Animals in Law Enforcement

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I can't for the life of me find anything even remotely critical of animals being used in law enforcement. I feel like its 'no touch' subject apparently. The majority of what I have found when I have found something, the idea of being critical of the use is dismissed and only the issue of animal safety is discussed. Which while being important, would logically lead to more questions and red flags.

I am speaking primarily of horse cops and K-9 unit cops. I feel this is unnecessarily putting humans, (whom are innocent until proven guilty not guilty and detained until proven innocent), at serious risk and in turn putting the animal officers at risk too. I think it's completely inhumane in this regard. There is no fucking point in friggin horses in city parks and shit in this day and age as, correct me if I am wrong, this is not the medieval times. You know who also used hounds as a means of social control? The Nazis. Why is this not discussed more?

http://thebarebear.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/dogss.jpg

http://authorjenniferchase.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/officer_k9.jpg

[Ele'ill]

I think it's discussed a bit. Folks can get a lot of jail time for defending themselves against k-9 unit dogs. I know here there was a push for the police to get rid of their horses which were primarily used during demos and in parks. They allegedly did but then they made another appearance. The animals are treated as an extension of a cop, or as a cop, but are used as a weapon.

[Skyhilist]

It's pretty fucked up what they do to a lot of the animals - for example, with drug sniffing dogs, they often get the dogs addicted to the substances that they want them to sniff out. Getting animals addicted to drugs to help fuel a war on drugs that is already racist, targets the poor, AND puts animals as risk (illegal drug dealers often smuggle drugs in by cutting open live animals, putting the drugs inside, and sewing things up) - it's real fucking sick.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The animals are treated as an extension of a cop, or as a cop, but are used as a weapon.

This is what I take most issue with. Either the dog is seen as property to be used at the discretion of the cop (not a licensed animal healthcare professional or handler). Or the dog is seen as an "officer," which while giving the appearance of treating the animal as a non-human person is def not the case and I feel the dogs rights are being violated and its totally inhumane. The animal has no say whatsoever in the matter and your putting the animal in intense and often violent situations. Where people thought this is ok in this day and age, idk, u kno?


It's pretty fucked up what they do to a lot of the animals - for example, with drug sniffing dogs, they often get the dogs addicted to the substances that they want them to sniff out. Getting animals addicted to drugs to help fuel a war on drugs that is already racist, targets the poor, AND puts animals as risk (illegal drug dealers often smuggle drugs in by cutting open live animals, putting the drugs inside, and sewing things up) - it's real fucking sick.

I actually didn't know that about the drug thing. I knew during the training of the dog, they acclimate them to the smells but wtf. I'll have to look into this, got any links or sources?

[Ele'ill]

What about service animals? What are your feelings on that? What about pets? Domesticated animals?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What about service animals?

I feel the same more or less though perhaps context/circumstance is important here as a cadaver dog is much different than a beat k9 dog, no?


What about pets?

I think 'pets' or cohabitative companion(s) are ok provided responsible pet ownership is observed which is much more than just food and water.


Domesticated animals?

Like cows and sheep?

[Skyhilist]

I actually didn't know that about the drug thing. I knew during the training of the dog, they acclimate them to the smells but wtf. I'll have to look into this, got any links or sources?

Where I heard this from is from someone who used to be involved with the border patrol and saw this kind of stuff first hand. The internet links on the internet seem to be pretty sparse though. Here's one (I'm not sure how reliable it is though): http://sniggle.net/drugdogs.php

From what it seems, it's less common for the dogs be be addicted to the drugs now (although it still happens), and has gradually become more common for finding a substance to cause the dog to receive some other reward (e.g. a treat). However, even despite that, black drug dealers DO very commonly get their "guard animals" addicted to substances that will make them meaner (for example: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/drug-dealers-getting-dogs-hooked-1366655), and the illegal status of drugs only gives leverage to such drug dealers and their practices, so the fact that law enforcement themselves have done this less over time certainly doesn't solve the problem.

[Skyhilist]

Like cows and sheep?

I think Mar3l meant more along the lines of species bred to be companion animals for human enjoyment rather than agricultural practices (e.g. a dog breed is sold to people who want dogs or snakes are bred for trading).

I know it wasn't asked to me, but it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently, so I'm going to field it anyways.

Personally, I think the effects of such practices need to be explored more, but to play it safe, it's not something that should be supported.

I pretty much have three concerns with it:

1. The commodity status of animals could adversely affect human-animal relationships and cause humans to look at animals as "objects" to be bought and sold, similarly to how the commodity status of workers makes it easier for the bourgeois class to objectify them and their labor.

2. Certain animals likely suffer from the confinement inherent in captivity.

3. With animals that can easily be adopted (cats and dogs), breeding can only hurt, since there are enough homeless animals as their is, and buying bred cats/dogs instead of adopting them will surely lead to an increase in the euthanizing of those in pounds.

Given that I'll say that I do think it makes sense currently that cat and dog breeding should be banned, but not the breeding/sale of exotic animals. My reasoning for that is that most people who want a cat/dog would be willing to adopt one instead of taking a risk and turning to a much more unethical black market to buy a specially bred cat/dog. With exotics though it's different - the black market for exotics is 2nd in GDP only to the black market for drugs. These sales cannot be regulated and often involve taking animals out of the wild, and include tremendous amounts of animal cruelty - far more than even in the regulated/legal trading of captive-bred versions of these species. Therefore making exotics illegal wouldn't stop people from owning them, it would just make lots of people buy them from a more unethical source and cause more harm/stress/suffering to the animals. So even though I view it as unethical to purchase exotics when we don't know how much captivity stresses them out and how it affects relationships with them, I don't think it would do any good to make exotics illegal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I really don't see any problem with general household personal pets. Cat's meow because of association with humans - it's something they've developed to attract us because it sounds like a baby. I've had cats run away there's lots of birds and rats in our immediate area - there's nothing really keeping them with me other than that they've made me part of their territory.

