Animal Rights

[csquared]

In a communist society, will there be charities for animals? Like for old race horses or greyhounds? Or will they be unnecessary because since it is not all about the money anymore, they will be better taken care of? (and i know communists are against charity; I am too, im just wondering)

[Zav]

In a communist society, will there be charities for animals? Like for old race horses or greyhounds? Or will they be unnecessary because since it is not all about the money anymore, they will be better taken care of? (and i know communists are against charity; I am too, im just wondering)
They will be much better off because those used for food would be raised ethically, i.e. not in CAFOs.

Not all Communists are against charity. I am quite for it. I just do not want it to take the place of the welfare programs while the State and Capitalism still exist. The truly Communist society operates on a gift economy, correct? That would seem to be a system of charity.

[csquared]

charity = cultural capitalism....it keeps capitalism around longer

[Zav]

charity = cultural capitalism....it keeps capitalism around longer
Care to explain? Charity now would preserve Capitalism, but not after the revolution, which is what I wrote.

[csquared]

the stage we are in right now is called capitalism. For example when you go into Starbucks you pay a little extra for a cup of coffee because some of it goes to the needy in Africa blah, blah. The charity that goes to Africa is helping the people that are starving over there with the same system that hurt them! And it goes with any charity here in the states, it just appeases the masses and uses the SAME system to help them, that hurt them. In a communist society there would be no need for charity to appease the masses

[Zav]

the stage we are in right now is called capitalism. For example when you go into Starbucks you pay a little extra for a cup of coffee because some of it goes to the needy in Africa blah, blah. The charity that goes to Africa is helping the people that are starving over there with the same system that hurt them! And it goes with any charity here in the states, it just appeases the masses and uses the SAME system to help them, that hurt them. In a communist society there would be no need for charity to appease the masses
Yes, obviously.
Yes, we all know free trade sucks.
Giving goods one makes to those who have need of them IS charity. From each according to his ability...


I think we're just misinterpreting each other.
Back to the topic...

[$lim_$weezy]

I know I'm probably a minority in saying that I think that the exploitation of both people and animals is wrong. I would hope that after the revolution, animals would not be used for human pleasure at their own expense. They are of course not on the same cognitive level as humans, but I think most are developed enough in the area to deserve freedom from exploitation, as much as possible.

IMO, "charity" after the revolution would simply be the gift economy, as Zav described. There would be no money, and goods would be given out freely to those who needed/wanted them (ideally).

[csquared]

I know I'm probably a minority in saying that I think that the exploitation of both people and animals is wrong. I would hope that after the revolution, animals would not be used for human pleasure at their own expense. They are of course not on the same cognitive level as humans, but I think most are developed enough in the area to deserve freedom from exploitation, as much as possible.

IMO, "charity" after the revolution would simply be the gift economy, as Zav described. There would be no money, and goods would be given out freely to those who needed/wanted them (ideally).

i agree about the animals.

[Property Is Robbery]

I am a vegan and I honestly believe it all depends on what party is the vanguard for the revolution or who ends up holding power. I have heard many people on here who not only don't care about animals but think it would be ridiculous to make any attempt to end their suffering post-revolution. I do know that the Party for Socialism and Liberation has a small section about animals being treated better after the revolution in their program.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

There's no need for charities for race dogs and race horses, for what purpose do they serve when those games are no more?

[csquared]

there wont be horse racing in a communist society?

[Stand Your Ground]

there wont be horse racing in a communist society?
I would certainly hope not. Animal racing isn't about the animals having fun, it's about idiots trying to gain money off gambling.

[csquared]

I would certainly hope not. Animal racing isn't about the animals having fun, it's about idiots trying to gain money off gambling.

what if it was just about the sport? with no gambling?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

what if it was just about the sport? with no gambling?

Is that a sport? Watching running animals is a sport now? :laugh:

[Lanky Wanker]

If we (left wing/commies/whatever) are all aiming to end poverty then why would we be against charity? I can see how it feeds capitalism in a way and doesn't really provide a long term solution, but shouldn't we put our money where our mouths are and do something about helping the poor if we can?

[csquared]

If we (left wing/commies/whatever) are all aiming to end poverty then why would we be against charity? I can see how it feeds capitalism in a way and doesn't really provide a long term solution, but shouldn't we put our money where our mouths are and do something about helping the poor if we can?

charity keeps capitalism around longer!

[$lim_$weezy]

Here's where you have to weigh the short-term gains that possibly keep people's faith in the capitalist system with attempts at long-term gains that could be bad for people in the short-term. For example, should we fight to raise worker's wages? If they have higher wages and are more content, they will be less likely to revolt. However, if they have lower wages now, they are suffering and we have not helped them at all. A difficult tactical question, to be sure. I'm inclined to think that leftists should fight for short-term goals, and that, if leftist organizations are the ones winning things for the workers, it will sway them over even more.

[Stand Your Ground]

what if it was just about the sport? with no gambling?
Forcing other beings to race is not a sport. Sports are played by those who choose to play. For lack of a better term, I'd call it 'entertainment slavery'.

[csquared]

Here's where you have to weigh the short-term gains that possibly keep people's faith in the capitalist system with attempts at long-term gains that could be bad for people in the short-term. For example, should we fight to raise worker's wages? If they have higher wages and are more content, they will be less likely to revolt. However, if they have lower wages now, they are suffering and we have not helped them at all. A difficult tactical question, to be sure. I'm inclined to think that leftists should fight for short-term goals, and that, if leftist organizations are the ones winning things for the workers, it will sway them over even more.

charity is helping the person with the same system that hurt them, i agree with you, but charity is different then wages, etc. charity is like the word "tolerate"

[Vanguard1917]

what if it was just about the sport? with no gambling?

What's wrong with enjoying a flutter at the dogs' every now and again?

