sake of argument this is a valid question. Would you be ok with watching your mom being grabbed by the legs and slammed on the ground till she can't fight back any longer? Then cut and skinned alive? Or how about being locked in cage eating shit food until they decided they wanna eat you, cut your head off while you're still alive and let you bleed out? I'd want some compassion shown to me.

Oh dear.

(If you do really need an explanation for why humans and animals are not the same, there is a thread in OI on animal rights which touches on that subject.)

[Stand Your Ground]

Oh dear.

(If you do really need an explanation for why humans and animals are not the same, there is a thread in OI on animal rights which touches on that subject.)
Just because there are differences between humans and non-humans doesn't justify the product for profit mentality we have for them.

[Weezer]

I don't think anyone should suffer at the hands of capital, even animals.

However, people in third world countries need meat to survive, I think there is a difference between exploiting animals for profit, and eating them for survival. Eating another species is a sad but natural part of life, how do you think this planet got through evolution?

I think we should be concerned about animal welfare, but animal liberation is an embarrassment to the anti-capitalist movement the world over. Veganism is nothing but a bourgeois excuse to look decent and caring. Only the most privileged can choose what they can't and can eat, while people in Africa starve because they have nothing.

You pigs could choose to eat anything here in the first world. But you're so fucking picky you can only eat what you feel like.

[Stand Your Ground]

I don't think anyone should suffer at the hands of capital, even animals.

However, people in third world countries need meat to survive, I think there is a difference between exploiting animals for profit, and eating them for survival. Eating another species is a sad but natural part of life, how do you think this planet got through evolution?

I think we should be concerned about animal welfare, but animal liberation is an embarrassment to the anti-capitalist movement the world over. Veganism is nothing but a bourgeois excuse to look decent and caring. Only the most privileged can choose what they can't and can eat, while people in Africa starve because they have nothing.

You pigs could choose to eat anything here in the first world. But you're so fucking picky you can only eat what you feel like.
As I have said many times before, as you said it's natural, I have no problem with people eating meat, it's the cruelty I have a problem with.

That's completely incorrect. I work 3 days a week on minimum wage, and my brother lives with me and my girlfriend and all 3 of us have to split the bills to survive. I don't consider us priviledged at all. You may say I can choose what to eat, but I didn't put those choices there, they were put there by someone else. It's not our fault other people don't have a choice. Blame capitalism, not us. If the choice is presented to me, I'm going to take it, no point in throwing it away.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

No, actually, fur cannot currently be duplicated synthetically. Even if it could, it wouldn't mean we should stop harvesting animals for their fur anymore than we should stop constructing houses, roads, trains, airports, planes, ships, schools, hospitals, electric lines, water lines, sewage plants, etc., etc., etc.; testing medicines and treatments on animals; harvesting plants and animals for food; or farming animals for the production of foodstuffs and other useful products.

Humans cannot survive without interfering with nature. It is the utilization of our natural surroundings that has allowed us to advance out of the darkness of savagery.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Eating another species is a sad but natural part of life

Definitely. Can't you see the tears flowing from this tiger's eyes?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/494144274_c2dd0cb51b.jpg

[Dr Mindbender]

Huh?!?

So, humans can only utilize natural resources for bare survival and nothing more? Because... you say so? And the person who determines what is necessity and what is "luxury apparell [sic]" is... also you?

I think the difference between a £5000 mink coat and a £50 leather jacket is hardly arbitrary.

Considering that for the most part, leather is salvaged from carcasses slaughtered for their meat anyway. I'll recant that if mink sandwiches ever become a delicacy.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mink coats cost more because (1) it takes more mink to make a jacket, (2) the best fur comes from mink trapped in the wild, (3) mink coats are more difficult to make, (4) mink coats are of a higher quality.

Leather is the secondary product to meat in the cattle industry because beef is worth more. That is the opposite of the fur industry, in which meat is the secondary product (if it is indeed a product at all), because fur has much more value.

Coincidentally, mink oil is used to treat leather.

But none of this addresses the question posed: Why should we limit ourselves to only the most basic of necessities?

Everyone who wants one should be able to own a luxurious mink coat.

We shouldn't second guess our harvest of mink for their fur any more than the mink second guesses killing fish, crayfish, baby muskrat and baby rabbits for food.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

We shouldn't second guess our harvest of mink for their fur any more than the mink second guesses killing fish, crayfish, baby muskrat and baby rabbits for food.

Don't forget the dogs and dolphins. Western morals has something against eating those for some reason.

Why this cold hard front against plants, anyway; do plants not deserve rights not to be mistreated? Some plants have times in their lives that are like those of animal sperm, and some studies suggest they can feel pain; so, why torment the plants? Why steal their seed pods, their fruits and vegetable outgrowths? Is this not an infringement upon the plants right to life? Why grow them in terrible conditions in controlled circumstances, known as "farms", where they are not free? Where's the Plant Liberation Front when you need them?

Obviously this is all absurd.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why shouldn't animals have rights? Rights are something that belong to everyone, not just humans.
That is an ethical viewpoint, not a descriptive statement.


1. If it's ok to kill and eat animals, why not humans eating humans?

If someone came along and wanted to eat your child, mom, dad etc., would you be ok with it? Would you try to stop them? Why?
Because they are humans.


2. If it's ok to test on animals and take countless lives a year, why not test on humans?

I don't see it as any different.Because I do.


3. If something more powerful and more intelligent came to earth, would you be ok with you and the rest of 'humanity' being used by them as humans treat animals?
No.

[tracher999]

i like animals i shal never kill a animal fore a stupit reasen but i must eat other animals eat other animals somtimes people its normal eat ore be eating

greetz:cool:

[ZeroNowhere]

i like animals i shal never kill a animal fore a stupit reasen but i must eat other animals eat other animals somtimes people its normal eat ore be eating
I don't think that 'eat or be eaten' is at all a choice that faces humanity at present. 'Eat or be eating', on the other, seems more accurate, and in this case it hardly justifies non-vegetarianism any more than vegetarianism; humanity does not need to eat meat in order to not be eaten by animals, and it is probably not the case that the cows and such which we eat are a major threat to us if we do not.

As for other animals, are you proposing that we base our morals on the actions of other animals? Because that would seem to open the door to a fair few things that we may object to ordinarily. Certainly, it is not true that one 'must' eat meat; after all, vegetarians do exist.

[Stand Your Ground]

That is an ethical viewpoint, not a descriptive statement.


Because they are humans.

Because I do.


No.
Very good answers. :rolleyes: These are the exact answers I was expecting. Everyone's ok with taking lives as long as it's not human. A life is a life, it doesn't matter what species it is. And you say it wouldn't be ok with you if someone enslaves humans for food, clothing etc., so why is it ok for us to do it to others? Why should we only hold the highest ethics for humans?

[Stand Your Ground]

No, actually, fur cannot currently be duplicated synthetically. Even if it could, it wouldn't mean we should stop harvesting animals for their fur anymore than we should stop constructing houses, roads, trains, airports, planes, ships, schools, hospitals, electric lines, water lines, sewage plants, etc., etc., etc.; testing medicines and treatments on animals; harvesting plants and animals for food; or farming animals for the production of foodstuffs and other useful products.

Humans cannot survive without interfering with nature. It is the utilization of our natural surroundings that has allowed us to advance out of the darkness of savagery.
That's true, fur can't be synthetic, but why do we feel we need to have someone else's skin on us? Would you have a problem with it if I wanted to make a leather coat out of your grandpa?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My grandpa is a human being, not an animal.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The NRA is a rightist grouping tied in with the Republican Party.

I support the right to bear arms and defend (and participate in) fishing, hunting and trapping on a regular basis.

FWIW, the NRA has signed on to legislation restricing the right to bear arms.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It is done for profit not for public interest

That's called capitalism.

[Dr Mindbender]

But none of this addresses the question posed: Why should we limit ourselves to only the most basic of necessities?

While i dont share the extremist perspective taken by Anti racist faction, i have to say animal suffering or slaughter in an unnecessary and/or gratuitously brutal context does unsettle me. I will happilly justify animal farming for the purposes of nutritional value and vivisection where there is a clear scientific benefit to ease human suffering but on the flip side i will just as readilly condemn animal bloodsports such as bullfighting, dogfighting, coarsing and fox hunting.

In the case of the fur trade, i think its a product of the capitalist fascination for scarcity which goes back to what you were saying about more minks needed to make a coat rather than what is aesthically pleasing. Personally i think fur wearers look fucking ridiculous. The case of leather is more justifiable because A) its a base material for many clothes which is difficult to replicate synthetically and B) leather maximises the use of carcasses killed for meat. Maybe its partly inverted snobbery on my part, but im not in a hurry to expediate a species nearing endangerment just so a few toffs can ponce around in an item of clothing worth half a years of my wages.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Mink are not endangered. Neither are muskrat, racoon, fox or beaver. Those are the animals most commonly harvested for fur (though bobcats, fishers, marten, coyotes, and otters are also harvested with some frequency). In fact, many furbearers are overpopulated as a result of a lack of predation and/or habitat. When the economy dropped off, fur prices dipped, the fur harvest fell, and the number of animals went even higher than before.

There's no danger of eliminating whole species of animals to manufacture fur clothing at the present time. When there were in the past, it was caused by the nature of capitalism itself (which also leads to things like mountain top removal, marcellus shale drilling and offshore drilling). Profit is the sole motivation. Short term gains are taken at the expense of long term negative results.

That's an argument against the private ownership of the means of production though; it has nothing to do with utilizing animals for their fur.

People who are opposed to hunting and trapping are usually so divorced from the process of production of their food and clothing that they have no real clue what they're on about. Hunting and trapping are no more "brutal" than the slaughter of chickens or cattle. The creation of a fur hat, which is warm and waterproof, is no more "savage" than the creation of leather shoes, belts or wallets. The construction of a new railway or airport probably causes more harm to wild animals than the total number of hunters in the area. In fact, hunters do more toward wildlife and habitat management and protection than any other group of people.

The creation of most clothes in sweatshops around the world is definitely more brutal than any of that, not least of all because it's human beings that are being brutalized in the process.

But people who live in cities and suburbs and cry about hunting, trapping, fishing and farming and have no idea where their food and clothes come from don't usually think of any that, just as people who live on farms or in rural areas don't give a second thought to lopping off a live chicken's head or shooting a deer.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Personally i think fur wearers look fucking ridiculous.
Who cares what you think?

Were you named People's Commissar for Fashion when I wasn't paying attention, or is it just your plan to be named that in the future?

The fact is that natural fur is unmatched. It's a quality, warm, durable, gorgeous material that human beings have prized since the earliest days of civilization.

[mykittyhasaboner]

^ I do like a good ushanka. Nothing is better on a cold, windy, and rainy day. :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

^ I do like a good ushanka. Nothing is better on a cold, windy, and rainy day. :)

:thumbup1: They can't be beat for warmth, even by my most modern, high-tech winter outerwear.

[Dr Mindbender]

Who cares what you think?

Its bourgeoisie as fuck though.