I think the commodification and breeding of exotic pets is pretty awful though imo. Animals that can't survive on their own shouldn't be developed to create special pets for yuppies; it seems unnecessary and cruel.

In terms of the OP, yeah, this is a great question and obviously connects with increased police repression in the US as well as US imperialism with those famous pictures of dogs being used to intimidate restrained inmates. The use of dogs against black people in the south is also a pretty provocative connection. I think all of these things serve to dehumanize people being harassed by the police and intimidate them. Dogs don't know the law (pigs do, they just ignore it) and so it's an obvious threat and intimidation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think Mar3l meant more along the lines of species bred to be companion animals for human enjoyment rather than agricultural practices (e.g. a dog breed is sold to people who want dogs or snakes are bred for trading).

I know it wasn't asked to me, but it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently, so I'm going to field it anyways.

Personally, I think the effects of such practices need to be explored more, but to play it safe, it's not something that should be supported.

I pretty much have three concerns with it:

1. The commodity status of animals could adversely affect human-animal relationships and cause humans to look at animals as "objects" to be bought and sold, similarly to how the commodity status of workers makes it easier for the bourgeois class to objectify them and their labor.

2. Certain animals likely suffer from the confinement inherent in captivity.

3. With animals that can easily be adopted (cats and dogs), breeding can only hurt, since there are enough homeless animals as their is, and buying bred cats/dogs instead of adopting them will surely lead to an increase in the euthanizing of those in pounds.

Given that I'll say that I do think it makes sense currently that cat and dog breeding should be banned, but not the breeding/sale of exotic animals. My reasoning for that is that most people who want a cat/dog would be willing to adopt one instead of taking a risk and turning to a much more unethical black market to buy a specially bred cat/dog. With exotics though it's different - the black market for exotics is 2nd in GDP only to the black market for drugs. These sales cannot be regulated and often involve taking animals out of the wild, and include tremendous amounts of animal cruelty - far more than even in the regulated/legal trading of captive-bred versions of these species. Therefore making exotics illegal wouldn't stop people from owning them, it would just make lots of people buy them from a more unethical source and cause more harm/stress/suffering to the animals. So even though I view it as unethical to purchase exotics when we don't know how much captivity stresses them out and how it affects relationships with them, I don't think it would do any good to make exotics illegal.

A lot of stray dogs just aren't suitable for adoption by families, though. There have been a spate of stories in the UK in recent years of such adopted dogs mauling their owners - or even worse, their owners' children and babies - to death in unprovoked attacks.

A better strategy would be to capture stray dogs and take away their ability to breed. They can then either be housed in rescue centres, kept as pets by animal experts who don't have young children, or as a last resort euthanised.

Breeding domestic dogs is generally not all that much of a problem as long as it's well regulated, so that the financial incentive to become a breeder is not so great that they will cut corners and breed dogs that are sub-standard, i.e. dogs with known medical conditions should not be allowed to breed, and dogs with low physical scores - hip and elbow scores in particular - should not be allowed to breed, as it's simply unfair on the offspring.

Overall, though, I don't see all that much of a problem with the fair and regulated breeding of dogs. It can be expensive to purchase a thorough bred dog (mine cost £600, for example) up front, but that at least makes sure that dogs, generally, go to homes where they can afford to be kept. There is no point having thorough bred Rottweilers going for £50 to someone who lives in a studio apartment in the middle of the city and can't afford to have their dog properly immunised, micro-chipped and fed. That benefits nobody, and is especially cruel to the dog.

[human strike]

When you look at how much is paid out in compensation to people following injuries received from police dogs it's kind of staggering that they still use them as much as they do. People sustaining very serious injuries are not at all uncommon, and often these people weren't even as much as suspects. I was bitten by one once and frankly I consider myself lucky that I wasn't injured worse than I was. The irony in the fact my great uncle was a police dog handler and in the same police force wasn't lost on me. The dogs get injured too of course though. During the August Riots in England in 2011, 12 police dogs were injured and taken out of action.

Horses are incredibly dangerous too. In all the demos and public order situations I've been in where I've seen their use (which is a lot), I'm really surprised I've never seen anyone be seriously injured (as far as I'm aware). I've seen people be trampled under foot by charging police horses where they could easily have died. It seems pretty indiscriminate to charge a line of horses at a crowd of people and, needless to say, very dangerous. You see their riders fall off too and it doesn't seem safe for them either. Their use on 9 December 2010 at the student demo in Westminster is one event that stands out for me. The police violence that day generally was fucking intense. It's hard to document this stuff, but lots of serious injuries were suffered; one student lost a finger and obviously Alfie Meadows almost died that day. I've had horses charge at me a few times and you do start to get used to it and eventually you do learn that if a crowd stands still then the horses will stop - I've seen this happen once, maybe twice - but most people shit themselves and peg it away from them, and understandably, they're fucking scary.

_qhUTF4hOp8

I'm going off on a tangent even more so now, but another thing that is not well known about the student demo of December 9th is the sergeant of arms (or whoever it is who's in charge of security) at the Houses of Parliament was asked in court what their response would have been if any demonstrators actually had managed to get into the building. His reply was to make a machine gun gesture with his hands and mimed shooting towards the jury.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I will address everything properly and more in-depth later but for now this...