And charities for retired race dogs may make some humans feel better about themselves for whatever odd reason, but it makes absolutely zero difference to the greyhound whether it is put down once its running days are over or it ends up chewing a bone on the soft rug by the fireplace of a nice family. A communist society would do well to try not to humanise animals.

[$lim_$weezy]

csquared: As wages are a product of the capitalist system, that too is helping the person within the same system that hurt them. Improving living conditions, and having the left associated with them, is, I think, a good goal to have.

Vanguard1917: It certainly does not make "zero difference" whether an animal is killed or lives a good life. A communist society would do well not to say that simply because an animal is not a human that it is entirely incapable of feeling and undeserving of freedom from exploitation. Because it is not exactly like us does not mean it is entirely unlike us.

[Kamos]

Look guys, humanity is at the top of the food chain. And why? Because our minds work differently than those of animals. According to our current scientifical viewpoint, animals just don't have complex thoughts of death and suffering like us. They feel pain and that's why we should minimise their pain and suffering by not torturing them before killing them and not putting nose piercings into them. However, when it comes to killing an animal - if it needs to be done, do it. It may break one's heart if you learn that little kitties are being put to sleep because they can't be cared for, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. (And in this case, this might actually be true.)

[GPDP]

I love animals as much as the next guy or gal, and it does depress me thinking about an animal being put down simply because I like them that much. But in the end, I put my emotions to the side and think about the subject matter rationally. Animals, as VG1917 said, simply do not process events anywhere as thoroughly as we do. Whether we decide to put them down or put them in a nursing home or what have you, they won't care because they can't care. They won't be grateful to you either way because they just don't think on that level.

The best we can do is, of course, prevent animal cruelty, because they do feel pain and we should minimize that (not to mention performing cruel acts tends to disturb the person performing the act on some level, so there's that). But let us not anthropomorphize animals because we feel an emotional attachment to them.

[$lim_$weezy]

Just because humanity has the ability to exploit does not mean that it should. Animals have some degree of consciousness, and this quality should give them freedom from exploitation. The fact that their thoughts are less complex is of course true. Further, if the choices are absolutely confined to long-term suffering or being put down, I think that being put down is to be preferred if what is thought about their inability to comprehend death is true. However, they can suffer. Not all of their pain responses travel directly through the spinal cord. Their brains are capable of experiencing pain; it is not just an outward reaction.

Ignorance may be bliss, but truth is preferable to both (not like there is necessarily a conflict between truth and bliss).

[$lim_$weezy]

GPDP: They can't care about anything or even think about the conditions they are in or be happy but they can experience pain and misery in a meaningful way? How does that make sense?

[GPDP]

GPDP: They can't care about anything or even think about the conditions they are in or be happy but they can experience pain and misery in a meaningful way? How does that make sense?

I guess the more accurate thing to say is that they can't fully appreciate the freedom you seem to consider so important to give them. You say animals should be free of exploitation, but they can't even comprehend the fact they're being exploited. All they can really process is discomfort and pain in the process, and like I said, that should be minimized and outright cruelty should be prevented, not least because animal cruelty tends to make sociopaths out of people.

But otherwise, I don't see why we should take an absolute position on the matter of animals being used for our benefit. All I'm getting from you are lofty idealist platitudes about how animals deserve liberty and freedom from all exploitation because... they just do, and it's the right thing to do. It's a position that reeks of emotional attachment to the cute little buggers, not a rational analysis of whether it is actually worth it to do so, and discounts the fact that, as I said, animals aren't even self-aware, let alone comprehend something as complex as rights.

[Property Is Robbery]

I guess the more accurate thing to say is that they can't fully appreciate the freedom you seem to consider so important to give them. You say animals should be free of exploitation, but they can't even comprehend the fact they're being exploited. All they can really process is discomfort and pain in the process, and like I said, that should be minimized and outright cruelty should be prevented, not least because animal cruelty tends to make sociopaths out of people.

But otherwise, I don't see why we should take an absolute position on the matter of animals being used for our benefit. All I'm getting from you are lofty idealist platitudes about how animals deserve liberty and freedom from all exploitation because... they just do, and it's the right thing to do. It's a position that reeks of emotional attachment to the cute little buggers, not a rational analysis of whether it is actually worth it to do so, and discounts the fact that, as I said, animals aren't even self-aware, let alone comprehend something as complex as rights.
Well the first argument was addressed, pain. The second is the fact that the vast majority of grain is fed to animals to produce a small amount of meat. Same with 80% of all soy produced. That could be feeding humans, its a huge waste.

[twenty percent tip]

Animals: Right this way into my belly.

[GPDP]

Well the first argument was addressed, pain. The second is the fact that the vast majority of grain is fed to animals to produce a small amount of meat. Same with 80% of all soy produced. That could be feeding humans, its a huge waste.

Well, that's another argument entirely. Waste is definitely a concern. But the main argument is on whether animals should have rights on par with us, and I think it's silly to give them such.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Animals: Right this way into my belly.

Aahhhahaha. This. But also humane treatment.

[Property Is Robbery]

Well, that's another argument entirely. Waste is definitely a concern. But the main argument is on whether animals should have rights on par with us, and I think it's silly to give them such.
On par with us? Like voting, marriage equality etc...

Who ever advocated that? Animal rights is about animals being treated humanely and not tortured their whole lives to maximize profits

[$lim_$weezy]

The argument is on not whether they should have rights on par with us, but what rights they should have. They can experience pain, so I do not think we should cause them pain. They do not understand politics, so they should not be able to vote. That would be ridiculous of course. I'm not saying animals are on par with humans, but what rights they should receive is based on what they can comprehend and experience, pain being one of them. When I use the word "exploitation", I mean use by others at the exploited being's detriment. Obviously, if the animal is not hurt by it in any way, then it is not exploitation.

[GPDP]

On par with us? Like voting, marriage equality etc...

Who ever advocated that? Animal rights is about animals being treated humanely and not tortured their whole lives to maximize profits

Eh, you know what I meant.