Wool is where it's at. Top o' the mornin' to ya.

http://www.irisharans.com/images/IMG_1254aaaz.JPG

[mykittyhasaboner]

:thumbup1: They can't be beat for warmth, even by my most modern, high-tech winter outerwear.

Definitely, too bad we don't get cold weather down here.

The quality ones are expensive--I think I paid something like 45 Euros. Truly worth it if you live somewhere cold imo.



Its bourgeoisie as fuck though.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1918/080.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6UwGwE5SPNM/StG1-ce3zVI/AAAAAAAAG4k/rdBOfocb720/s1600/VladimirLenin.jpg

Comrade Lenin disagrees. :lol:


Wool is where it's at. Top o' the mornin' to ya.Eh, wool is somewhat itchy. Then again I can't judge because I've hardly ever wore it.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1918/080.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/_6UwGwE5SPNM/StG1-ce3zVI/AAAAAAAAG4k/rdBOfocb720/s1600/VladimirLenin.jpg

Comrade Lenin disagrees. :lol:




We dont get many reindeer and bears in Ireland.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Not where I live either.

How is fur bourgeois because of that?

I understand if your saying that fur is expensive or rare or whatever and only rich people can afford it, but that doesn't mean fur is inherently 'bourgeois' or 'inexcusable'.

Btw, if I lived in Ireland I would most definetely want to wear a fur hat since I would actually have a need for it--unlike now where very rarely am I cold enough to wear anything more than a t-shirt.

[Dr Mindbender]

How is fur bourgeois because of that?

Perhaps you have other experiences and maybe its a british isles thing, but here you seldomly see anyone under the enchelons of the priviledged classes wearing fur.




Btw, if I lived in Ireland I would most definetely want to wear a fur hat since I would actually have a need for it--unlike now where very rarely am I cold enough to wear anything more than a t-shirt.
Then you would stick out, here polyester and cotton are the materials of choice of the proletariat.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I understand if your saying that fur is expensive or rare or whatever and only rich people can afford it, but that doesn't mean fur is inherently 'bourgeois' or 'inexcusable'.

But it's not true that only the rich can afford it. I'm far from rich and I have quite a bit of fur. Some fur is priced sky-high, but again that's simply an argument for equitable distribution.. not to get rid of fur completely.

That's like saying "only rich people can afford first class airfare, so we should eliminate comfortable seating on airplanes."

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

polyester and cotton are the materials of choice of the proletariat.
:rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

:rolleyes:

Whats with the rolleyes emoticon?

Your indifference towards opinion is more than mutual, but feel free to come to the british isles for the empirical evidence to what i am saying.



But it's not true that only the rich can afford it. I'm far from rich and I have quite a bit of fur. Some fur is priced sky-high, but again that's simply an argument for equitable distribution.. not to get rid of fur completely.

Im guessing personal geography has a lot to do with it. The rainy, dog turd infested suburban estate in northern europe within which i reside is far removed from the log cabins and gun racks in the sprawling deer inhabited forests of north america.

But round here - fur wearers = bourgeoisie cockheads.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Perhaps you have other experiences and maybe its a british isles thing, but here you seldomly see anyone under the enchelons of the priviledged classes wearing fur.

Perhaps..it's not common here at all...but maybe cause it's Florida.

I know for a fact that working folks in other parts of Europe commonly wear fur; particularly in say Berlin or parts of eastern Europe.




Then you would stick out, here polyester and cotton are the materials of choice of the proletariat.If I was concerned with fitting in then I wouldn't tell people I'm a communist nor would I be acting naturally like a person should act. So I'm not worried about sticking out.

People can choose what they want to wear, I wouldn't go so far as to say those 2 materials are the 'choice of the proletariat'. Fur is much better than polyester or cotton when it comes to being warm. In the summer time, or always in Florida, cotton is better.


But it's not true that only the rich can afford it. I'm far from rich and I have quite a bit of fur. Some fur is priced sky-high, but again that's simply an argument for equitable distribution.. not to get rid of fur completely.

I agree. I haven't a clue about how much fur costs, since I only have one ushanka that I bought in Berlin. We generally don't have fur down here, though there may have been exceptions during this recent winter when it actually got cold.

[Dr Mindbender]

I know for a fact that working folks in other parts of Europe commonly wear fur; particularly in say Berlin or parts of eastern Europe.

Thats probably a hangover of Russian influence.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Thats probably a hangover of Russian influence.

In some cases maybe, but people wore fur in Europe before whatever 'Russian influence' your talking about. Why is it so hard to understand that people wear fur commonly and have done so for a very long time?

[coda]

-------

[bailey_187]

Then you would stick out, here polyester and cotton are the materials of choice of the proletariat.

Post-revolution, chinchilla coats will be avaliable to all

[ZeroNowhere]

Very good answers. :rolleyes: These are the exact answers I was expecting. Everyone's ok with taking lives as long as it's not human. A life is a life, it doesn't matter what species it is. And you say it wouldn't be ok with you if someone enslaves humans for food, clothing etc., so why is it ok for us to do it to others?
Because they aren't humans.


Why should we only hold the highest ethics for humans?Why should it not matter what species it is, and why is it permissible to kill off plants?

[Stand Your Ground]

Because they aren't humans.

Why should it not matter what species it is, and why is it permissible to kill off plants?
Because they're not human? Speciesism at it's finest.

Plants lack brains, nervous systems, etc.

So because they're not human, this is ok? :mad:

gYTkM1OHFQg

And for you fur supporters:

O_8Ko-9uKRs

[Stand Your Ground]

Post-revolution, chinchilla coats will be avaliable to all
I won't be having one. I have my own skin.

[Dr Mindbender]

I won't be having one. I have my own skin.

NHIA will own 2 then. One for himself, and the one that you refuse to wear.

Hows this for an ecological fur source? Rat fur. The little fuckers are everywhere.

[Stand Your Ground]

NHIA will own 2 then. One for himself, and the one that you refuse to wear.

Hows this for an ecological fur source? Rat fur. The little fuckers are everywhere.
It doesn't matter where the fur comes from, I don't NEED it, why would I want it?

[ZeroNowhere]

Plants lack brains, nervous systems, etc.
Using these as criteria would simply seem to indicate that we have different moral frameworks, given that I would instead use humanity. Both are discriminatory, and indeed the problem with racism, as I see it, is not that it is discrimination as such, but rather than it is discrimination between humans on the basis of race (I would rather kill 50 mainstream politicians than 50 decent poets, if I had to choose between the two, or T.S. Eliot rather than Lord Dunsany, but neither of these are based on race). Nonetheless, this would seem to make argumentation on the subject fairly pointless, and prone to the kind of idiocy that comes up when one tries to find common ground in these debates and drifts away from the fundamental issue (eg. "The death penalty should be kept/discarded because it costs more/less money!", "Abortion doesn't look very pleasant!", "Banning abortion would be a violation of women's rights; therefore, if you think that it is murder and not against women's rights any more than killing children, you should be against it because of this argument which presupposes abortion being alright in the first place!", the tripe which often tends to be used by non-vegetarians to justify their views here, etc)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It doesn't matter where the fur comes from, I don't NEED it, why would I want it?Because it's beautiful, comfortable, waterproof and warm.

We don't need shoes to walk. We don't need computers to communicate. We don't need cars to get around. We don't need houses to live. We want these things because they improve our lives. They make life easier and more enjoyable and give us more time to pursue other things.

Again I ask, why we should limit ourselves to only what we need?

Every human advance is predicated on our interference with nature. What you're really arguing for is an anti-human regression to some sort of idyllic barbarism that has never and will never exist.

Case closed.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because it's beautiful, comfortable, waterproof and warm.

We don't need shoes to walk. We don't need computers to communicate. We don't need cars to get around. We don't need houses to live. We want these things because they improve our lives. They make life easier and more enjoyable and give us more time to pursue other things.

Again I ask, why we should limit ourselves to only what we need?
They are not arguing that. As they view all living beings with brains and nervous systems equally, apparently, they would obviously be unwilling to sanction acts which they view as unethical, especially if they are unnecessary. They hardly seem to be advocating a wholesale regression to simple subsistence.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

But in effect that is exactly what they're arguing. Humans can't advance without interfering with nature. If you rule out the creation of anything and everything we don't need to survive because it causes harm to animals then you've gotten rid of medicine, industry, housing, transportation, etc., and you're left with nothing.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, that is a valid point. Certainly, avoiding harm to animals would have had a negative effect on the development of medicine. Perhaps they could argue that by now this is not necessary or something of the sort, although this would not seem to fit with their broader outlook, in which it would have been wrong the whole time. So yes, that is a fair enough point, and I think I had misinterpreted your post somewhat.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Because they're not human? Speciesism at it's finest.

Plants lack brains, nervous systems, etc.

So because they're not human, this is ok? :mad:


Plants don't have "nervous system" as such, but they do have various systems of perception of external stimuli and influence.

Your stupid videos don't disturb me.

What relevance has conditions in some fur-farm or whatnot anyway? Capitalist exploitation doesn't just exist in sweatshops; I think all will agree at least that useless killing and torturing of animals for no reason is a waste of a resource; you and your kind however instead argue that the simple utilisation of animals whatsoever is wrong as such, pulling that old "moral argument". Which is nonsense. Just like "speciesism" is bullshit.

[RedStarOverChina]

Because they're not human? Speciesism at it's finest.
Now you're getting it.

Let me put it this way, if you and my dog drown at the same time, I'll be saving you, even though I may not like you all that much. That's very "speciesist" me of, I know.

Did I mention I hate rats?

[gorillafuck]

It doesn't matter where the fur comes from, I don't NEED it, why would I want it?
I don't NEED the computer I'm on, but it's awesome to have.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Your stupid videos don't disturb me.

I'm not an 'animal rights' activist, nor a vegetarian or whatever, but the video from the dairy farm rates as one of the most horrifying things I have ever watched. I felt ill watching it.

The people committing these sort of acts obviously have severe psychological problems, but I find it equally distrubing that people don't have a problem watching this kind of thing. If you don't see a problem with this kind of thing, you need help. If you're just trying to make a tough guy argument, you're an idiot.

Nic.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The people committing these sort of acts obviously have severe psychological problems

These conditions take their toll on human workers too, with many people in these kinds of jobs ending up developing mental disorders, becoming addicted to drugs, abusing their families, etc. Even if people don't give a shit about animals, then for this reason at least we should be opposed to this kind of thing.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The people committing these sort of acts obviously have severe psychological problems, but I find it equally distrubing that people don't have a problem watching this kind of thing. If you don't see a problem with this kind of thing, you need help. If you're just trying to make a tough guy argument, you're an idiot..

And what the fuck is your problem, just the usual being a bastard or is there something deeper, some psychological confusion, mental derangement?

You need help.

Tough guy what? People post these kinds of videos to get stupid emotional responses; did someone say there has never been mistreatment of animals in some farming setting or a slaughter house? I think not. Did I also say that useless torturing of animals for some sort of sadistic pleasure was an acceptable thing? No, I did not. But of course, you just want to be a fucking dick about it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

These conditions take their toll on human workers too, with many people in these kinds of jobs ending up developing mental disorders, becoming addicted to drugs, abusing their families, etc.