2. Certain animals likely suffer from the confinement inherent in captivity.

They do, it's called 'zoochosis' or psychopathologic behavior specific to animals in captivity such as zoos, aquariums, circuses, etc. I would label these pseudo-sanctuaries and I think this largely has to do with effects of capitalism. Which is to say, I think sanctuaries can be legitimate if exemplary care is taken to meet all of the animals needs whether it be physical, emotional and so forth. I think this could play an important role in conservation and research. The whole thing needs to be revamped not thrown out is what I'm saying.

I think another problem is the lack of research in 'animal awareness' and general ethology which should go part and parcel to over all care. I say this because i dont think this is truly taken into account or as seriously as it should in the animal healthcare, conservation and research community.

The exploitation however of animals for entertainment needs to go tho and I've posted in my Sick Sad World blog links discussing this and of which involves a major circus (Ringley Bros).


3. With animals that can easily be adopted (cats and dogs), breeding can only hurt, since there are enough homeless animals as their is, and buying bred cats/dogs instead of adopting them will surely lead to an increase in the euthanizing of those in pounds.

Tbh, it goes deeper than that. Particularly there are cases and examples of brachycephallic breeding in which the hybrid dog are purposely being bred for that "smashed in cute face," despite the health issues such as proper breathing, inherent to those breeds (if not also inadvertently making this condition more acute). It's pretty sick. Also, as someone else pointed out, adoption (while seemingly preferable) is problematic in that often with these patients they have problems with socialization, psychopathological issues stemming from abuse or trauma, or other general medical issues. Which is to say, if you don't know how to take care of X animal under different circumstances such as a breeder, you might find this to be even more difficult. Again, related to a host of possible different issues.

This being said, this isn't always the case and in fact, my daughter (non-human feline child) was adopted (or more accurately found) and she has always been very well behaved, very social, no health issues other than those commonly attributed to dwarfism and mild obesity and so on. So, it's case by case and I still would urge people to adopt though they should be mindful of the possible issues associated with the adoptee. I think it's even more traumatic for the patient to be subjected to a revolving door of drop offs and adoptions. It's very sad and tragic which is why I think ppl need to be more aware of spaying and neutering and this should be a public service offered free of charge or at least a greatly reduced cost.

[Skyhilist]

A lot of stray dogs just aren't suitable for adoption by families, though. There have been a spate of stories in the UK in recent years of such adopted dogs mauling their owners - or even worse, their owners' children and babies - to death in unprovoked attacks.

Bred dogs do this too. No one is forced to have a dog if they don't accept this risk, and they certainly can choose to adopt a mix of dog that will be very unlikely to do this. It isn't like the only possible dogs that can be adopted are mean.


A better strategy would be to capture stray dogs and take away their ability to breed. They can then either be housed in rescue centres, kept as pets by animal experts who don't have young children, or as a last resort euthanised.

Yes this is called TNR (trap neuter return) and it's also a good strategy for animals that shelters can't accommodate.


Breeding domestic dogs is generally not all that much of a problem as long as it's well regulated

Do you know how many dogs die in shelters as a result of dog breeding? Lets look at all the people who have bought dogs from a breeder. Even if it's a lower percentage, a very large number of them would likely adopt a dog if they couldn't get one from a breeder. This would mean less dogs euthanized in pounds, because the fact of the matter is that, despite the validity of TNR, most pounds will still kill unwanted animals. Also, even if TNR were widely implemented, captivity would still be better because then the animals couldn't disrupt local ecosystems as much (which is a major problem).


so that the financial incentive to become a breeder is not so great that they will cut corners and breed dogs that are sub-standard, i.e. dogs with known medical conditions should not be allowed to breed, and dogs with low physical scores - hip and elbow scores in particular - should not be allowed to breed, as it's simply unfair on the offspring.

The problem isn't always that the dogs are bred in poor health - it's that the purchasing dogs from breeders instead of adoption from shelters will increase the number of animals that die in the pound.


Overall, though, I don't see all that much of a problem with the fair and regulated breeding of dogs. It can be expensive to purchase a thorough bred dog (mine cost £600, for example) up front, but that at least makes sure that dogs, generally, go to homes where they can afford to be kept. There is no point having thorough bred Rottweilers going for £50 to someone who lives in a studio apartment in the middle of the city and can't afford to have their dog properly immunised, micro-chipped and fed. That benefits nobody, and is especially cruel to the dog.

Again - my point here wasn't about whether bred dogs are kept in good health and bred efficiently. Incidentally though, purebreds are heterozygous for a lower amount of traits, which makes them have weaker genetics.

[Quail]

I think the use of animals for law enforcement is both unfair to the animals and dangerous to the people who come across them. I'm not normally scared of horses at all, but police horses put me on edge. Horses can be very dangerous when they're scared. They might be trained to deal with a lot of scary stuff, but there's still an unacceptably high risk that they could bolt and hurt someone. Quite a while ago now I was at a demonstration and there was a horse behind me which was looking increasingly nervous. "Don't worry, she's scared of flags," said the police officer on top of the horse. Now, police horses only tend to be used for football matches and demonstrations, i.e, two situations where there are shit loads of flags, so if the police officers know that the horses are scared of flags, not only are they forcing the horse to do something that scares it, they're knowingly putting people in danger if the horse sees a particularly scary flag and bolts. Police dogs are worse, purely there for intimidation and again, the police know there is a risk of those dogs injuring people. In what kind of bizarre world is it acceptable to control people/crowds with dangerous dogs??