And obviously I agree with the whole "maximizing profits" part, and factory farming as it currently stands is abhorrent, not just for animals but for the workers as well. But on the abstract, I think a line needs to be drawn on what "humane treatment" really means. I can only assume since you're vegan that you're completely opposed to animals being raised for food altogether, so I'd imagine part of "humane treatment" for you (and do correct me if I'm wrong) means letting them be, period.

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat, so I guess I'd like for animals to be raised at minimum discomfort and then given a quick, non-torturous death. The image still causes me some discomfort, obviously, but again, I do believe eating some meat is beneficial for (many) humans, so it's not too bad as long as the process is nowhere near as hideous as it currently is. The animals involved won't really object to it in the end, will they?

[$lim_$weezy]

Animals may not be able to comprehend the abstract idea of rights, but they can certainly comprehend the conditions that arise from the application of rights to them. They don't know what "freedom from exploitation" is, but they DO know what is immediately affecting them, such as having poor living conditions.

The animals will not object in the end because they will be dead.

[Stand Your Ground]

Look guys, humanity is at the top of the food chain. And why? Because our minds work differently than those of animals. According to our current scientifical viewpoint, animals just don't have complex thoughts of death and suffering like us. They feel pain and that's why we should minimise their pain and suffering by not torturing them before killing them and not putting nose piercings into them. However, when it comes to killing an animal - if it needs to be done, do it. It may break one's heart if you learn that little kitties are being put to sleep because they can't be cared for, but as they say, ignorance is bliss. (And in this case, this might actually be true.)
It really pisses me off how animals are killed because humans feel they are of no use because no humans take them in. Animals belong in the wild! Stop locking them in cages and let em the fuck go.

[Tim Finnegan]

Is that a sport? Watching running animals is a sport now? :laugh:
Certain equestrian sports will doubtlessly be retained. "Horse racing" in the usual sense of the term is exceptional among the field, not the rule.


Forcing other beings to race is not a sport. Sports are played by those who choose to play. For lack of a better term, I'd call it 'entertainment slavery'.
I do agree to an extent, but it is worth noting that horses don't always resist participation, or require intense psychological manipulation to make them accept it. As I mention above, "horse-racing" in the usual sense is not really in line with other equestrian sports, which usually put rather less psychological and physical strain on the animal. Race-horses have been known to drop dead from adrenaline overdose after finishing a race, but the same can't be said of dressage or cross-country.


And charities for retired race dogs may make some humans feel better about themselves for whatever odd reason, but it makes absolutely zero difference to the greyhound whether it is put down once its running days are over or it ends up chewing a bone on the soft rug by the fireplace of a nice family. A communist society would do well to try not to humanise animals.
It is possible to avoid objectifying animals without humanising them.


It really pisses me off how animals are killed because humans feel they are of no use because no humans take them in. Animals belong in the wild! Stop locking them in cages and let em the fuck go.
That's satisfying rhetoric, sure enough, but it's not particularly accurate: most animals which are currently in captive have been bred as such, and would not only be torn to pieces in the wild, but would likely cause enormous ecological disruption in the process. I fully agree that human ownership of animals as such is something that we should strive to abolish, but to "let them go", as you suggest, really makes no sense.

[twenty percent tip]

Be humane to animals?Id be animal to animal and humane to humans. Maybe then the "humane society" can help all the homeless people and starvingandunemployed instead of gassing out straydogs and attackiung people who dont pamper their pet dogs like a childor eat meat. Howmany elk ever lent you some change or helped you change a tire?>They helped me beat the hungermonster between two slices of bread though. yum

[hatzel]

That's the second time you've been trolling in this thread. Your insight is unprecedented, though, thanks for your valuable contributions! :)

[$lim_$weezy]

I'm not sure what I just read...

Animals are incapable of lending change or helping change a tire, so we shouldn't expect them to. We are talking about what they ARE capable of.

[twenty percent tip]

noproblem. let meknow how clerical socialism works out for you doug

[Chris]

Animal rights are completely unimportant to me as long as humans still starve, are brutally exploited and left to fend for themselves against the ravages of the capitalist system.
Especially farm animals like pigs, cows/bulls, sheep, etc. They do not have the intelligence, or whatever you can call it, to realise the conditions they live in. I'm for eliminating unnecessary cruelty to animals, but ultimately... they are just animals. With the exception of dolphins, rats, crows, most great apes and some more, they do not have the consciousness necessary to even have a vague concept of a right.

Focusing on animal rights, while capitalism still exists, is a waste of resources that could have gone towards the fight for worker's rights and socialism.

[$lim_$weezy]

No resources are even used. Not eating meat is cheap and easy to do. I admit, though, that focusing on it is going a bit too far.

[Quail]

We're talking about a post-revolutionary society. So people would not be living in shitty conditions. I think that perhaps "rights" is the wrong word to use, but I'm totally against any unnecessary animal cruelty. I see it more as a human responsibility to treat animals right, since we have the power and the choice whether or not to make them suffer.

[Tim Finnegan]

Focusing on animal rights, while capitalism still exists, is a waste of resources that could have gone towards the fight for worker's rights and socialism.
I disagree. Capitalism is a hegemonic system; it's ideologically tentacles are universally present, so they must be contested universally, and that includes contesting the objectification of sentient beings. We can't limit ourselves to those struggles that only serve the interests of straight white men.

Of course, for the entire left to focus on animal rights would be foolish, but the same could be said of women's rights, or ecological issues, or labour organisation, or any other field. The division of attention is possible, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise.

[Property Is Robbery]

Eh, you know what I meant.

And obviously I agree with the whole "maximizing profits" part, and factory farming as it currently stands is abhorrent, not just for animals but for the workers as well. But on the abstract, I think a line needs to be drawn on what "humane treatment" really means. I can only assume since you're vegan that you're completely opposed to animals being raised for food altogether, so I'd imagine part of "humane treatment" for you (and do correct me if I'm wrong) means letting them be, period.