I agree completely, actually.


And what the fuck is your problem, just the usual being a bastard or is there something deeper, some psychological confusion, mental derangement?

Do you think I'm usually a bastard? It's interesting that I would be percieved that way.

Also, my 'fucking' problem is people like you making internet tough guy posts like these:


Your stupid videos don't disturb me.


Tough guy what? People post these kinds of videos to get stupid emotional responses; did someone say there has never been mistreatment of animals in some farming setting or a slaughter house? I think not. Did I also say that useless torturing of animals for some sort of sadistic pleasure was an acceptable thing? No, I did not. But of course, you just want to be a fucking dick about it.

What you said is: "Your stupid videos don't disturb me". I realise these videos are designed to get an emotional response, it doesn't make that emotional response any less real. I think it's basic humanity to be repulsed by these kind of things. You don't seem to think so. Either that or you are being a tough guy? Which is it?

Nic.

[Stand Your Ground]

Using these as criteria would simply seem to indicate that we have different moral frameworks, given that I would instead use humanity. Both are discriminatory, and indeed the problem with racism, as I see it, is not that it is discrimination as such, but rather than it is discrimination between humans on the basis of race (I would rather kill 50 mainstream politicians than 50 decent poets, if I had to choose between the two, or T.S. Eliot rather than Lord Dunsany, but neither of these are based on race). Nonetheless, this would seem to make argumentation on the subject fairly pointless, and prone to the kind of idiocy that comes up when one tries to find common ground in these debates and drifts away from the fundamental issue (eg. "The death penalty should be kept/discarded because it costs more/less money!", "Abortion doesn't look very pleasant!", "Banning abortion would be a violation of women's rights; therefore, if you think that it is murder and not against women's rights any more than killing children, you should be against it because of this argument which presupposes abortion being alright in the first place!", the tripe which often tends to be used by non-vegetarians to justify their views here, etc)
Until I hear a carrot scream I have no reason to believe I cause them any harm.

[Stand Your Ground]

Because it's beautiful, comfortable, waterproof and warm.

We don't need shoes to walk. We don't need computers to communicate. We don't need cars to get around. We don't need houses to live. We want these things because they improve our lives. They make life easier and more enjoyable and give us more time to pursue other things.

Again I ask, why we should limit ourselves to only what we need?

Every human advance is predicated on our interference with nature. What you're really arguing for is an anti-human regression to some sort of idyllic barbarism that has never and will never exist.

Case closed.
I agree we don't need those things, and yes it does make life easier and more enjoyable, but wearing someone's skin doesn't sound fun or enjoyable and I can't fathom why anyone would want make it seem so.

[Stand Your Ground]

I don't NEED the computer I'm on, but it's awesome to have.
Ok but nothing is dying or having it's skinned ripped off so you can have it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Until I hear a carrot scream I have no reason to believe I cause them any harm.

Fish don't scream. Neither do lizards, I would imagine. What about worms? Ants? Jellyfish?

Determining whether an organism can have harm inflicted upon it by it's capacity to scream really is quite silly.

I think a more sensible and meaningful criteria would be if they can fell pain, ie. if they have a nervous system and even then you run into problems.


Ok but nothing is dying or having it's skinned ripped off so you can have it.

No, but at present, it does mean the exploitation of thousands of workers all involved in some way in the production process. You know they call them factory farms for a reason.

Nic.

[Sir Comradical]

I agree that it's wrong to torture animals but come on, surely it makes no sense to be against eating meat on moral grounds. That's just the way the food chain works, you know lions eating deer and what not.

I'm unashamedly anthropocentric here...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I agree we don't need those things, and yes it does make life easier and more enjoyable, but wearing someone's skin doesn't sound fun or enjoyable and I can't fathom why anyone would want make it seem so.

So because you can't fathom it, that means no one can enjoy it?

In fact, millions of people enjoy and find value in fur and have for many, many years. As has been noted many times, fur cannot be duplicated synthetically. It is a beautiful, warm material that serves our species very well.

So, why don't you keep your simplistic moralism to yourself?


Ok but nothing is dying or having it's skinned ripped off so you can have it.

A computer? We most definitely interfere with nature in the process of making a computer. Raw materials are taken from the earth. Factories are constructed. Trucks, boats, trains and planes ship the products. Air and water is polluted. Habitat is destroyed and animals are displaced and killed.

[Stand Your Ground]

Fish don't scream. Neither do lizards, I would imagine. What about worms? Ants? Jellyfish?

Determining whether an organism can have harm inflicted upon it by it's capacity to scream really is quite silly.

I think a more sensible and meaningful criteria would be if they can fell pain, ie. if they have a nervous system and even then you run into problems.



No, but at present, it does mean the exploitation of thousands of workers all involved in some way in the production process. You know they call them factory farms for a reason.

Nic.
That's not what I was saying. I was just saying I don't have reason to believe plants feel pain.

[Stand Your Ground]

So because you can't fathom it, that means no one can enjoy it?

In fact, millions of people enjoy and find value in fur and have for many, many years. As has been noted many times, fur cannot be duplicated synthetically. It is a beautiful, warm material that serves our species very well.

So, why don't you keep your simplistic moralism to yourself?



A computer? We most definitely interfere with nature in the process of making a computer. Raw materials are taken from the earth. Factories are constructed. Trucks, boats, trains and planes ship the products. Air and water is polluted. Habitat is destroyed and animals are displaced and killed.
If fur was produced in a humane way I could see people using it. But as long as animals are skinned alive for it I will support the abolition of it.

Why do you keep asking questions that beg me to explain my 'moralism'?

And that's why I support and call for reasonable and responsible usage of the earth, the resources and the living creatures that cohabitate it.

[Sir Comradical]

If fur was produced in a humane way I could see people using it. But as long as animals are skinned alive for it I will support the abolition of it.

Why do you keep asking questions that beg me to explain my 'moralism'?

And that's why I support and call for reasonable and responsible usage of the earth, the resources and the living creatures that cohabitate it.

Fair rebuttal.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The whole "humane" argument in regards to meat, fur, leather, etc., production is absurd. It leads to things like curved cattle corrals that ostensibly reduce stress in cows... before they are killed and cut into pieces.

Is there a way to humanely put something to death, or is it just something that certain people tell themselves to get over their qualms?

Do you think a cow prefers to have its throat swiftly slit instead of being shot in the head with an air gun or shocked to death in a slaughterhouse, or vice versa? Do you think it knows the difference?

Is slaughtering cows to feed people any more "inhumane" than destroying thousands of acres of habitat, contaminating water and displacing and killing animals in order to mine coal; drill for oil; install and operate power lines, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, power plants; etc., in order to produce electricity?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Is slaughtering cows to feed people any more "inhumane" than destroying thousands of acres of habitat, contaminating water and displacing and killing animals in order to mine coal; drill for oil; install and operate power lines, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, power plants; etc., in order to produce electricity?

Let's not forget that farming sufficient vegetables and greenery for our vegan friends takes its own great toll on nature in terms of habitat destruction, pollution and so on.

[Stand Your Ground]

The whole "humane" argument in regards to meat, fur, leather, etc., production is absurd. It leads to things like curved cattle corrals that ostensibly reduce stress in cows... before they are killed and cut into pieces.

Is there a way to humanely put something to death, or is it just something that certain people tell themselves to get over their qualms?

Do you think a cow prefers to have its throat swiftly slit instead of being shot in the head with an air gun or shocked to death in a slaughterhouse, or vice versa? Do you think it knows the difference?

Is slaughtering cows to feed people any more "inhumane" than destroying thousands of acres of habitat, contaminating water and displacing and killing animals in order to mine coal; drill for oil; install and operate power lines, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, power plants; etc., in order to produce electricity?
As I said up there^^



And that's why I support and call for reasonable and responsible usage of the earth, the resources and the living creatures that cohabitate it.
Why is it absurd? I'm sure if cows and humans could speak the same language they could tell us. And I'm sure they would choose the least painful way possible. I'm sure humans can find a way to take lives while reducing the pain involved as much as possible.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why is it absurd? I'm sure if cows and humans could speak the same language they could tell us.Why is it absurd? Your talking about cows speaking...



And that's why I support and call for reasonable and responsible usage of the earth, the resources and the living creatures that cohabitate it.

Then stop arguing against fur production, and focus your energy towards abolishing capitalism.

[Stand Your Ground]

Why is it absurd? Your talking about cows speaking...




Then stop arguing against fur production, and focus your energy towards abolishing capitalism.
Why is that absurd? Simply because their language isn't like our doesn't mean their not speaking.

I choose to tackle all forms of oppression, I don't pick and choose.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why is that absurd? Simply because their language isn't like our doesn't mean their not speaking.


Cows do not speak. Cows moo. You know. MOOOOOOOOO!

One shouldn't mistake this for language. I'm not sure if your serious or not.


I choose to tackle all forms of oppression, I don't pick and choose.This is a nice assumption but by "tackling" the issue of animal welfare, you are not addressing an issue separate from capitalism. Ultimately the only way to end injustices like skinning animals alive or whatever is to regulate the industry and make it illegal to do so--as well as to provide the animal harvesting industry with the resources required to reasonably treat or kill animals. This cannot be done in a capitalist society, because profit determines what is acceptable or not.

If we consider the treatment of animals to be oppressive, then obviously this oppression would have it's roots in the economic nature of society right? If you agree with this, then obviously capitalism is more or less the cause of inhumane treatment of animals. If you want to end the unnecessary suffering of animals, then you have to abolish capitalism. That is my point.

Fur production in itself is not inherently wrong or "oppressive". Neither is vivisection or eating animal flesh. So why separate the issue of animal welfare to the issue of capitalism? It seems you are the one picking and choosing. You seem to put the "liberation" of animals above the need to end human suffering and exploitation. I would say that without putting an end to deep seated social and economic conflicts, the issues regarding animal welfare will never be solved. It's erroneous to cast aside all sociological and economic factors, and the pivotal role humanity plays in general--for a crude bio-centric approach to the issue and suggest that we end fur production, or vivisection for example because animals are equal to, or are intrinsically as valuable as humans. By doing so you are denying the enormous role played by humanity, since we are the ones who have the power to change things and transform the world around us.

[redmist]

Do you think a cow prefers to have its throat swiftly slit instead of being shot in the head with an air gun or shocked to death in a slaughterhouse, or vice versa? Do you think it knows the difference?

If animals are kept in stressful conditions and are not killed swiftly, or are killed one after another in front of each other it can affect the quality of the meat. So for the reason, I do think all animals should be reared naturally and killed instantly, of course this is not always an option though. When animals are killed I'd like to see all the animal used too, I find it ridiculous that people will waste meat or any other product of the animal.

I'm not really sure how I feel about using animals for testing though, in an ideal world I would probably object, but we ain't in an ideal world now are we?