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I feel bad for the animals but I think it's absolutely fucking crazy that people get jail time for defending themselves against fucking attack dogs. Defending yourself against hostile animals is an instinct that is millions of years old, laying down and letting an animal that you don't know savagely bite you is not something normal people should be expected to do. I think they are also used to make the police look somehow more humane by associating them with animals that are generally seen as friendly/useful to humans. A terrible tradition all around.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I feel bad for the animals but I think it's absolutely fucking crazy that people get jail time for defending themselves against fucking attack dogs.

As do I. I've been bitten before for refusing to come out of hiding; fucking cheaters (I also was tased for no reason too but thats another thread). I also think its cheating to use dogs to detect drugs in addition to all the other stuff fucked about it. I think it's insane and monstrous to train a dog to do this. To actively, search, find and "kill," (whether the human suspect is killed or not is irrelevant when I say this as essentially this is the instincts law enforcement is playing on while training the dog to do these specific commands). It's no different than a dog hunting something on its own. To this tune, it's really, REALLY fucking stupid to assume you can train the dog to show proper restraint due to piss ass cop "training." Tbh, the training seems like a more tidy version of the same training other dogs receive when owners use the for fighting, "security," and as a weapon. There's been cases were civilian dog owners have been charged with murder due to their dog being employed as a weapon.

It's just an unbelievably fucked situation start to finish. Why I started this thread cuz I'm trying to figure this out. Speaking of security dog training interesting story. As most of you know, I use to be door-to-door slave and I think it was like 2 years ago now, I was knocking around a neighborhood and was attacked by a medium sized dog whose property I was no where near and wasn't properly leashed or being watched. Consequently, my fav work pants were ruined, middle of shift, big cash bonus, but I digress. So, I strong armed the lady with guilt and tears to the tune of 60 bucks or there about (bought a fuck ton of mags) as payment for my silence, emotional distress and pants. I then smoked a blunt to calm my nerves and get my head right and went back to knocking.

I said fuck this and hopped to another street and started to regain my composure. Fucking 30 minutes later I come to this house and I'm looking at the car, Stillers flag, and shit around and sizing this place up and conclude its young people, they need like 10 of them johns, obviously Sports Illustrated (lol). I knock and ring the bell and pretend to look busy and shit. Door opens slightly, guy pops head out and says some weird stuff and I get two words and whoosh out storms this massive Doberman; teeth snarling, attacking posture, like MF wanted my ratchet ass bad. While I'm smacking the fuck out of it with my clipboard and cursing in Russian, dude manages to corral the beast back inside.

(I know that's a lot of bs back story but stay with me, here's the important part)

He then proceeds to apologize a thousand times and tells me shit like "idk why that happened, I'm SO sorry, he has security training like law enforcement training and usually only barks at men and I mean your not black so {insert racist cackle} do idk I'm just sorry now what is..."

So my point is I want to take a critical look at this practice, the training, etc. because the more I look at it the more fucked it appears and the more questions are raised. Like are cop dogs trained to attack or target specific races of ppl? Is this possible? When I say this I mean currently but also in the past too. Like idk, if an ordinary person can have a dog trained to attack ppl like this and what he described, I can only imagine cops and their k9s. Like shit is truly crazy.


Defending yourself against hostile animals is an instinct that is millions of years old, laying down and letting an animal that you don't know savagely bite you is not something normal people should be expected to do. I think they are also used to make the police look somehow more humane by associating them with animals that are generally seen as friendly/useful to humans. A terrible tradition all around.

Exactly, but I disagree in the humane image. Sure, the dogs can be cute, while at schools and other PR campaigns and propaganda of the hot air and noise but that is only a tailored superficial image. Idc who you are German shepards and other K9 breeds are fucking big and scary and that's the whole point. That's the bottom of the iceberg image. It's no different than orcs and those wargs. It's a means of psychological and physical intimidation by proxy.

[human strike]

Police dogs are worse, purely there for intimidation and again, the police know there is a risk of those dogs injuring people. In what kind of bizarre world is it acceptable to control people/crowds with dangerous dogs??

They're trained to attack anyone who comes within a six foot radius of their handler. They don't wait to be instructed to do so, they attack automatically. It's a big part of the reason why so many people are attacked and injured by police dogs, including other police officers - I've seen this happen too.

[human strike]

Fun little anecdote: when I was injured by a cop dog I ended up on a hospital ward with a man who used to train attack dogs for the army (that's how I know the above). He took the piss constantly for my entire night there, he was unbearable.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Political activity oriented towards protecting the welfare of police animals represents a break from scientific socialism and a relapse into moralism.

Everything I've stated has firm basis in science, zoology, veterinary science, ethology, etc. So, what're you talking about?

[Ember Catching]

Everything I've stated has firm basis in science, zoology, veterinary science, ethology, etc. So, what're you talking about?
'Scientific socialism' doesn't mean "do what the scientists tell you": it's a term mired in historical context, and in its historical usage the term clearly referred to a methodology, grounded in materialism, for critiquing capitalism.

[human strike]

Political activity oriented towards protecting the welfare of police animals represents a break from scientific socialism and a relapse into moralism.

I lol'd.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

frankly i think anything reducing the chance of my being mauled by an alsatian or having my chest caved in by a terrified horse is probably a Good Thing. Plus the animals are a terrific tool in morale - they scare protestors and place huge authority upon the police. When you sit on a horse, you pretty much feel like a medieval knight (according to one of my mum's cousins, who is a mounted police officer :/) There's little doubt that it's exploitative and often cruel behavior towards the animals (i.e placing them in distressing situations) and they are a powerful tool in the hands of the police. I see no reason why we shouldn't oppose their use, it's certainly in our interests to do so.