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat, so I guess I'd like for animals to be raised at minimum discomfort and then given a quick, non-torturous death. The image still causes me some discomfort, obviously, but again, I do believe eating some meat is beneficial for (many) humans, so it's not too bad as long as the process is nowhere near as hideous as it currently is. The animals involved won't really object to it in the end, will they?
I will personally never eat meat but no I don't feel humane treatment includes not killing them for food. I think free range meat is humane. I don't like it but I don't think anyone should be forced to not eat it. I wish everyone could just hunt if they wanted meat that badly but they're lazy/busy..

I also don't think eating meat is beneficial. Could you explain?

[Property Is Robbery]

Be humane to animals?Id be animal to animal and humane to humans. Maybe then the "humane society" can help all the homeless people and starvingandunemployed instead of gassing out straydogs and attackiung people who dont pamper their pet dogs like a childor eat meat. Howmany elk ever lent you some change or helped you change a tire?>They helped me beat the hungermonster between two slices of bread though. yum
Is English your first language? (No offense if it isn't I'm just curious) That was incomprehensible

[Property Is Robbery]

Animal rights are completely unimportant to me as long as humans still starve, are brutally exploited and left to fend for themselves against the ravages of the capitalist system.
Especially farm animals like pigs, cows/bulls, sheep, etc. They do not have the intelligence, or whatever you can call it, to realise the conditions they live in. I'm for eliminating unnecessary cruelty to animals, but ultimately... they are just animals. With the exception of dolphins, rats, crows, most great apes and some more, they do not have the consciousness necessary to even have a vague concept of a right.

Focusing on animal rights, while capitalism still exists, is a waste of resources that could have gone towards the fight for worker's rights and socialism.
Actually pigs are quite intelligent. But while humans are starving it would benefit them to feed animals grass where they can roam around so the grains and soy that is fed and wasted on them can go to humans

[hatzel]

noproblem. let meknow how clerical socialism works out for you doug

Ah...eejit...?


Capitalism is a hegemonic system; it's ideologically tentacles are universally present, so they must be contested universally, and that includes contesting the objectification of sentient beings. We can't limit ourselves to those struggles that only serve the interests of straight white men.

Somebody can help me out here...what's that quote said by somebody some time that was something along the lines of 'no future revolution will be worthy of the name unless it sees to abolishing all forms of oppression in whatever form they may take'...? Well yeah, that. That quote. Applied also to animals :tt2:

(In the absence of finding the original quote, we can just use my version. It has the same basic point :))

[CommunityBeliever]

I'm a vegan in the sense that I object to the creation of all animal products, since with modern technology we have much more sensible/efficient manufacturing methods that don't require animals.

I have no problem with animal exploitation in the sense of using lab rats and other animals for scientific studies. Just do the scientific studies in a sensible and ethical manner.

How can anyone honestly object to experimenting on animals if it can improve medical technology and save human lives?

[Tenka]

Somebody can help me out here...what's that quote said by somebody some time that was something along the lines of 'no future revolution will be worthy of the name unless it sees to abolishing all forms of oppression in whatever form they may take'...? Well yeah, that. That quote. Applied also to animals
Other animals have always "oppressed" each other in the same capacity that we "oppress" them to feed ourselves; should our ability, alone, to comprehend this so-called "oppression" of non-human animals impel us to give it up? And how this would be germane to any communist, socialist or even anarchist revolution, I fail to see.


I will personally never eat meat but no I don't feel humane treatment includes not killing them for food. I think free range meat is humane. I don't like it but I don't think anyone should be forced to not eat it. I wish everyone could just hunt if they wanted meat that badly but they're lazy/busy..
Hunting the animals is both less efficient and, in my opinion, less humane than farming them: in the former case, they're plucked with a gunshot from the wilderness that they've made their home; in the latter case, they are raised from birth for consumption. There might not be any real difference from the perspective of the animal, but to me, one method looks considerably more barbaric than the other.


I also don't think eating meat is beneficial. Could you explain?
Meat is an ample source of necessary protein and fats. And to the claim earlier that meat production is wasteful: it can be made less so, and anyway, meat does not even make up a very large portion of most omnivorous peoples' diets.

[hatzel]

How can anyone honestly object to experimenting on animals if it can improve medical technology and save human lives?

Well, let's just say that you wouldn't test the effects of chocolate on humans by feeding it to a dog...

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well, let's just say that you wouldn't test the effects of chocolate on humans by feeding it to a dog...

Wow. Great argument. What the hell is your point with that? Nonsense.

[CommunityBeliever]

Meat is an ample source of necessary protein and fats.Indeed, meat is an ample source of saturated fats which help to clog the arteries, and ample of source of protein which leaches calcium from the bones causing osteoporosis and taxing the kidneys causing kidney stones.


And to the claim earlier that meat production is wasteful: it can be made less soIndeed it can. By using vegan cultured meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat).

Animal bodies, including human bodies for that manner, are wasteful. As such, it would be efficient to cut out animal bodies from the manufacturing process as is done by in vitro meat.

Additionally, the nutritional content of in vitro meat can be manipulated for the consumers health, by setting the cholesterol, saturated fat, and protein to healthy levels. Furthermore, in vitro meat won't have to be super-heated and filled with chemicals like the factory-farmed animals most people eat today.

[hatzel]

Wow. Great argument. What the hell is your point with that? Nonsense.

When dogs eat chocolate, they have a tendency to keel over and die. When we eat chocolate, that usually doesn't happen. Take an anti-flea treatment for dogs, apply it to a hedgehog. It will die of...I think respiratory failure, but it might be heart-failure, I don't remember exactly what the hedgehog-ark-man told me...fact of the matter is, plenty of medicines which cure this or that thing in lab-rats would prove fatal to humans. Many medicines which would cure this or that thing in humans would prove fatal to lab-rats. So why exactly do we put our faith in animal testing, when different animals have vastly different reactions to certain chemicals than humans (or indeed other animals) do? Animal testing tells us a certain amount, but it's nowhere near accurate enough to justify its continued practice in the face of the technology being developed to replace it.