I cannot understand why people defend animal rights so vehemently though. Of course you should try to raise animals well and not pen them up until they are fat enough to kill, but at the same time you won't be able to change that completely while in a capitalist system. It's a waste of time campaigning for it. Change the system, then if you feel compelled to, try to change people's views on animal rights.

There are my views summed up for ya! :thumbup1:

[Sir Comradical]

Zizek has an interesting theory on vegetarianism.

_TqyKsnQD38

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If animals are kept in stressful conditions and are not killed swiftly, or are killed one after another in front of each other it can affect the quality of the meat.

That's true. But that's also a totally different argument from "humane slaughter."

[Stand Your Ground]

Cows do not speak. Cows moo. You know. MOOOOOOOOO!

One shouldn't mistake this for language. I'm not sure if your serious or not.

This is a nice assumption but by "tackling" the issue of animal welfare, you are not addressing an issue separate from capitalism. Ultimately the only way to end injustices like skinning animals alive or whatever is to regulate the industry and make it illegal to do so--as well as to provide the animal harvesting industry with the resources required to reasonably treat or kill animals. This cannot be done in a capitalist society, because profit determines what is acceptable or not.

If we consider the treatment of animals to be oppressive, then obviously this oppression would have it's roots in the economic nature of society right? If you agree with this, then obviously capitalism is more or less the cause of inhumane treatment of animals. If you want to end the unnecessary suffering of animals, then you have to abolish capitalism. That is my point.

Fur production in itself is not inherently wrong or "oppressive". Neither is vivisection or eating animal flesh. So why separate the issue of animal welfare to the issue of capitalism? It seems you are the one picking and choosing. You seem to put the "liberation" of animals above the need to end human suffering and exploitation. I would say that without putting an end to deep seated social and economic conflicts, the issues regarding animal welfare will never be solved. It's erroneous to cast aside all sociological and economic factors, and the pivotal role humanity plays in general--for a crude bio-centric approach to the issue and suggest that we end fur production, or vivisection for example because animals are equal to, or are intrinsically as valuable as humans. By doing so you are denying the enormous role played by humanity, since we are the ones who have the power to change things and transform the world around us.
If you can't understand them how do you know it is not language?

I'm not putting any cause above any other. All oppressions are interlinked, yes, and must all be eliminated. A struggle can have different fronts, there's no reason I can't spend time on each area.

[redmist]

That's true. But that's also a totally different argument from "humane slaughter."

Certainly, my mind wandered and I felt the need to what down what I was thinking . Although for me, it does make a case for being against the slaughtering of animals in shit conditions, mainly from a meat eaters view point.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If you can't understand them how do you know it is not language?

Language applies to human beings--systematic and clearly defined characters and words that makes up sentences, all of which with an inherent meaning attached.

Cows moo. They might moo with each other, but cows aren't intelligent enough to create language.

But I digress. It seems cows moo with certain "accents" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5277090.stm). :lol:




I'm not putting any cause above any other. All oppressions are interlinked, yes, and must all be eliminated. A struggle can have different fronts, there's no reason I can't spend time on each area.You seemed to have missed the point. There is no struggle which unites humans and animals.

[Ocean Seal]

okay very gruesome. I support animal rights and all, but showing people images this shocking just pushes them away.

[Red Lion]

Man does produce, man produces a hell of a lot more than any animal. Animals didn't produce the theories of animal rights. :cool:

Eating animals is natural. Wearing animals is natural. Testing on animals is fair if its necessary. Cruelty with no end result is wrong.

[Ele'ill]

Language applies to human beings--systematic and clearly defined characters and words that makes up sentences,

Let's not forget that humans have determined and defined this.



all of which with an inherent meaning attached.So a male bird performing a mating dance isn't a language because the animal can't utilize a pen and paper? Perhaps if it could hold a microphone and speak the human language that you do..








You seemed to have missed the point. There is no struggle which unites humans and animals.

There is if we decide there will be one. It's that simple.

[Jazzratt]

Let's not forget that humans have determined and defined this.
We also determined and defined the concept of "rights" which kind of means we get to choose the criteria for grant them...


There is if we decide there will be one. It's that simple.
I'm geniunely curious as to why we should create new struggles when we have not completed the extant one (that of class struggle, something that matters and exists for reasons beyond our deciding it should).

[mykittyhasaboner]

Let's not forget that humans have determined and defined this. Exactly, that's what makes it language.
So a male bird performing a mating dance isn't a language because the animal can't utilize a pen and paper? Perhaps if it could hold a microphone and speak the human language that you do.. Communication =/= Language.
There is if we decide there will be one. It's that simple. How so?

[Ele'ill]

I'm geniunely curious as to why we should create new struggles when we have not completed the extant one (that of class struggle, something that matters and exists for reasons beyond our deciding it should).I don't see it as a new struggle. I also don't think it should be specifically focused on over any other struggle. Capitalism isn't just harming animals and ecosystems and it isn't just harming workers.

A lot of the people on this forum seem to use the escape that environmentalists or animal rights activists are just worried about puppy mills and fur factories and to be honest with you I have never met an environmentalist or animal rights activist that hadn't fought just as hard for class issues.


Exactly, that's what makes it language.

Perhaps language started with clicks and grunts, facial expressions and body language.

Oh if only we could go back in time and enslave our former selves for flesh pelts and vivisection tests. :rolleyes:




Communication =/= Language. A mating dance is a type of communication and to that particular creature is equivilent to language.




How so?If we decide to make it part of a struggle we will. It isn't going to invest any extra effort as inhumane animal industry is part of the system we're trying to dismantle and rebuild.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Perhaps language started with clicks and grunts, facial expressions and body language. Perhaps, but this argument is pointless since language has evolved beyond clicks and grunts.


Oh if only we could go back in time and enslave our former selves for flesh pelts and vivisection tests. Magnificent strawman.


A mating dance is a type of communication and to that particular creature is equivilent to language. Maybe it's equivalent to language, but it's not a systematic collection of arbitrary sounds and symbols which can be universally identified. That's what language is. A human concept and form of communication. When a bird is performing a mating dance, it's not thinking in it's head, "hey, other birds, come fuck me". This is because a mating dance is not a language, a set of arbitrary sounds or symbols. It's instinctively acting on the urge to mate. When other birds see this, they do not think "hey I want to go fuck that bird", they are acting on instinct to go fuck it.


If we decide to make it part of a struggle we will. It isn't going to invest any extra effort as inhumane animal industry is part of the system we're trying to dismantle and rebuild. OK but how do you propose that humans and animals will be "united" after a more 'humane' animal industry is established? The animals will still be utilized against their instinct to survive.

[Ele'ill]

Perhaps, but this argument is pointless since language has evolved beyond clicks and grunts.

Magnificent strawman.


I should have crafted it as a question- Do you agree that had human level intelligent life existed back when we were clicking and grunting away that they could/should have done to us what we are currently doing to animals?

If intelligent life exists else where and decides to visit earth- should our existence be based on their definition of 'rights' and 'language'?


Maybe it's equivalent to language, but it's not a systematic collection of arbitrary sounds and symbols which can be universally identified. That's what language is. A human concept and form of communication. When a bird is performing a mating dance, it's not thinking in it's head, "hey, other birds, come fuck me". This is because a mating dance is not a language, a set of arbitrary sounds or symbols. It's instinctively acting on the urge to mate. When other birds see this, they do not think "hey I want to go fuck that bird", they are acting on instinct to go fuck it.

Humans flip their hair and posture as well. We also have an alphabet that we occasionally use. The instinctual posturing comes first. We're not that much different.





OK but how do you propose that humans and animals will be "united" after a more 'humane' animal industry is established? The animals will still be utilized against their instinct to survive.

I think certain industries are useless. Our need for clothing made from animal skin and fur is zero.

Do we really need to eat meat? I don't think we do- certainly not to the extent that we're currently consuming it anyways.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I should have crafted it as a question- Do you agree that had human level intelligent life existed back when we were clicking and grunting away that they could/should have done to us what we are currently doing to animals?

I don't know. What kind of question is this?

It's way too hypothetical.


If intelligent life exists else where and decides to visit earth- should our existence be based on their definition of 'rights' and 'language'?This has nothing to do with the relations of animals and humans. ET life is a whole different subject.


Humans flip their hair and posture as well. We also have an alphabet that we occasionally use. The instinctual posturing comes first. We're not that much different.Yeah but humans are capable of much more: elaborating on their feelings for another human being with language, complex emotions related to the mating process, humans can pick and choose between other humans, etc. Birds can pretty much only act instinctively when it comes to mating.

But this is all beside the point really. Animal communication cannot be considered language.....and your argument isn't really going in the direction towards proving so.



I think certain industries are useless. Our need for clothing made from animal skin and fur is zero.

Do we really need to eat meat? I don't think we do- certainly not to the extent that we're currently consuming it anyways.

Why limit ourselves to absolute necessities? You don't need your computer right?

So why do you have/use it?

Fur is a quality material which is excellent for winter clothing, and has been used for centuries.

Meat is important for various nutritional reasons and cannot challenged on moral grounds at all.

This is privileged, bio-centric elitism at its worst.

[Ele'ill]

I don't know. What kind of question is this?

It's way too hypothetical.

This has nothing to do with the relations of animals and humans. ET life is a whole different subject.

I get your point and don't want to stretch the conversation too far in this direction but It wasn't long ago that landing on the moon and exploring the ocean depths were way too hypothetical. My point isn't to suggest that we need to rethink ethical values because aliens are coming but because the idea of us not being the most intelligent lifeforms at a certain juncture could lead to us being exploited as a species much as we have done to other creatures that we have decided are lesser.






Yeah but humans are capable of much more: elaborating on their feelings for another human being with language, complex emotions related to the mating process, humans can pick and choose between other humans, etc. Birds can pretty much only act instinctively when it comes to mating.




But this is all beside the point really. Animal communication cannot be considered language.....and your argument isn't really going in the direction towards proving so. I don't think that language is a determining factor of an organism's worth.








Why limit ourselves to absolute necessities? You don't need your computer right?

So why do you have/use it?Having a computer is a necessity for me to exist with the jobs that I have and the jobs that I have are a result of interests that have led to talents. I wish I didn't need it. There are many things I do every day to make sure I'm using only what I need but I don't think this conversation needs to study me personally as a subject- If you want to know more I'll continue.


Fur is a quality material which is excellent for winter clothing, and has been used for centuries.There are synthetic materials that work better. Fur was used for centuries because other materials had not been discovered/made.


Meat is important for various nutritional reasons and cannot challenged on moral grounds at all. Yes it can. The amount of meat being consumed by certain nations is entirely more than what's necessary. Banning meat isn't going to work as a solution but perhaps competent organizing against the industry and corporations that push it would. I have lived a good portion of my life without animal products.

I won't get into the harmful affects of the meat industry as it's akin to the agricultural (produce) industry and is a product of capitalism although I'd argue the situation with meat has a lot more to do with excessive quantity consumed.


This is privileged, bio-centric elitism at its worst.Wouldn't bio-centric elitism be the stance that you're taking? How is it privileged?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't think that language is a determining factor of an organism's worth.

Then why are you insisting so much on the linguistic abilities of birds?