[BIXX]

Imagine a communist party marching for the welfare of police attack dogs and riot control horses. It would be absurd, and representative of a wider abandonment of principles.


So to you just shooting the animals is just as good as freeing them?

Yeah fuck you. What if I just want them to have happier lives? That doesn't make me a moralist. I think you are just playing the "more revolutionary than thou" game. Fuck, I hate that game so much.

[Sea]

So to you just shooting the animals is just as good as freeing them? Non-sequitur.
Yeah fuck you. What if I just want them to have happier lives? That doesn't make me a moralist. I think you are just playing the "more revolutionary than thou" game. Fuck, I hate that game so much.If your only basis is a moralistic objection to something being "wrong", that does make you a moralist. I'm not saying that you are one necessarily -- what other basis do you have?
'Scientific socialism' doesn't mean "do what the scientists tell you": it's a term mired in historical context, and in its historical usage the term clearly referred to a methodology, grounded in materialism, for critiquing capitalism.No, but the correctness of the scientists must still be considered. Scientific socialism agrees perfectly well with, and is guided by, our scientific knowledge. What you seem to be upholding with your sophistic reply is pseudoscientific socialism and it has no place on this forum. That said:
Everything I've stated has firm basis in science, zoology, veterinary science, ethology, etc. So, what're you talking about? All your hearsay and outsourced anecdotes make it hard for me to believe this. Can you demonstrate your scientific basis?

[BIXX]

Non-sequitur.

When I said that I was actually referring to something else they said earlier in the thread, in fact reading over my response as a whole that is the one I should have quoted, so it looks like I fucked up.

What I was referring to is that they said the only reason we should be trying to remove animals from the police force is for the purpose of weakening the police force (which I agree is a benefit). My disagreement is that it should not be our only reason- animal liberation in my opinion is also incredibly important to human (and furthermore, my own liberation) due to requiring me to interact with dominative structures which enforces certain roles on people rather than allowing then to be self-propulsive.


If your only basis is a moralistic objection to something being "wrong", that does make you a moralist. I'm not saying that you are one necessarily -- what other basis do you have?


I never said I believed it a as wrong- I said I didn't like it. Similar to the way I dislike oppression, which I oppose on the basis that it hurts me. Maybe not in the same way as those being oppressed hurts them directly, but in that we cannot form connections or express ourselves as freely as we could if we were all free.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Vox, the board won't let me quote you for some reason, but it's interesting that you are put off by German Shepards. I feel the same way about them but almost everyone else seems to think they are very cute and moreover people always comment on how loyal and reliable they are, in the US at least. I'm with you though, if I see one I instantly associate it with images of the third reich or stasi. I can't understand the fascination with them, they just look threatening by default. When I go through security at airports I've seen people ask to pet the bomb dogs, you couldn't pay me to pet one of those things they constantly look on edge.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

'Scientific socialism' doesn't mean "do what the scientists tell you": it's a term mired in historical context, and in its historical usage the term clearly referred to a methodology, grounded in materialism, for critiquing capitalism.

I'm well aware of the meaning of 'scientific socialism' which is why I phrased my post appropriately as I was curious to see if you would respond in the manner predicted; which you did, as I knew you would. Moving forward, the term 'scientific socialism' implies the use of the scientific method. If the subjects methodology ceases to follow the scientific method, it's no longer 'scientific.' Otherwise the word 'scientific' would be rendered meaningless.

Now then, let me rephrase things more accurately, everything I've stated hitherto follows the scientific method and is based firmly in material reality. Tbh, I really think your just throwing cliches around that really do not make sense whatsoever Within this context. It's not my fault if you're ignorant of the science and theory behind my positions. Further, 9 times out 10, those who make a big deal over 'scientific socialism' also endorse the most bizarre, unscientific, and idealistic crap such as diamat.

You're ignorance is clear in this respect because otherwise you would not be callously dismissing the torture, exploitation, subjugation, and murder of millions if not billions if not trillions of sentient, living beings or 'animals.' This is not appealing to "moralism," more its pointing out objective, scientific facts. If you want to go this route. Why should we care about the welfare of children? The elderly? The mentally disabled? The physically disabled? Why do we not instead say "fuck everyone whose not a white, able bodied, cis male human worker"? Wtf are you even getting at with this shit? All of this says to me that your politics don't mean shit.


Imagine a communist party marching for the welfare of police attack dogs and riot control horses. It would be absurd, and representative of a wider abandonment of principles.

Pointing out and being against police cruelty and exploitation of animals in the same spirit of being against police brutality is so reactionary and counter-revolutionary, you're right. So silly of me, I forgot, if we're not analyzing the width of Stalins mustache or musing over bourgeois parlimentary rituals or orinting shitty newspapers or having in-depth and groundbreaking discussions of whether or not Bordiga looks like a hedgehog or naked mole rat, it must be petty bourgeois moralism. Lets be real, you reject the sentience of animals, view them as inconsequential beasts of burden, and thus it's silly to even devote attention to their plight in light of this. In other words, fuck animals, who cares, right? Right.

How exactly is supporting the liberation of non-human animals in combination with human animals an "abandonment of principles"? How is pointing out and being against police cruelty of animals an "abandonment of principles"? To hold the views in which you do rejects both science and reality; so, from what basis are you invoking this "scientific socialism"? Just curious.