That, by the way, is talking only from a medical perspective. Nothing to do with the ethical implications for an animal rights activist.

[Tenka]

Indeed, meat is an ample source of saturated fats which help to clog the arteries, and ample of source of protein which leaches calcium from the bones causing osteoporosis and taxing the kidneys causing kidney stones.
Source indicating that it's an inherent problem with meat?

and anyway, meat does not even make up a very large portion of most omnivorous peoples' diets.


Indeed it can. By using vegan cultured meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat).

Animal bodies, including human bodies for that manner, are wasteful. As such, it would be efficient to cut out animal bodies from the manufacturing process as is done by in vitro meat.

Additionally, the nutritional content of in vitro meat can be manipulated for the consumers health, by setting the cholesterol, saturated fat, and protein to healthy levels.
I have no objections to in vitro meat, thanks for sharing. But I'm not sure, at least in the next few centuries, that it would be capable of replacing consumption of animals altogether.


The factory farmed animals that people eat today are totally unhealthy and full of chemicals, nothing like the wild animals our ancestors ate.
Factory farming does have serious flaws, stemming mainly from capitalist profit motives.

[CommunityBeliever]

justify its continued practice in the face of the technology being developed to replace it.There is a long history of success stories from animal testing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing#Medical_advances

If the technology is developed to get by without animal testing then that's great, and perhaps someday we will be able to get by entirely without it, however, I don't think science shouldn't be held back along the way.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

When dogs eat chocolate, they have a tendency to keel over and die. When we eat chocolate, that usually doesn't happen. Take an anti-flea treatment for dogs, apply it to a hedgehog. It will die of...I think respiratory failure, but it might be heart-failure, I don't remember exactly what the hedgehog-ark-man told me...fact of the matter is, plenty of medicines which cure this or that thing in lab-rats would prove fatal to humans. Many medicines which would cure this or that thing in humans would prove fatal to lab-rats. So why exactly do we put our faith in animal testing, when different animals have vastly different reactions to certain chemicals than humans (or indeed other animals) do? Animal testing tells us a certain amount, but it's nowhere near accurate enough to justify its continued practice in the face of the technology being developed to replace it.

That, by the way, is talking only from a medical perspective. Nothing to do with the ethical implications for an animal rights activist.

Tests are generally not like that. Preliminary tests are done on animals and then the results are investigated. Why did they die? Perhaps test then on another species, more similar to a human; a pig, a monkey, and after evaluating the results, tests and case study investigation can be done on human subjects as well.

It has rarely been reliant exclusively on animal testing, testing on humans is also done. So what sort of faith is it in animal testing? It's part of the procedure and often gives some sort of information valuable to the workings of some medicine or other. Who cares if a few animals die in the process, there's no real need for much of any justification. Any replacement of the use of test animals is some time off, though naturally many other processes are equally important in such development.

You obviously are not strictly speaking from an medical perspective, because you used the term "justify", implying that there is an ethical concern which the medical benefit is insufficient to justify.

[GallowsBird]

I know I'm probably a minority in saying that I think that the exploitation of both people and animals is wrong. I would hope that after the revolution, animals would not be used for human pleasure at their own expense. They are of course not on the same cognitive level as humans, but I think most are developed enough in the area to deserve freedom from exploitation, as much as possible.

Animals are comrades too! :lol:

Actually I am fully in favour of animal liberation as I think the exploitation of other animals is again a symptom of the same explotitive process that has given the world capitalism and imperialism.

I am a vegetarian myself but I can understand the eating of non-Human animals (as much as I personally disagree with it) but using them for entertainment, experimentation is wrong anyway you want to look at it and I cannot ever bring myself to view that as ever right or justified.

[hatzel]

You obviously are not strictly speaking from an medical perspective, because you used the term "justify", implying that there is an ethical concern which the medical benefit is insufficient to justify.

Here in the real world, 'justify' means 'to provide an acceptable explanation for', irrespective of its link to the word 'just'. For example:


It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us, every motion must be considered only as a relative motion. Returning to the illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage, we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms, both of which are equally justifiable

(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment,
(b) The embankment is in motion relative to the carriage.

In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our statement of the motion taking place. —

Something tells me there's nothing about 'ethical concerns' in the above-cited use of the word 'justifiable', that is to say, 'that which can be justified'. I question whether animal testing can be justified from an economic perspective as much as from an ethical perspective, given its inefficient nature. I don't think it's something we should throw our weight behind preserving, when there are significantly more efficient options available.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Here in the real world, 'justify' means 'to provide an acceptable explanation for', irrespective of its link to the word 'just'. For example:

Something tells me there's nothing about 'ethical concerns' in the above-cited use of the word 'justifiable', that is to say, 'that which can be justified'. I question whether animal testing can be justified from an economic perspective as much as from an ethical perspective, given its inefficient nature. I don't think it's something we should throw our weight behind preserving, when there are significantly more efficient options available.

But you have not presented any reason it is not "justifiable", thus the only option is that you consider it morally reprehensible.

What more efficient things are there, then, that, right now, can replace animal testing in its entirety, and second, why has it then not been done? Mice used for snake-feed, or they are used as lab-rats. Then again, there are those insane wackos that think feeding snakes live rats is also morally reprehensible...