I don't think language is a determining factor in so much as only humans have so far been able to produce advanced language.



Having a computer is a necessity for me to exist with the jobs that I have and the jobs that I have are a result of interests that have led to talents. I wish I didn't need it. There are many things I do every day to make sure I'm using only what I need but I don't think this conversation needs to study me personally as a subject- If you want to know more I'll continue.It's not about you, don't flatter yourself. The question was, "Why limit ourselves (humanity) to basic necessities?" If we did so, we wouldn't have gotten this far. I'll repeat something NHIA said earlier, every advance humanity has experienced has been predicated on some kind of interference with nature--be it hunting and gathering, agriculture, industry, etc.

Saying we don't need to kill animals for our use is not only wrong in some cases, it's simply not a good argument even if we actually don't need to utilize their fur or flesh.


There are synthetic materials that work better. Fur was used for centuries because other materials had not been discovered/made.
No, they certainly do not work better. Even if there are synthetic options, there is no reason why utilizing animals for fur should stop until there is an alternative capable of replacing such practices.


Yes it can. The amount of meat being consumed by certain nations is entirely more than what's necessary. Banning meat isn't going to work as a solution but perhaps competent organizing against the industry and corporations that push it would. I have lived a good portion of my life without animal products. Yeah, you have, since you can afford it. Tell someone from Sub-Saharan Africa or India not to eat meat because it's morally questionable. See what kind of answer you get.

Besides, animals eating other animals is just the way it goes. There really is no moral qualm here. The only moral question-ability comes in when we have to deal with unreasonable treatment towards animals.




Wouldn't bio-centric elitism be the stance that you're taking? How is it privileged?You suggest that the struggle for animal liberation is parallel to that of human liberation. Thus according to this logic, people should stop utilizing animals for products, eating meat, domesticating animals, etc before the question of human liberation has been answered and dealt with. This privileged "first world" bio-centrism only feasible for you because you can afford such a lifestyle. Yet many people simply have no choice--there is no other affordable way to live. Aside from that, who are you to deny the right to people in any part of the world to eat the food they want to because you find it morally questionable?


Besides the limitation to your bio-centric elitism to the developed parts of the world, where it finds a home among liberals and fools of all kinds, the theoretical implications of such views are pretty serious. It suggests that only those who are participating in the struggle for animal liberation can at the same time struggle for humanity--since it's all "the same struggle" right?

I'll reuse and example from this thread: I would see how supporting militant south Korean workers, while at the same time criticizing their dietary choices would cause confusion.

Your position is bio-centric because it does not recognize humanity is the most intrinsically valuable form of life that we currently know about, and suggests that other forms of life shouldn't be subjugated by humans. It does not recognize the importance of humanity's leading roles in the question of whether or not this or that animal will be extinct, or whether or not this or that natural disaster will be averted. The struggle between humans and nature necessitates an anthropocentric outlook in order to raise the standards of life and happiness for humanity. We are the only species intelligent enough to transform the world around us as well as to destroy the world around us. That is why human liberation is the priority and takes the leading position towards developing our own society to the point where we don't have to struggle with nature any more.

It is elitist because you criticize others' dietary choices from some kind of moral moral high horse. It is privileged for a similar reason: you, having the benefit of an internet connection, likely live in the developed world where you can afford to not purchase animal products and live your own lifestyle. Someone from the third world doesn't have this option in most cases--are they not to struggle for their own liberation until the animals they eat are liberated?


Again this is crude biocentrism at its' worst. It does not help the cause of human liberation, nor 'animal liberation' at all. It's a bunch of privileged, moralistic posturing.

[Ele'ill]

Then why are you insisting so much on the linguistic abilities of birds?

I don't think language is a determining factor in so much as only humans have so far been able to produce advanced language.

So you don't think that language is a determining factor in an organism's worth.


It's not about you, don't flatter yourself.

I must have misunderstood the "You don't need your computer, right?" comment.



The question was, "Why limit ourselves (humanity) to basic necessities?" If we did so, we wouldn't have gotten this far.

I don't think the payoff of 'getting this far' is more important than keeping ecosystems intact. I think humans can live happily with much less than we currently are. We can't time travel back to fix things but what we can do is start to understand how we're affecting our planet and adjust. To write the planet, ecosystems or individual organisms off as externalities is insane. We can live far from the dark ages with a lot less than we are now and there is a huge difference between necessities and wants.



I'll repeat something NHIA said earlier, every advance humanity has experienced has been predicated on some kind of interference with nature--be it hunting and gathering, agriculture, industry, etc. Saying we don't need to kill animals for our use is not only wrong in some cases, it's simply not a good argument even if we actually don't need to utilize their fur or flesh.

There isn't going to be a perfect balance but we can greatly limit the casualties.


No, they certainly do not work better. Even if there are synthetic options, there is no reason why utilizing animals for fur should stop until there is an alternative capable of replacing such practices.

I have a synthetic blanket that's about the weight of a piece of paper and it's rated for subzero temperatures. We have alternatives that work better. Fur is obsolete.


Yeah, you have, since you can afford it. Tell someone from Sub-Saharan Africa or India not to eat meat because it's morally questionable. See what kind of answer you get.

If the issue is general food shortage and it's what they can get of course they should eat to survive but the main issue is that they don't have access to other foods. If we're discussing hunting for food I don't necessarily have an issue with that if it's in the interest of survival. The answer I would most likely get is 'why is the first world dying from the amount of food they are consuming?'




Besides, animals eating other animals is just the way it goes. There really is no moral qualm here. The only moral question-ability comes in when we have to deal with unreasonable treatment towards animals.

Humans are the only animal that 'farms' animals in an inhumane manner and then over consumes.








This privileged "first world" bio-centrism only feasible for you because you can afford such a lifestyle.

I spend much less on groceries and what I don't get from the store I grow.



Yet many people simply have no choice--there is no other affordable way to live.

So you have a grocery bill of 100 dollars and 30 of those dollars goes towards meat or dairy. If you take the meat and dairy out...


Aside from that, who are you to deny the right to people in any part of the world to eat the food they want to because you find it morally questionable?

I wouldn't force it on anyone. I'd like to educate people on the harmful affects of the industry and hopefully they'd change their minds. It's the same as with any struggle.



Besides the limitation to your bio-centric elitism to the developed parts of the world, where it finds a home among liberals and fools of all kinds,

At least I can do basic math.







I'll reuse and example from this thread: I would see how supporting militant south Korean workers, while at the same time criticizing their dietary choices would cause confusion.

This implies that there is no such thing as timing when it comes to educating people about various causes. Spare me.


Your position is bio-centric because it does not recognize humanity is the most intrinsically valuable form of life that we currently know about

I think humans need to start worrying about the resources they're destroying. Because without ecosystems our planet is going to die- as it currently is.


The struggle between humans and nature necessitates an anthropocentric outlook in order to raise the standards of life and happiness for humanity. We are the only species intelligent enough to transform the world around us as well as to destroy the world around us. That is why human liberation is the priority and takes the leading position towards developing our own society to the point where we don't have to struggle with nature any more.

Yes, and in the process of organizing against capitalism the subject of planetary destruction will come up in which case it is part of the same struggle.


It is elitist because you criticize others' dietary choices from some kind of moral moral high horse.

Their dietary choices fuel an industry that is destroying the planet- to put it simply
Workers are supporting blindly or stuck in a system for lack of anywhere else to go- that is destroying the planet.



It is privileged for a similar reason: you, having the benefit of an internet connection, likely live in the developed world where you can afford to not purchase animal products and live your own lifestyle. Someone from the third world doesn't have this option in most cases--are they not to struggle for their own liberation until the animals they eat are liberated?

I've already discussed both this 'third world meat' and 'privileged internet user' fetish of yours.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I don't think the payoff of 'getting this far' is more important than keeping ecosystems intact. Going beyond basic necessities doesn't necessarily damage any ecosystems. Limiting ourselves to basic necessities would have drastic effects on the most important part of our ecosystem--humans.



I think humans can live happily with much less than we currently are.You should be arguing to for greater consumption, thus satisfying everyone's needs. Saying that humans can live happily with less is a generalization. Some humans can certainly live just as happily with less, like say billionaires who have exorbitant lifestyles. However for humans who live in poverty need more to consume in order to live happily.


We can't time travel back to fix things but what we can do is start to understand how we're affecting our planet and adjust.Obviously, this is why the issues of conflict within humanity must be solved in order to give our species a better leading role in our ecosystem. This is really all I'm saying.


To write the planet, ecosystems or individual organisms off as externalities is insane.I'm not writing off nature as some thing separate from humanity, because humanity is apart of nature and we can now more or less determine the course of our ecosystem, thanks to the advances enabled by utilizing nature to our benefit. That's why we need to put ourselves in a position to better dictate our interaction with nature. This does not coincide with struggling for animal welfare along side as an equally worthy issue. It is more or less a distraction, at least at this time.


We can live far from the dark ages with a lot less than we are now and there is a huge difference between necessities and wants.Define "less". The argument for socialism is to take economic power in the hands of the whole society of workers and use it in common, thereby freeing the individual from the restricted position of capitalist commodity production and allow individuals to create and consume freely. This would necessitate that humanity consumes more on average. I'm not talking about a world absent of any moderation; I'm saying that arguing for less consumption is opposite to what to socialism necessarily entails.


There isn't going to be a perfect balance but we can greatly limit the casualties. In what sense?




I have a synthetic blanket that's about the weight of a piece of paper and it's rated for subzero temperatures. We have alternatives that work better. Fur is obsolete. Perhaps for a blanket, but I don't think many blankets are made out of fur, or at least I wouldn't want one. Synthetic materials aren't as water proof or frost resistant as natural furs, and do not insulate as good. For warm clothing, fur certainly isn't obsolete.




If the issue is general food shortage and it's what they can get of course they should eat to survive but the main issue is that they don't have access to other foods.Even if they did, there isn't a reason they should stop eating meat on moral grounds.



If we're discussing hunting for food I don't necessarily have an issue with that if it's in the interest of survival.I agree.


The answer I would most likely get is 'why is the first world dying from the amount of food they are consuming?'I don't understand, most inhabitants of the developed parts of the world aren't "dying" from the amount of food they are consuming; however not everyone has access to this plethora of food, even in the "first world".



Humans are the only animal that 'farms' animals in an inhumane manner and then over consumes.
Perhaps, however this is not what I'm arguing in favor of.



So you have a grocery bill of 100 dollars and 30 of those dollars goes towards meat or dairy. If you take the meat and dairy out...
Well if someone who actually could spend a hundred dollars on groceries, and wanted to save money, could do that. However many people don't have that much money and if meat is the only viable option they should eat it.



At least I can do basic math.
That's terrific.



This implies that there is no such thing as timing when it comes to educating people about various causes. Spare me.
This is not an excuse. Morally condemning militant workers who eat meat would cause nothing but confusing and hinder relations. If you want to bring dietary choices into politics then don't be surprised if your isolated. Eating meat isn't necessarily harming the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, there is no reason to "educate" them about why their choice to eat meat is wrong.