I honestly can't understand this bs. Damn Marxists, friggin culty weirdos.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Vox, the board won't let me quote you for some reason, but it's interesting that you are put off by German Shepards. I feel the same way about them but almost everyone else seems to think they are very cute and moreover people always comment on how loyal and reliable they are, in the US at least. I'm with you though, if I see one I instantly associate it with images of the third reich or stasi. I can't understand the fascination with them, they just look threatening by default. When I go through security at airports I've seen people ask to pet the bomb dogs, you couldn't pay me to pet one of those things they constantly look on edge.

It's not just German Shepards. I actually have a very legitimate fear of dogs in general. Like it was a big deal for me the other day to be close and touch a dog without flipping out. If I see someone walking a traditional, 'lovable' dog like a golden retriever or lab, down the street, I will legit stop, cross the street and walk on the other side. I hate them so much. :( I know I have to work on it but yeah. The summer I previously mentioned, I had like 20 separate dog incidents. Not to mention a pretty horrific experience as a child too.

Needless to say, you can probably see how dogs in LE are unreal to me considering normal dog ownership in general is crazy to me; I just can't feature it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Non-sequitur.If your only basis is a moralistic objection to something being "wrong", that does make you a moralist. I'm not saying that you are one necessarily -- what other basis do you have?No, but the correctness of the scientists must still be considered. Scientific socialism agrees perfectly well with, and is guided by, our scientific knowledge. What you seem to be upholding with your sophistic reply is pseudoscientific socialism and it has no place on this forum. That said:All your hearsay and outsourced anecdotes make it hard for me to believe this. Can you demonstrate your scientific basis?

Lmfao, yeah ok, sure thing, ok what would you like specifically to be sourced/cited?

Just to be clear, I am currently studying veterinary science and will be specializing in zoological medicine. This is kind of my thing.

[Sea]

Lmfao, yeah ok, sure thing, ok what would you like specifically to be sourced/cited?

Just to be clear, I am currently studying veterinary science and will be specializing in zoological medicine. This is kind of my thing.Hey, I don't doubt your ethos. Anecdotal story-time and comparing things to the Nazis (rofl) does not science make. Post 12 is pretty stellar though. Not holding it against you though. When someone abuses the term "scientific socialism" you're entitled to bullshit them until they leave you alone.

gah, this quoting thing is messing up on me, off to the halp desk I go...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Hey, I don't doubt your ethos.

Lol, ethos.


Anecdotal story-time

Are you not entertained?


and comparing things to the Nazis (rofl) does not science make.

Let's just ignore, oh, idk, everything else I've said. I never said it did and I was being sort of silly with the nazi comparison however it's not that far off; fuck it.


Post 12 is pretty stellar though

Was wrong with post 12? No pleasing you I see, tsk tsk tsk.


Not holding it against you though. When someone abuses the term "scientific socialism" you're entitled to bullshit them until they leave you alone.

I didn't bullshit anyone, everything I've stated can be backed up and should be common knowledge at this point.


gah, this quoting thing is messing up on me, off to the halp desk I go...

Again, I will ask, what do you want me to cite specifically? What would suit your liking Sea?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm something of an animal lover myself, extremely empathetic to animal suffering, and personally I agree almost completely with the general sentiments of this thread, but as this is the theory forum of a communist discussion board, I can only assume that at least one person reading this is getting ideas of incorporating some bizarre doctrine of nonviolence towards riot horses into their own political praxis or that of any group they might be affiliated with, or wants to organize around the issue of the welfare of attack dogs, which, in and of itself, has no relationship to international communism. My point is and always has been simply the defense of a communist principle — namely the alignment of communist praxis solely with the proletarian historical mission — so it says quite a bit about you guys that I'm copping shit for it.

Oh my Glob this doesn't even make any sense! Are you screwing with me?


By what mechanism does animal subjection detract from human liberty? How interwoven is the historical development of animal subjection with the historical development of private property? What is the precise relation of animal liberation to human and proletarian emancipation? Can animal liberation be fought for without in any way forestalling the struggle for revolutionary dictatorship by even the slightest degree?

What? Are you serious? Everything is related and fighting for animal liberation would obviously not detract from human liberation just like women's liberation and LGBT liberation does detract from the liberation of the working class. Come on now.


It is not the servile, indiscriminate belief in the "correctness of scientists" which must be considered, but rather it is the degree of accuracy of their empirical findings which must be acknowledged — and the conclusions of said findings, where relevant to our cause, entered into revolutionary doctrine. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the findings of veterinary science have precisely fuck all to do with international communism.

What I think is weird is at first you chastise me for "abandoning scientific socialism," in favor of moralism/ opprtunism but in the above you've elaborated on how we in the labor movement are to cultivate a culture of researcher bias and abandon the scientific method. You do realize that essentially what you're saying is when reviewing objective scientific data we should focus and concentrate only on the results that confirm our bias and both consciously and subconsciously ignore disparities thereby hindering a full understanding of the subject. What could possibly be gained from this and more importantly why should we not base our views on objective data aka observatory ephiphanies of our natural (read: material) world if we are to adhere truly to this 'scientific' socialism?


I've considered the relationship between scientific socialism and the empirical sciences above. I'll concede that the practice I described doesn't necessarily represent a "relapse into moralism", but rather into a sort of petty opportunism not necessarily limited to moralism, however absent such opportunism may be from the world-historical scale.

Not to be rude but how in the actual fuck did you go from "moralism," to now (laughably) "petty opprtunism"? This isn't rhetorical or meant to be insulting I'm just curious as to what is the logical progression here. In what capacity are the views I have presented up to this point genuine examples of "petty opportunism"? It's almost as if I have fried your red circuits because this doesn't not make sense. Just as Chewbacca living on the planet Endor with 2 foot tall ewoks does not make sense.