[caramelpence]

Do animals have rights? Well, it's important to be clear about what a right means in the first place - simply put, rights are a form of political language that human beings use to signify that there are certain attributes or abilities that are so important or the flourishing or well-being of the agent that they are in need of protection by society. A right is, in basic terms, a protective capsule in linguistic form, that is asserted through acts of public language. The idea of a protective capsule is important and useful because it draws our attention to the fact that the starting-point of rights discourse is the recognition that there are attributes and abilities that are deemed valuable, insofar as they enhance the flourishing of the agent and are an adequate expression of their nature, and which need to receive protection. So the question that arises as far as animals are concerned is whether they have any meaningful attributes or abilities that are in need of protection in order to guarantee their development. I don't think they do. Animals are not reflective or creative beings, they do not exhibit any of the features that are deemed essential to human self-realization. Rights are constructs that are based on a human recognition of the need for protection of what we regard as our own essential attributes and abilities. It seems impossible to specify how rights should apply to animals if rights are properly understood - that is, if our understanding of rights relies on something more than the assumption that the ability to experience pain is in and of itself sufficient to warrant the granting of an extensive set of rights. I fully expect a communist society to take advantage of factory farming and all the other forms of modern technology and production that enable us to make use of animals in the most effective ways possible - including sport, of course.

As an aside, it's probably also true to say that communist society will not offer rights for human beings either - not because the attributes and abilities that certain rights protect will not be respected or considered meaningful, but because the construct of a right is premised on a society in which their corresponding attributes and abilities are in need of protection and where individuals need to make aggressive claims against other individuals in order to protect their own interests. A right is above all an act of assertive public language. In a communist society, where conflictual relationships have come to an end, it's hard to see how aggressive acts of that kind would be necessary.

[Stand Your Ground]

I do agree to an extent, but it is worth noting that horses don't always resist participation, or require intense psychological manipulation to make them accept it. As I mention above, "horse-racing" in the usual sense is not really in line with other equestrian sports, which usually put rather less psychological and physical strain on the animal. Race-horses have been known to drop dead from adrenaline overdose after finishing a race, but the same can't be said of dressage or cross-country.

That's satisfying rhetoric, sure enough, but it's not particularly accurate: most animals which are currently in captive have been bred as such, and would not only be torn to pieces in the wild, but would likely cause enormous ecological disruption in the process. I fully agree that human ownership of animals as such is something that we should strive to abolish, but to "let them go", as you suggest, really makes no sense.
I disagree. As it's not possible for humans to know entirely how animals are feeling I don't think anyone can say they don't resist participation. They don't line up and say 'Hey yeah I wanna race, that sounds fun.' Humans force them to do it. You say a little less psychological and physical strain, which may be true, but it's still unnecessary and just plain stupid. Also it may seem as if they don't care, but it's only because their spirit to fight against it has been broken. It's just like the working class being stuck in capitalism, the majority of the working class spirit has been broken to fight it.

Again, I disagree. Where were domesticated animals before they were domesticated? In the wild. It might take some time but I believe that domesticated animals would regain their wild animal instincts if left in the wild. Cats & dogs are left outside by their 'owners' all the time, I see many strays alive. Animals would at least have a chance at living rather than dying because no human takes them in.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Cats & dogs are left outside by their 'owners' all the time, I see many strays alive. Animals would at least have a chance at living rather than dying because no human takes them in.

Except stray domesticated animals are a serious environmental threat in some areas. They should be put down and eaten.

[$lim_$weezy]

Caramelpence: You have to ask yourself why you think humans should be emancipated, and if there is something in your answer that necessarily excludes non-human animals. I assume you understand their cognitive abilities on some level (pigs being extremely intelligent, as Property is Robbery mentioned). Your conception of rights, just as much as mine, is at some level based on subjective value-judgements, such as what you deem "important to the flourishing or well-being of the agent". The "attributes and abilities that are deemed valuable" do not necessarily exclude the rights of animals. Rights are certainly not only limited to humans. Why would they be? Rights are constructs based on human recognition of the need for protection of things, but that in no way makes them applicable only to humans.

I think the ability to experience pain is enough to grant them the right to not experience any unnecessary pain. Necessary being the key word- but very little pain would I ever consider necessary. That single cognitive ability, taken by itself, does not warrant "an extensive set of rights", but the rights should be granted case-by-case, based on those abilities.

Just because something is not seen by you as "useful"- in other words potentially profitable to the community- does not mean that it is excluded from the having of rights. Well-being for all, not well-being for the socially useful (all as in those that make sense according to my previous paragraph about granting rights).

[caramelpence]

You have to ask yourself why you think humans should be emancipated, and if there is something in your answer that necessarily excludes non-human animals.

I think we can both agree that it is not because humans are humans as such that we should grant them rights - if we met an alien species that had DNA that was very different from human beings (if it had DNA at all!) in strictly biological terms but was like human beings in other respects then we would also want to grant rights to the members of that species in the sense of making sure that they were able to speak and move freely and do and be all the other things that we refer to when we speak in the language of rights. In much the same way, the fact that chimpanzees or gorillas or dolphins are X% similar in their genetic makeup to human beings does not in and of itself means that they should be regarded and treated as rights-bearing entities. It is my contention that there are ways of thinking, acting, and being that are specific to human beings in the sense that they are not shared by any species that we know of and it is those specific features that we should take as the basis of morality in general and rights in particular. In this sense, I am an unapologetic and radical humanist. We, human beings, are unique in our ability to reflect not only on our lives and experiences as individuals but also to ask ourselves where we come from in both biological and philosophical terms - the ability to ask these questions depends on our ability to extract from our immediate circumstances and our particular histories as living individuals, which is not something that animals can do. This distinctively human ability is expressed through highly intricate languages which do not just consist of the use of isolated symbols, but are sufficiently complex and flexible to enable the meaningful teaching and discussion of complex ideas. Human beings also exhibit cultures that have been modified over history and which are constantly evolving and becoming more complex - in part of their own accord, but also because of conscious efforts by societies and institutions. The very fact that we are capable of having complex debates about rights and that we use rights as part of our public and political languages is a striking form of evidence as to just how different and advanced the human species is, because animals certainly do not do this.