I think humans need to start worrying about the resources they're destroying. Because without ecosystems our planet is going to die- as it currently is. The planet is going to eventually die anyways, that's why it's not as intrinsically valuable as humans are--who have no known end in sight. Humans will eventually have to find homes on other worlds.

I'm not saying we should trash Earth, obviously. However taking care of our ecosystem requires more than morally criticizing what people eat.




Yes, and in the process of organizing against capitalism the subject of planetary destruction will come up in which case it is part of the same struggle. Well in such a broad sense yeah it is.




Their dietary choices fuel an industry that is destroying the planet- to put it simply
Workers are supporting blindly or stuck in a system for lack of anywhere else to go- that is destroying the planet.Eating meat is destroying the planet?

[Ele'ill]

Going beyond basic necessities doesn't necessarily damage any ecosystems. Limiting ourselves to basic necessities would have drastic effects on the most important part of our ecosystem--humans.

I agree. There are certain industries that are unnecessary and also happen to be extremely destructive.


You should be arguing to for greater consumption, thus satisfying everyone's needs.

By over consumption I am referring to over consumption. Where it moves past need and far into the realm of excessive want.



Saying that humans can live happily with less is a generalization. Some humans can certainly live just as happily with less, like say billionaires who have exorbitant lifestyles.

They would be living with more things. The idea touted on every media outlet is get rich buy more.



However for humans who live in poverty need more to consume in order to live happily.

Actually most of the thirdworld encounters I've had involved people living with much much less consumption than middle class 1st world and even lower class 1st world.




I'm not writing off nature as some thing separate from humanity, because humanity is apart of nature and we can now more or less determine the course of our ecosystem, thanks to the advances enabled by utilizing nature to our benefit. That's why we need to put ourselves in a position to better dictate our interaction with nature. This does not coincide with struggling for animal welfare along side as an equally worthy issue. It is more or less a distraction, at least at this time.

It's not a distraction and there's no reason someone can't fight for dual causes which are ultimately being affected by the same thing, capitalism. I'm not putting one above the other.



Define "less". The argument for socialism is to take economic power in the hands of the whole society of workers and use it in common, thereby freeing the individual from the restricted position of capitalist commodity production and allow individuals to create and consume freely. This would necessitate that humanity consumes more on average. I'm not talking about a world absent of any moderation; I'm saying that arguing for less consumption is opposite to what to socialism necessarily entails.

We need to occupy less space, house, neighborhood etc. Our industrial sectors need a swift kick in the darkness for what they're doing to the planet. If there was a quarter of the ecological impact that over consumption/production has caused I wouldn't be so worried. Perhaps that's the balance that radical systems need. Competent industry with whatever level of consumption takes place so long has it has a drastically less devastating impact on our planet.


In what sense?

I was agreeing that even with animal 'rights' or humane treatment there will still be some animals harmed and killed. I think the main issue is how rampant and unchecked it is right now. Our goal is to always make things better.



Perhaps for a blanket, but I don't think many blankets are made out of fur, or at least I wouldn't want one. Synthetic materials aren't as water proof or frost resistant as natural furs, and do not insulate as good.

Yes they are. They're 10x better which is why you don't see fur on pretty much anything other than models falling on runways.





Even if they did, there isn't a reason they should stop eating meat on moral grounds.

If they were explained how the agricultural run off for animal feed or perhaps the grazing/farm areas themselves were poisoning their drinking water I think they'd stop on moral grounds.







I don't understand, most inhabitants of the developed parts of the world aren't "dying" from the amount of food they are consuming; however not everyone has access to this plethora of food, even in the "first world".

The first world has a huge problem with obesity and diseases that arise from it.





Well if someone who actually could spend a hundred dollars on groceries, and wanted to save money, could do that. However many people don't have that much money and if meat is the only viable option they should eat it.

I assume you go grocery shopping and I find it hard to believe that you've missed the prices of meat and dairy. They are not the healthiest of items either. The point still stands that it's less expensive to not eat them and arguably healthier.



This is not an excuse. Morally condemning militant workers who eat meat would cause nothing but confusing and hinder relations. If you want to bring dietary choices into politics then don't be surprised if your isolated. Eating meat isn't necessarily harming the ecosystem as a whole. Therefore, there is no reason to "educate" them about why their choice to eat meat is wrong.

If it was simply about the act of consuming meat into their bellies then you are correct. The fact is, the industry has a political affect as well and the combination of both mean it's important.




The planet is going to eventually die anyways, that's why it's not as intrinsically valuable as humans are--who have no known end in sight. Humans will eventually have to find homes on other worlds.

I'm going to die anyways as well, I should continue to smoke cigarettes. The fact is we can reduce the amount of suffering, both by animals and people by fixing or eradicating various industries involving animals.






I'm not saying we should trash Earth, obviously. However taking care of our ecosystem requires more than morally criticizing what people eat.

Yes, it requires movement. It requires education. Nobody is 'morally criticizing' meat eaters or fur wearers any more than anti capitalists are 'morally criticizing' people that think corporations are good and cops are lovely.








Eating meat is destroying the planet?

It is contributing to the destruction of ecosystems.

[Glenn Beck]

The worst is all these animal fight videos on youtube:

http://www.imagehut.net/images/cuy5ph8r41j6darcgkay.gif

The training of these poor creatures to turn themselves into fighting machines is simply barbaric.

[Ele'ill]

The worst is all these animal fight videos on youtube:

http://www.imagehut.net/images/cuy5ph8r41j6darcgkay.gif

The training of these poor creatures to turn themselves into fighting machines is simply barbaric.

That doesn't offend me. I think the idea of pets is silly and the idea of animals raised for food for pets is silly but the idea of an animal eating for survival doesn't bother me. :)

I think animal fighting is wrong.

Perhaps you have me mislabeled as someone that would never kill an animal for food. I have and it was for survival.

[Glenn Beck]

That doesn't offend me. I think the idea of pets is silly and the idea of animals raised for food for pets is silly but the idea of an animal eating for survival doesn't bother me. :)

It doesn't offend you that people will get an animal and toss it into a tank or a cage with a predator to be maimed and killed gruesomely for the entertainment of humans?

[Ele'ill]

It doesn't offend you that people will get an animal and toss it into a tank or a cage with a predator to be maimed and killed gruesomely for the entertainment of humans?

Wrong. It doesn't offend me that a predator eats its prey in such a fashion. I said the idea of pets is silly and 'feeder pets' are even sillier.

Animal fighting is wrong. That mouse is that turtle's food.

I'm sorry if the word usage of 'silly' was misunderstood.

[Stand Your Ground]

Language applies to human beings--systematic and clearly defined characters and words that makes up sentences, all of which with an inherent meaning attached.

Cows moo. They might moo with each other, but cows aren't intelligent enough to create language.

But I digress. It seems cows moo with certain "accents" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5277090.stm). :lol:



You seemed to have missed the point. There is no struggle which unites humans and animals.
I don't see how you can seem so sure of that because you don't understand them, you're not in their heads. If you were some super advanced mind reader and said that, I'd believe you, until then, it is my firm belief they speak.

Humans are slaves of the capitalist system, just as chickens are slaves the slaughter system. I see the link. Humans just don't die as fast.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I agree. There are certain industries that are unnecessary and also happen to be extremely destructive.

Like what industries?




By over consumption I am referring to over consumption. Where it moves past need and far into the realm of excessive want.
Define "excessive want".




They would be living with more things. The idea touted on every media outlet is get rich buy more.
Rich people would live with more things if they had less?

If your arguing against the idea that people should be able to consume freely then your arguing against communism. The consumerism touted by media is merely the fetishism of commodities. I'm talking about post-scarcity economics and giving people the right to at least a decent living standard. This would require more consumption on average. The people in the developed world only have to reorganize and go on from there. The people of the undeveloped world have to make real progress--in both construction and consumption.


Actually most of the thirdworld encounters I've had involved people living with much much less consumption than middle class 1st world and even lower class 1st world. No shit. But these "encounters" of yours does not argue against what I was saying. Just because people have less and get by doesn't mean they are happy or do not want/deserve more for their work.

I was saying that we should support the right for impoverished people to consume a healthy amount of food, and have a standard of living equal to that of the developed world -- that requires more consumption.



It's not a distraction and there's no reason someone can't fight for dual causes which are ultimately being affected by the same thing, capitalism. I'm not putting one above the other.
Have fun.


We need to occupy less space, house, neighborhood etc. Our industrial sectors need a swift kick in the darkness for what they're doing to the planet. If there was a quarter of the ecological impact that over consumption/production has caused I wouldn't be so worried. Perhaps that's the balance that radical systems need. Competent industry with whatever level of consumption takes place so long has it has a drastically less devastating impact on our planet.I agree that our development has not been ideal and is creating real problems for both human society and for our environment but that does not mean humans need to consume less.




I was agreeing that even with animal 'rights' or humane treatment there will still be some animals harmed and killed. I think the main issue is how rampant and unchecked it is right now. Our goal is to always make things better.OK then.



Yes they are. They're 10x better which is why you don't see fur on pretty much anything other than models falling on runways.That isn't true fur is commonly worn in cold places. It isn't necessarily expensive either.



If they were explained how the agricultural run off for animal feed or perhaps the grazing/farm areas themselves were poisoning their drinking water I think they'd stop on moral grounds.
I don't really understand what your saying here. Perhaps you could rewrite this?

Eating meat is not morally questionable. Your talking about poison. Obviously I wouldn't want people to poison themselves.




The first world has a huge problem with obesity and diseases that arise from it.This is true however this is a problem that humans experience as a result of alienation and lack of health education, not that they have too much to consume.



I assume you go grocery shopping and I find it hard to believe that you've missed the prices of meat and dairy. They are not the healthiest of items either. The point still stands that it's less expensive to not eat them and arguably healthier.This is true.



If it was simply about the act of consuming meat into their bellies then you are correct. The fact is, the industry has a political affect as well and the combination of both mean it's important.Well then you have an argument against modern politics and lack of health education, as well as environmental degradation--nothing I disagree with.






I'm going to die anyways as well, I should continue to smoke cigarettes. Smoke pipe tobacco instead.


The fact is we can reduce the amount of suffering, both by animals and people by fixing or eradicating various industries involving animals.
In general I agree with this. I wouldn't want to say that all industries involving animals should be eradicated but obviously have to be rid of the backward practices of capitalist production.




Yes, it requires movement. It requires education. Nobody is 'morally criticizing' meat eaters or fur wearers any more than anti capitalists are 'morally criticizing' people that think corporations are good and cops are lovely.At least you aren't.



It is contributing to the destruction of ecosystems.No, capitalist production is contributing to the destruction of ecosystems.



I don't see how you can seem so sure of that because you don't understand them, you're not in their heads. If you were some super advanced mind reader and said that, I'd believe you, until then, it is my firm belief they speak.

They don't speak, they moo. There's a difference for fucks sake. I don't doubt their possibly ability to communicate. I doubt that their communication has anything to do with "speaking", since if they did in fact vocalize clearly recognizable words then they would be at the intelligence level humans are--obviously they aren't.