Nowhere did I dismiss the subjection of trillions of animals (or even address it, which seems to be your doing), and nowhere did I present a disregard for animal welfare as anything to be supported: what I did object to was framing even a hypothetical example of petty opportunism as being compatible with the proletarian historical mission, which, with the internet being the way it is, someone was bound to do.

Honestly, what does this even mean really? Idunno, I'm stumped, lol, wow. I will say though that rejecting the critique of animals in law enforcement, entertainment, and so forth as political struggle and animal liberation in general as as political struggle you totally are dismissing everything previously stated in regards to animals. Here is why. Both you and I recognize the suffering of the lumpen/proletariat, of the oppression of the human animal under the current mode of production. Why? Because we are aware to a very large degree of our own sentience, cognition, we are to sense and see pain in others both of our species and otherwise, everything we know up to this point about our species and the natural world plays into our ideology and so on. Material shapes consciousness.

Now if we know this in regards to the human animal, if we are to remain consistent in our convictions here then the same sort of logic should be applied to other non-human animals as well. There has been a shit ton of progress made in terms of our understanding of animal 'awareness' and intelligence, sentience, cognition, memory, emotions, behavior patterns, even psychopathological behavior and mental health issues. Our understanding only continues to get deeper and deeper. Animals in particular worker animals have been subjected both under previous modes of production and our present one to exploitation, mutilation, death fights, hard and often physical exhausting manual labor, psychosis inducing captivity, biological/chemical/etc weapons testing, vivisection, imprisonment, massive extinction, pollution, etc, etc, etc. The lust goes on and on. We are also aware given our knowledge of the animal kingdom that the do feel pain, emotional trauma that could lead to mental health issues, torment, grief, sadness and whole range of emotive responses to negative stimuli.

Putting this all together it should be clear that animal liberation goes part and parcel with human liberation as the revolution implies the end of all oppressive modes of production and social organization. To reject this is to reject everything and then, what's the point of it all? This is just a clinical view not an emotive, sappy appeal to moralism or opportunism (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context lol).


Nowhere, in fact, did I present a disregard for welfare in general as anything to be supported either: communist society in fact represents the most capable guarantor of the welfare of every single individual.

Exactly my point. Soooo.


Furthermore, I guess I must constitute part of that rare ten percent, because my conclusions have in fact been arrived at without even considering dialectical materialism.

Just but one example little fish.


I'm not going to respond to anything you mentioned after that bit about the disabled because your response just gets more and more emotionally charged and you completely misrepresent my position on just about everything. I don't know if you think you're being particularly profound by going off in tangents and leveling every accusation under the sun at me, but you're really just being hysterical.

I don't even know what your getting at to be honest other than everything sort of reads like some weird esoteric dogmatism. Further my mentioning of the elderly and so on was not me being emotive or mushy more I was asking you genuine questions and offering something to consider. If we are concerned socially, politically and so on about the welfare of every member of species and to the species as a whole and we have a commitment to end human suffering based on everything we know of the natural world and how it works then logically the same consideration and rights apply to all non-human animals as well. Speciesism is no different or any less reactionary than anything else. We all share this world and biodiversity should be respected.

Plus I don't much care for being called hysterical and some might construe this as being sexist.


"For at least two thousand years of European history until the late nineteenth century hysteria referred to a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus (from the Greek ὑστέρα 'hystera' = uterus), such as when a neonate emerges from the female birth canal"

[Ele'ill]

Political activity oriented towards protecting the welfare of police animals represents a break from scientific socialism and a relapse into moralism.

For me, discharging animals from service has always been about disarming the police and reducing their numerical and fighting strength, which should be an immediate communist demand.

I don't think the k9 unit or cop horses are really the bread and butter of state repression and I think the overfocus on 'discharging' of horses and dogs from service to weaken the police is basically saying we will reform(compromise) the police away or reform (compromise) them into accountability or reform the world until animal liberation is a reality, just a couple bad apples to take out with the trash and a couple strips of tape and things are shiny. There is no such thing as demand. If you are in a position to demand and get you don't demand, you don't play games, you take. If you demand from that position you will be faced with ultimatums and compromise and negotiation and you will lose.

[BIXX]

Basically it says "there are some really bizarre leftist tendencies on this website and who knows what the internet will churn out this time, so I'd better pre-emptively argue against a dumb idea which someone is sure to eventually consider."

Alrighty. Whatever.


It's hardly controversial to ask EchoShock to theoretically justify their position that animal liberation is "incredibly important to human liberation", given this isn't a position held by even a significant minority of communists — nor should it be controversial to ask that their response be framed in terms from the general scientific socialist lexicon where possible.

It reproduces structures of domination and oppression- I believe that there was a vegan blog where the author showed how animal oppression reproduced some form of patriarchal relations, and thusly was a feminist issue, and furthermore, an anarchist issue. Plus any structure of oppression forces us into specific roles that we act within those structures, which is repressive, and is often oppressive.

Also scientific socialism means so much different shit (mostly it is just thrown around by various tendencies to delegitimize others without any explanation, like dialectical materialism (which, to some extent, I support as a means for presenting ideas)) that no matter if what I said fits into that lexicon you still could easily just say "blah blah not scientific".

Also, in none of my reading, had there ever once been someone who explained scientific socialism and justified why every one of their claims was part of that. Which reinforces my thought that it's a bullshit term used to throw around at one another for purposes of delegitimization (these days, I should add. Maybe at one point it really meant something?).

As to the bold: just because it is not position held by the majority does not mean it is incorrect, so I don't know why you bothered putting that there.