However intelligent you may think pigs are, human beings are unique as a species, and this strikes me as something that we should celebrate and be fascinated by, not something that we should try and cover up by saying that we are essentially similar to apes in most of the ways we behave. It is the manifold ways in which humans are unique that, as I said, make it possible to speak of rights and rights-bearing entities, and it is also these unique capacities that should be the basis for the application of rights. A right should fundamentally be a way of protecting and recognizing those things that are specific to human beings and which express the essence of what it means to be a human being. As you rightly point out, these sorts of debates about the application of rights always come down to judgements that are very hard to justify through rigorous processes of logic or argumentation, but for me the uniqueness of human beings has to be the starting-point for any moral discourse, and particularly one that aspires to radically transform the lives of existing human beings. If you reject the need for morality to be centered around human beings, especially our uniqueness, which is what you, to me, invariably (albeit implicitly) do by saying that animals should be granted the same rights as humans, then the rationale for the prioritization of human wellbeing and the celebration of our species' achievements seems to become highly ambiguous, with possibly horrific consequences.


Rights are constructs based on human recognition of the need for protection of things

I am glad you recognize this, but I would make an adjustment - rights are not designed to protect things, they are designed to reflect ways of being and behaving, and in doing so they privilege the actors and agents who are capable of those ways of being and behaving. To say that someone is threatening your right to free speech (say, if the government is refusing to give you a printing license) is a shorthand way of saying that the ability to speak or publish freely is an important ability that should be protected by society and that it is important because it is key to the flourishing of those kinds of actor who are capable of exercising that ability. So rights embody concern both for certain abilities and the agents who are capable of exercising those abilities. Rights are, as I said, a kind of protective capsule expressed in the form of public language.

[$lim_$weezy]

Yes, yes, I realize that humans and animals are different, and I realize that humans have far more cognitive capabilites than other animals. I'm not arguing that we are exactly the same, and I never said that "animals should be granted the same rights as people", which you accuse me of saying.

You seem to think that the criteria for an organism having rights is its ability to comprehend that it has rights. But rights are just abstract conceptions, conceptions that have material significance. The application of rights to animals produces conditions very different than the withholding of rights from them- that is something they can directly experience.

I don't think that granting animals rights somehow invalidates human achievements any more than I think giving someone a compliment belittles myself.

You keep talking about the "flourishing" of those affected- that a right should be essential to the flourishing of those it effects. Unless I misunderstand you, what is less flourishing than being hurt or killed? The "certain abilities" and agents that rights should embody a concern for do not exclude animals, and why should they? Is not their flourishing (meaning what, exactly? freedom from suffering?) important as well?

[Property Is Robbery]

Hunting the animals is both less efficient and, in my opinion, less humane than farming them: in the former case, they're plucked with a gunshot from the wilderness that they've made their home; in the latter case, they are raised from birth for consumption. There might not be any real difference from the perspective of the animal, but to me, one method looks considerably more barbaric than the other.


Meat is an ample source of necessary protein and fats. And to the claim earlier that meat production is wasteful: it can be made less so, and anyway, meat does not even make up a very large portion of most omnivorous peoples' diets.
Of course it's less efficient.. It's not less humane. When someone hunts an animal they get to live their whole lives free. When they're raised for consumption it is done in extremely cramped quarters they are raised on corn and other shit they are not meant to eat, they are treated horribly and then they are slaughtered brutally. There is a huge difference from the viewpoint of the animal. In the wild they aren't kept pregnant their whole lives. Where do you think the animals get their protein? And animal fat isn't healthy fat. I already addressed how it could be made less wasteful, I agree on that point

[Property Is Robbery]

How can anyone honestly object to experimenting on animals if it can improve medical technology and save human lives?
The vast majority of the time they get no usable data out of testing on animals. This is also the 21st century and their could be many more advanced methods

[Stand Your Ground]

Except stray domesticated animals are a serious environmental threat in some areas. They should be put down and eaten.
Oh geez God forbid any living being but a human doing what they need to to survive is such a terrible thing.

[Ele'ill]

Oh no

[Tim Finnegan]

I disagree. As it's not possible for humans to know entirely how animals are feeling I don't think anyone can say they don't resist participation. They don't line up and say 'Hey yeah I wanna race, that sounds fun.' Humans force them to do it. You say a little less psychological and physical strain, which may be true, but it's still unnecessary and just plain stupid. Also it may seem as if they don't care, but it's only because their spirit to fight against it has been broken. It's just like the working class being stuck in capitalism, the majority of the working class spirit has been broken to fight it.
Actually, that's really not true of the more "refined", for want of a better word, equestrian sports. The horses need to be enthusiastic to perform well, and "breaking their spirits" would only serve to give you an utterly useless creature. These creatures aren't carthorses; complicated equestrian sports rely on incredibly close cooperation and mutual understanding between rider and horse, and that's not something you get by breaking it.

Besides, horses that people ride for leisure like it- "like it" as in "will get so carried away running and jumping that they may well forget to pay attention to their rider"- so why would they go off it just because they were in front of a crowd?


Again, I disagree. Where were domesticated animals before they were domesticated? In the wild. It might take some time but I believe that domesticated animals would regain their wild animal instincts if left in the wild.Do you actually know anything about animal husbandry? The current form of domesticated animals is well removed, often by thousands of generations, from their original form, and many simply aren't equipped to survive by themselves, physically or psychologically. Big beasties might survive in those parts of the world where we've wiped out the natives, but that just means that they'll eat themselves- and the existing wildlife- into oblivion.


Cats & dogs are left outside by their 'owners' all the time, I see many strays alive.Strays are usually malnourished and diseased, and survive only by living on human leftovers, or those creatures- such as rats- that live on human leftovers- a supremely unnatural state of affairs by any measure. Not a good example.


Animals would at least have a chance at living rather than dying because no human takes them in.Live where? And how? Are you suggesting that we turn over the entire countryside to our newly feral populations, or are to cram millions upon millions of animals into a few empty fields and forests?