Humans are slaves of the capitalist system, just as chickens are slaves the slaughter system. I see the link. Humans just don't die as fast.Chickens and other small easy to catch animals were slaughtered way before capitalism ever developed, it's not the fault of capitalism that animals are slaughtered, rather capitalism now determines how animals are slaughtered. Animals are subject to human activity regardless of humanity's economic development.

[Ele'ill]

Like what industries?

Fur, Meat, Biological Engineering




Define "excessive want".

Dying of diseases related to obesity that is running rampant through the 1st world.
Wanting things that you don't need and that required the deaths of many animals to make something that works as a fashion item. Giant houses and the idea of lawns. Urban retail big-box sprawl accompanying housing sprawl. The lack of space in trash heaps. The lack of recycling. Ships floating around carrying trash. The mass production of items that the 1st world buys for pleasure while the actual ecological and 'class impact' of the manufacturing of the product (whatever it is) ends up hurting workers, animals, ecosystems thus the entire planet.

If you want the world to consume more you're in for a very horrid surprise within a number of years post revolution. I know it would never get to this because the majority of the people pushing for social change understand the issues.







Rich people would live with more things if they had less?

I don't understand. Maybe we weren't on the same page here.



If your arguing against the idea that people should be able to consume freely then your arguing against communism.


If there is an issue of overconsumption and the extremely obvious affects of it still in existence post revolution I will argue against whatever aspect of whatever system is in place- that is causing that issue. Consuming freely because the manufacturing and trash disposal/recycling is handled with zero ecological impact then yes, hooray to 'consume freely'.


If you're doing something that you like and you find it's hurting yourself and your friends and family you stop doing it.





The consumerism touted by media is merely the fetishism of commodities. I'm talking about post-scarcity economics and giving people the right to at least a decent living standard. This would require more consumption on average. The people in the developed world only have to reorganize and go on from there. The people of the undeveloped world have to make real progress--in both construction and consumption.


So you're referring to an increase of consumption with things such as food, shelter supplies (building materials) etc..

I agree with that and it isn't what I'm referring to by mentioning overconsumption.




No shit. But these "encounters" of yours does not argue against what I was saying. Just because people have less and get by doesn't mean they are happy or do not want/deserve more for their work.


I wasn't saying this at all, in fact I think I mentioned that this isn't what I meant.

If the third world started to consume in the same fashion that the 1st world is the planet would be absolutely fucked.




That isn't true fur is commonly worn in cold places. It isn't necessarily expensive either.


Fur is usually extremely expensive. The point still stands that there are alternatives to slaughtering animals for fancy jackets. The issue of price and availability is an issue that I'm sure you and I could agree isn't exclusive to this debate and it is a big problem with many different items.



I don't really understand what your saying here. Perhaps you could rewrite this?

I was talking about how the industry does hurt people. They might like 'the taste of meat' but be willing to go without it knowing that the industry is hurting lower class and indigenous peoples all over.


Eating meat is not morally questionable. Your talking about poison. Obviously I wouldn't want people to poison themselves.


Yes it is because we don't need to eat it anymore. We have access to plenty of non meat and non dairy foods now.

It isn't that we're on an island and we only have fruit and meat. Of course I would eat meat.



This is true however this is a problem that humans experience as a result of alienation and lack of health education, not that they have too much to consume.

So they got fat from not eating (consuming) too much of a product?

The cause of it is important to identify so we can stop it but for this conversation it's irrelevant.


Smoke pipe tobacco instead.

tobacco causes cancer among other things.



At least you aren't.

That's odd, I could have sworn someone accused me of it earlier in the thread.



No, capitalist production is contributing to the destruction of ecosystems.

Those industries, if taken over by collectives and operated the same, will do what?

Destroy ecosystems.

This is off the topic of animal 'rights' now.

[Stand Your Ground]

They don't speak, they moo. There's a difference for fucks sake. I don't doubt their possibly ability to communicate. I doubt that their communication has anything to do with "speaking", since if they did in fact vocalize clearly recognizable words then they would be at the intelligence level humans are--obviously they aren't.

Chickens and other small easy to catch animals were slaughtered way before capitalism ever developed, it's not the fault of capitalism that animals are slaughtered, rather capitalism now determines how animals are slaughtered. Animals are subject to human activity regardless of humanity's economic development.
A failure of communication is a 2 way street. You're not listening. Surely humans aren't all on the same level of intelligence, so why don't you justify eating less intelligent humans?

Yes, I know that. But killing was done for survival, not profits.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If you want the world to consume more you're in for a very horrid surprise within a number of years post revolution. I know it would never get to this because the majority of the people pushing for social change understand the issues.



Greater consumption on average doesn't mean humanity will by default neglect the environment. That's the whole point of advocating socialism and a planned economy--to give humans the right and ability to consume freely without systematic negative effects like in capitalism. If your claiming that I don't understand the issues then I find that quite funny.




If there is an issue of overconsumption and the extremely obvious affects of it still in existence post revolution I will argue against whatever aspect of whatever system is in place- that is causing that issue. Consuming freely because the manufacturing and trash disposal/recycling is handled with zero ecological impact then yes, hooray to 'consume freely'.Hooray!


So you're referring to an increase of consumption with things such as food, shelter supplies (building materials) etc.. Absolutely, this is what I mean by more consumption on average.


I agree with that and it isn't what I'm referring to by mentioning overconsumption.Over consumption is a reflection of capitalism, and the unequal development of our world which is an absolute law of capitalism. The people in the developed world over consume because the people in the less developed world don't have enough, to put it quite simply. That's all I really have to say about 'over-consumption'.



I wasn't saying this at all, in fact I think I mentioned that this isn't what I meant.

If the third world started to consume in the same fashion that the 1st world is the planet would be absolutely fucked.Perhaps, but they can't consume in the same fashion because the conditions simply aren't there for them to do so.



Fur is usually extremely expensive. This is very subjective. Fur varies a bit in it's cost, depending on the quality and where it's produced/sold. I think there is an inaccurate assumption that only rich people can afford fur.


The point still stands that there are alternatives to slaughtering animals for fancy jackets."Fancy jackets" aren't the only jackets that use fur. Synthetic fur isn't as good as real fur, and I'm not sure if there are synthetic materials that can match the sheer quality of natural fur.



The issue of price and availability is an issue that I'm sure you and I could agree isn't exclusive to this debate and it is a big problem with many different items.Of course.



I was talking about how the industry does hurt people. They might like 'the taste of meat' but be willing to go without it knowing that the industry is hurting lower class and indigenous peoples all over.Are you sure it's not capitalism that's hurting lower class and indigenous peoples? What is it about the animal industry is inherently harmful to humans?



Yes it is because we don't need to eat it anymore. We have access to plenty of non meat and non dairy foods now.

It isn't that we're on an island and we only have fruit and meat. Of course I would eat meat.Who is "we"? You can't assume everyone has access to non meat foods. I would agree that abstaining from meat and dairy is healthier, but so is abstaining from candy or anything else that is bad for you. Should we ban those things too?

Even if everyone did have access to non meat foods, and an economic system capable of distributing said food; as well as one capable of killing animals reasonably and 'humanely', then how is eating meat morally questionable?



So they got fat from not eating (consuming) too much of a product?You miss the point. The problem is not the degree to which people can consume food, it is the fact that they don't do it responsibly, that results in weight gain.

Saying that people in the developed world are fat because there is so much to consume is like saying a murder killed their victim simply because there are so many guns and bullets available for purchase.



The cause of it is important to identify so we can stop it but for this conversation it's irrelevant. I agree it's irrelevant, but I felt clarification might be of use.





tobacco causes cancer among other things.It's also used as a medicine, pesticide and to relieve stress. Cancer most probably is caused by excessive smoking as well as additives within cigarettes. By smoking pure tobacco from a pipe or a cigar it's not only healthier because of the pureness of the tobacco but also because one doesn't have to inhale to absorb nicotine. Plus it's much better and cheaper than cigarettes.

Unfortunately this is another part of the discussion that is irrelevant which grew out of some comparison.



That's odd, I could have sworn someone accused me of it earlier in the thread. I probably did. Maybe because I thought your arguments were based on moralism. I don't think they are now.





Those industries, if taken over by collectives and operated the same, will do what?

Destroy ecosystems.This is a huge assumption that doesn't take into account what the abolition of capitalism and establishment of socialism means. Those industries simply wont have the freedom to destroy ecosystems (if they are to begin with) since they will be regulated and controlled by the state and/or the whole of society in common.


This is off the topic of animal 'rights' now.Pretty much. Though it wasn't a bad discussion. I find my self agreeing with you more than I disagree.


A failure of communication is a 2 way street. You're not listening. Surely humans aren't all on the same level of intelligence, so why don't you justify eating less intelligent humans?

Poor strawman.


Yes, I know that. But killing was done for survival, not profits.It's still done for survival in many parts of the world.

Will it be ok to kill animals after profits are made superfluous, thereby making the utilization of animals not for profit but for use (survival)?

[Ele'ill]

Greater consumption on average doesn't mean humanity will by default neglect the environment.

I understand the goals of a socialist system of doing things but I doubt consumption can continue the way it is at the rate it is without more irreversable consequences.



Absolutely, this is what I mean by more consumption on average.

I think the people that don't have basic needs will consume more to get those basic needs but I don't think everyone having everything they want is productive nor healthy for them or the environments they live in.


Over consumption is a reflection of capitalism, and the unequal development of our world which is an absolute law of capitalism. The people in the developed world over consume because the people in the less developed world don't have enough, to put it quite simply. That's all I really have to say about 'over-consumption'.

If the peoples of the global south started some how consuming the way the global north is we'd be fucked. The goal isn't to replicate what the north is doing.



This is very subjective. Fur varies a bit in it's cost, depending on the quality and where it's produced/sold. I think there is an inaccurate assumption that only rich people can afford fur.

I think the point is that fur is used as fashion items which aren't needed. Generally fur is more expensive.


"Fancy jackets" aren't the only jackets that use fur. Synthetic fur isn't as good as real fur, and I'm not sure if there are synthetic materials that can match the sheer quality of natural fur.

The primary industry for fur revolves around fashion. Synthetic fur may not be better than real fur- I don't know- I was referring to synthetic materials over fur as they are much higher quality in regards to warmth and the synthetics that are not used primarily for warmth don't involve the killing of an animal.





Are you sure it's not capitalism that's hurting lower class and indigenous peoples? What is it about the animal industry is inherently harmful to humans?

The sheer size of the industry and many of its practices. Capitalism or not- I think many if not all of the animal industries are unecessary- again- revolving around the idea that we do not need meat and dairy if we have access to alternative food sources due to the end of geographic restrictions that previously had us seeking meat as a nutritional necessity.





Who is "we"? You can't assume everyone has access to non meat foods. I would agree that abstaining from meat and dairy is healthier, but so is abstaining from candy or anything else that is bad for you. Should we ban those things too?

The end of meat and dairy is not going to be an immediate thing- the goal will be that everyone has access to food that they currently do not.