I described communists organizing around animal welfare as "petty opportunism" because (1) a small, localized action in defense of animal welfare is clearly absent from the world-historical scale (whence "petty") unlike, for example, a general strike or an insurrection,

Again, more buzz words that don't really seem to mean shit. Justify this statement AND why it matters.

Further more, are you saying small localized actions in general aren't important, or they only aren't important when they are based around animals? If the first option is what you meant, then what about actions that keep people in their homes, stop fascists from attacking minorities, or protests about a local issue? Are those also petty?

And if it's the second option, why? I mean, you are making a value judgement about the worth of animals vs human life, which is not materialist (to use one of those horrid buzz words- this time meaning, there is nothingness materially that says humans are more valuable than animals).


and because (2) it nevertheless shares the defining feature of all opportunistic trends: substitution of organizational interests for communist interests (again, whether or not animal liberation is in the interests of the proletariat is still up in the air, but I still haven't been convinced that it is — in any case, I think total animal liberation is only possible after the destruction of capitalism, not before or during it).

I think I showed why this should be seen as equally important to the "proletariat's historical mission" (what the fuck, that sounds super cult-y, but also furthermore it is a prescription of duty politics which is disgusting to me), and is is actually important to (the real) struggle for total liberation.

Bold: again, human liberation can't be achieved til after capitalism, does that mean that anything that humans do now to make their lives better is pointless?


Right, "until the late nineteenth century". The term "hysteria" and its derivatives have clearly undergone a semantic shift since then, cleansing them of whatever sexist connotations they had.


Actually that's not true. It is still used regularly to demean and put down women.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Basically it says "there are some really bizarre leftish tendencies on this website and who knows what the internet will churn out this time, so I'd better pre-emptively argue against a dumb idea which someone is sure to eventually consider."

What does this even mean and how is it relevant to what's being discussed? This has nothing to do with the bleedin interwebs but the psychotic use and abuse of animals by law enforcement. Why is it everytime I start a thread we can never stay on topic?


It's hardly controversial to ask EchoShock to theoretically justify their position that animal liberation is "incredibly important to human liberation", given this isn't a position held by even a significant minority of communists

You're right, lets give (fictional) credence to hypothetical collective opinions of some fictional demographic of some hypothetical persons because you know, that totally makes sense. :rolleyes:


— nor should it be controversial to ask that their response be framed in terms from the general scientific socialist lexicon where possible.

I am scientific socialism, you ain't cause you not.


What I said was solely in response to the statement "the correctness of the scientists must still be considered", which certainly sounded like an affirmation of absolute faith in the conclusions of any old scientist, everywhere and always.

Damn needle nose pencil pushers and their facts.

ehrmergerd hersterkerl mersshernnn!


I don't think anything I said was at all objectionable.

Of course you don't.


Keeping the beginning of this post in mind, know that I never considered anyone in this thread to have actually yet supported the practice I was opposing. Animal liberation aside, police animal welfare just isn't an issue for communists to organize around, even if it does mean, at the end of the day, they are taken out of police service: such an end could just as easily be achieved if it were simply demanded instead as an integral component of disarming the police.

I honestly do not understand your logic here friend, I just don't. It's like you recognize certain facts and then, for some reason unbeknownst to God or nature, reject the associated conclusion for some reason that illudes me, for one and perhaps others I'm sure. If you care to elaborate that'd be great.


I described communists organizing around animal welfare as "petty opportunism" because (1) a small, localized action in defense of animal welfare is clearly absent from the world-historical scale (whence "petty") unlike, for example, a general strike or an insurrection, and because (2) it nevertheless shares the defining feature of all opportunistic trends: substitution of organizational interests for communist interests

The above is a very pretty way of saying bibbidi bobbidi boo or nothing and flys in the face of the economics, politics, and science behind the subject matter entirely. Animal liberation is part of the class struggle, animals are sentient commodities whose liberation is integral to the annihilation of capital.


again, whether or not animal liberation is in the interests of the proletariat is still up in the air, but I still haven't been convinced that it is

So, because you are not convinced that animal liberation is related or integral to human liberation some fictional mass of persons isn't buying it either and I, as a non-cult member and Anarchist, should give a shit?


in any case, I think total animal liberation is only possible after the destruction of capitalism, not before or during it.

This very thread is about service or worker animals whom are forced to work for the state against their will. Animals have for millennia represented a giant sector in global commerce, production, agriculture, and so on. This historical economic fact coupled with the knowledge and modern veterinary, ethological, etc. consensus animals sentience, emotional awareness, cognition, etc. AND the horror of modern factory farming, circuses, breeding, pseudoscientific research, poaching, pollution, global climate change, and so on, should tell you both struggles are one and the same and both must be corrected via insurrection/revolution. The destruction of capitalism should by definition mean the end of society as we currently know it and the birth of something better.


Right, "until the late nineteenth century". The term "hysteria" and its derivatives have clearly undergone a semantic shift since then, cleansing them of whatever sexist connotations they had.

In other words, shut up you stupid woman, didn't you know? It's no longer sexist. Got it, thanks for that 'revelation' chief.

[Ele'ill]

and in today's paper (Portland Tribune) some really absurd shit

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/211359-68509-will-mounted-patrol-ride-off-into-the-sunset

[BIXX]

and in today's paper (Portland Tribune) some really absurd shit

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/211359-68509-will-mounted-patrol-ride-off-into-the-sunset


The whole article was odd. I didn't realize that the horses were considered so important by the police, hahaha. And I thought they had more, as I swear there were more than eight at a protest I attended last year.