Look, as I said, I agree that human ownership of animals as such is something that we should end. However, simply setting all the animals free at once, apart from being a daydream, is supremely impractical. If it is really so heinous that we should attempt to forward any sort of steward-ward relationship- an avenue of investigation which I think could have merit- then we'd be better ceasing their breeding, and simply letting the populations die of their own accord. It wouldn't take more than a few years for the smaller beasties, and a couple of decades for the bigger ones.


Oh geez God forbid any living being but a human doing what they need to to survive is such a terrible thing.
I wonder, have you heard of the Australian rabbit plague? The effects were rather more than a mere nuisance, and to more living creatures than just humans. And you propose to re-enact this ten times over, on a global scale?

[csquared]

i love animals. and i think it is OUR job to take care of them as a community

[Kuppo Shakur]

Man fuck animals. They can handle themselves, they've been doing it for millions of years. If any resources that could be going to humans goes to animals instead, you better fix your priorities.
We can worry about animals when we're all uploading our minds to the internet and shit.

[csquared]

Man fuck animals. They can handle themselves, they've been doing it for millions of years. If any resources that could be going to humans goes to animals instead, you better fix your priorities.
We can worry about animals when we're all uploading our minds to the internet and shit.

you're a dick; troll

[Os Cangaceiros]

Except stray domesticated animals are a serious environmental threat in some areas. They should be put down and eaten.

And here I thought that this matter had already been solved with rigid theoretical clarity... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/baghdad-takes-aim-t138302/index.html)

[twenty percent tip]

theleft is agreatplace to hang out among fungi. clerical longhair scoliasts preacherswill tell you aboutsocialism and the liberation of ants frmo the dung head. llamas of the world unite!

FJORD!

[TC]

True materialists recognize that humans are animals and that nothing morally relevant neatly separates all humans (including infants and humans who due to congenital conditions have cognitive functions equal to or less than non-human intelligent mammals) from all animals - it is just a matter of extending concern for another being with a mind, feelings, and thoughts (which while perhaps unlike our own, are important to them nonetheless) - those who benefit from others suffering always find excuses to refuse to extend moral consideration to them.

[black magick hustla]

True materialists recognize that humans are animals and that nothing morally relevant neatly separates all humans (including infants and humans who due to congenital conditions have cognitive functions equal to or less than non-human intelligent mammals) from all animals - it is just a matter of extending concern for another being with a mind, feelings, and thoughts (which while perhaps unlike our own, are important to them nonetheless) - those who benefit from others suffering always find excuses to refuse to extend moral consideration to them.

materialism does not say anything about "ought", it is an ontolog
y that refers to what is. all ethical systems start from fundamental axiomatic assumptions (animals feel pain therefore we need to consider them), that have nothing to do whether human beings are made of matter or some shit. whether you find true that we need to concern ourselves about animals is as sound of an argument to whether i like peanut butter or jelly.

[$lim_$weezy]

One must analyze the reason they think people should have rights, and what they think rights are based on. I believe TC is saying that the justification "because we're humans" we should have rights, and animals shouldn't because they aren't human, is not entirely valid. Materialism can indeed expose currents of thought as invalid, if that thought is based on some kind of dualism- animals on one side and humans on the other. In the same way, darwinism destroyed the purely anthropocentric view of the universe. Thus, where the "ought" you are referring to comes in.

[black magick hustla]

One must analyze the reason they think people should have rights, and what they think rights are based on. I believe TC is saying that the justification "because we're humans" we should have rights, and animals shouldn't because they aren't human, is not entirely valid. Materialism can indeed expose currents of thought as invalid, if that thought is based on some kind of dualism- animals on one side and humans on the other. In the same way, darwinism destroyed the purely anthropocentric view of the universe. Thus, where the "ought" you are referring to comes in.

i am a meat eater and i dont believe in rights or whatever and i could care less about an elk. granted i dont buy into weird ethical frameworks or whatever when all of them are as sturdy as a tower of cards. dust is dust

[$lim_$weezy]

As I've said before, rights are abstract, but the conditions that arise from their application are very real. To not "believe in" rights is to cast aside an extremely useful thing. What, exactly, should there be, if not rights? All of logic is a "tower of cards" in relation to the axioms used. However, I don't think you will deny its usefulness.

You have to draw the line somewhere, though that line may not be "sturdy" in the sense you are trying to get at. Then again, nothing is.

[black magick hustla]

As I've said before, rights are abstract, but the conditions that arise from their application are very real. To not "believe in" rights is to cast aside an extremely useful thing. What, exactly, should there be, if not rights? All of logic is a "tower of cards" in relation to the axioms used. However, I don't think you will deny its usefulness.

You have to draw the line somewhere, though that line may not be "sturdy" in the sense you are trying to get at. Then again, nothing is.

i think the point is that there is all this people who use all sorts of waffle to justify their ethical views in the name of being consistent. i find no use in trying to have a perfectly consistent ethical framework. i dont find any use in rights either because i do not believe in the legitimacy of the current social order, so it makes no sense to ask for it things that i or any other group deserves.

[$lim_$weezy]

The current social order has almost nothing to do with rights either, at least in its lack of preserving even those it claims to uphold.

I don't think I understand political activism when it is devoid of what groups "deserve". If you are not fighting for what is deserved, what are you fighting for? Naked self-interest? That could certainly be achieved for you in a better way than communism!

If you deny that even all humans deserve freedom from exploitation and the right to well-being, then why the communism?

Sorry if I misunderstood you, but that's what I got out of it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Rudolph Rocker pretty much nailed it down in real terms:

"Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace." - Rudolph Rocker

Or, to put it in other terms:

9ivYN-j--ao

[Game Girl]

I love animals dearly. I believe animal testing should be banned (I support alternative test methods) and all blood sports should be illegal.

Our furry/scaly/slimey friends share this planet with us. They have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. Yes, I'm a vegetarian. But I don't object to slaughterhouses as long as they make sure the animals end is quick and painless.