Aside from animal biproducts that may exist in candy- we generally don't have to kill an organism in order to make candy. There are not too many 'free toffee' movements that I am aware of.


Even if everyone did have access to non meat foods, and an economic system capable of distributing said food; as well as one capable of killing animals reasonably and 'humanely', then how is eating meat morally questionable?

Because there is an alternative to eating meat- a questionably healthier one at that- and there would be no need to kill animals. The issue of humane treatment isn't an option in my mind right now because it's essentially an option of humanely keeping them alive to kill them because some people like the taste. It's selfish control over a living creature for what I would consider lavish wants.



You miss the point. The problem is not the degree to which people can consume food, it is the fact that they don't do it responsibly, that results in weight gain.

This would get into supply and demand. If people are uneducated about the effects or numbed to the effects and they want it they're going to ask for it- perhaps in excess.







It's also used as a medicine, pesticide and to relieve stress. Cancer most probably is caused by excessive smoking as well as additives within cigarettes. By smoking pure tobacco from a pipe or a cigar it's not only healthier because of the pureness of the tobacco but also because one doesn't have to inhale to absorb nicotine. Plus it's much better and cheaper than cigarettes.

I disagree with this but we can create another thread on it if we want.



I probably did. Maybe because I thought your arguments were based on moralism. I don't think they are now.


I think morals play into the discussion.



This is a huge assumption that doesn't take into account what the abolition of capitalism and establishment of socialism means. Those industries simply wont have the freedom to destroy ecosystems (if they are to begin with) since they will be regulated and controlled by the state and/or the whole of society in common.

If the demand for what I would consider useless items with a huge ecological impact continue- and the consumption continues- there will still be the same problems.


Pretty much. Though it wasn't a bad discussion. I find my self agreeing with you more than I disagree.

This thread was handled more as a discussion than an angry yelling match as some of the other ones have. Thanks :thumbup1:

[MarxSchmarx]

Here is an animal rights pic I found on the internet, I think it is important to have a diversity of opinion here:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/279704960/COCKROACH-TRAPS-Clean-Effective-Easy-Insect-Killer.jpg

ALL animals deserve a comfortable and nurturing home. We shouldn't destroy them like this. It is so sad.

[Ele'ill]

Here is an animal rights pic I found on the internet, I think it is important to have a diversity of opinion here:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/279704960/COCKROACH-TRAPS-Clean-Effective-Easy-Insect-Killer.jpg

ALL animals deserve a comfortable and nurturing home. We shouldn't destroy them like this. It is so sad.


Sarcasm?

I've lived with roaches. The big trick is to not leave food out. :rolleyes:

'Oh well they're coming from someone else's apartment/house' it's a fucking insect get over the hysterical behavior you were taught. When you see an ant you don't run to the DoD's private chemical arsenal and blow your trust fund on stock piles.

[Stand Your Ground]

It's still done for survival in many parts of the world.

Will it be ok to kill animals after profits are made superfluous, thereby making the utilization of animals not for profit but for use (survival)?
With the end of capitalism I would hope that would bring about the end of factory farms and bring back more wide open free range farms, eating meat is natural but the way they are treated is not. If what I said was to come about I would even eat meat again. I didn't go vegan cause I thought it was wrong to eat meat, I did it as a sort of self protest against factory farms.

As for fur and leather, well leather could be made after cows were (humanely) killed for food, but I don't see any reason for animals to be killed just for the reason of clothing.

And we must just overall find an alternative to medical research other than testing on animals.

[mykittyhasaboner]

And we must just overall find an alternative to medical research other than testing on animals.

So what kind of alternative do you propose for testing medical solutions? Medicines will be tested on humans as well as animals either way....it's just a matter of minimizing potential risk.

[Ele'ill]

So what kind of alternative do you propose for testing medical solutions? Medicines will be tested on humans as well as animals either way....it's just a matter of minimizing potential risk.



I am interested in this as well. How much of the research is actually accurate or transferable to a medicine/procedure involving a humans? What percentage of doctors or 'medical professionals' use animal testing data? What is the success rate of animal testing and how is success or progress measured?







(fun fact- many of the tests involve looking for distress, pain and confusion in the animal)

[MarxSchmarx]

Sarcasm?

I've lived with roaches. The big trick is to not leave food out. :rolleyes:

'Oh well they're coming from someone else's apartment/house' it's a fucking insect get over the hysterical behavior you were taught. When you see an ant you don't run to the DoD's private chemical arsenal and blow your trust fund on stock piles.

Yes it was sarcasm, it's also commentary on how most "animal rights" groups use cute and cuddly mammals for propaganda, though I remember a few years ago peta did protest a cockroach eating contest to their everlasting credit.

So many people forget how roaches and scorpions and tapeworms and fleas and sharks and mosquitoes are also animals.

And if you think it's about live and let live,they are a public health hazard and their dropping have been linked to instances of asthma. And it's not as easy as keeping your house "free of food" - where I grew up they were a fact of life and everyone had a few of them every now and then.

[Ele'ill]

And if you think it's about live and let live,they are a public health hazard and their dropping have been linked to instances of asthma. And it's not as easy as keeping your house "free of food" - where I grew up they were a fact of life and everyone had a few of them every now and then.


I've lived with them too. They can do more harm than asthma if i'm not mistaken. Live and let live until your life is threatened.

[MarxSchmarx]

I've lived with them too. They can do more harm than asthma if i'm not mistaken. Live and let live until your life is threatened.

Huh, that's interesting. I am genuinely curious, it is strange because in the tropics where they are native they are actually relatively harmless detrivores. In fact arguably urbanization has made them the pest that they have become, and the asthma thing has to do with the extremely high crowding conditions that the tenements lead to. What other health hazards have roaches been implicated in of late?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I think your pics deffinetly get the point across. As a vegan I hope they can change some peoples minds about the whole meat thing.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Shit guys, I guess the gig's up. Some cute furry animals dies a horrible death, so we're going to have to put all our efforts to stop people from hurting animals. Nevermind that the majority of the world lives in squalid conditions and do brutal labour every day, we have to make sure seals stay safe!:rolleyes:

Seriously though, if you've ever been to a third world country, "animal rights'' is an absolutely absurd idea that occurs to no one. I remember in Peru there was a sick baby guinea pig in a stall at a peasant farm I was living on; the peasant picked it up and threw it over a wall because it had no use to us.

Our superiority over animals is what has made us dominant species, and any attempt to divert the importance of class struggle to the suffering of animals is pure first world liberal tripe.

[Invincible Summer]

Yes it was sarcasm, it's also commentary on how most "animal rights" groups use cute and cuddly mammals for propaganda, though I remember a few years ago peta did protest a cockroach eating contest to their everlasting credit.

So many people forget how roaches and scorpions and tapeworms and fleas and sharks and mosquitoes are also animals.

To use the Peter Singer argument, I think most vegetarians (not sure about vegans, as they are usually a bit more militant about what is ethical to kill) would be okay with killing things like insects and mollusks, etc simply because they most likely have a very primitive nervous system and won't really feel 'suffering' anyway. Any physiological response they have to being sprayed with bug spray or flicked or whatever are most likely reaction-responses rather than an act of suffering.

[Foldered]

Our superiority over animals is what has made us dominant species, and any attempt to divert the importance of class struggle to the suffering of animals is pure first world liberal tripe.
The argument I made earlier is that because you support animal rights does not necessarily mean that you're diverting the importance of class struggle and it seems narrow and antagonistic to suggest that much.

And just because we are "superior" to things does not mean we must dominate them. What does that rhetoric bring to mind?

[Forward Union]

I'd like to point out,as a non-vegetarian, that your indifference to the commodification of animals bears striking similarity to the indifference of the bourgoisie to the commodification of living labor.

Yes, it's called self-interest. The Bourgoisie have an interest in the exploitation of workers. Hence I don't appeal to their good will to end capitalism, I appeal to the self activity opf those who have a self interest in overthrowing capitalism.

Equally, I have an interest in maintaining the production of meat and continued experimentation on animals. So unless that changes I will continue supporting it in some way or another*

*I need to add that I do not "support" the meat industry politically, it's the same as any other industrial industry, but Im rather refering to the 'moral' point of lordship over animals.

[Forward Union]

(fun fact- many of the tests involve looking for distress, pain and confusion in the animal)

As opposed to what? Doing it to prisoners or mentally retarded people? or perhaps not doing it atall and letting diseases get the better of us?

[eclipse]

"privilege" argument:
It is true, that there are regions on earth, where the eating of meat is a necessity to survival without excessive imports. The arctic come to mind, as do the mongolian plains as extreme examples.
There are not many vegans/animal righters arguing against people dependent on hunting to survive doing this.

But to accuse vegans with being ignorant to the troubles of world hunger as a whole for having the luxury to choose their own way of diet is ignorant of simple logic and economics at best. At worst, its pure hypocrisy to justify a cetain style of life against better knowledge.

The animals who are slaughtered in the millions each day to feed the excessive western consumption of meat need nutrition.
h t t p :// w w w .g o v e g. c o m/worldhunger.asp

It seems to me, the real western/euro-centrists here are the convinced carnivores. Compared to vegans, they might have a ecological footprint that adds up to driving a sports car. There is no solidarity with the poor in overusing ressources that could also be used to be shared with and enrich them. Yes, I know that capitalism itself stands in the way of "sharing" there. But veganism is not a privilege, at least excessive consumption of meat... is. You won`t find it in third world countries. But you will find a lot of vegetarians there, or most time - vegetarians. Meat is expensive.

"communism means more consumption not less"
Don`t misunderstand me. I am not arguing for overall abstinence from consumption or self chosen poverty. But if we place people over short lived profit, we have to act in a way that secures the basics of survival for coming generations (clean air, water, food, energy, ressources of all kinds) and does not erode the basics of our life. If the whole world would live like the west at the moment, we couldn`t breath the air any longer. We have to reduce our consumption to rational levels. There is no second chance.
h t t p : / / w w w . a n t i p o p e . o r g/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

"rights as a human concept" argument:
That is true. As far as we know, it seems unlikely that a certain group of other animals than humans have a concept like rights. But that is irrelevant to the cause, because rights in this case are constructed to influence human behavior towards animals.
We grant rights to severly disabled, young or old humans who cannot speak for themselves, or have no concept of rights too. To kill feeling beings who are weaker, less intelligent or somehow else inferior to you is just chauvinistic.

"(other) animals are not compareable to humans" argument:
True in some way too. As chimps aren`t really comparable to dolphins in many ways. Ruling out arguments based on simple superiority we end up with
"i place my own species first and dominant" (speciesism, practical but not ethical)
"animals do kill/torture/enslave among themselves too" (the deeds of others are no justification for my own)

go vegan :thumbup1:

@the pictures:
I dislike the portrayal of violence and cruelty but for some people it might work. I personally think positive images might bring about better results, because negative images might contain an accusation, that blocks others because of defensible reflexes. As seen in this thread perhaps.
Your typography is really flawed. Try to read some tutorials about designing posters and script, improvment there is quite easy.

You might find free fonts on dafont.com for example.