Animals and Animal Welfare? [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

26th February 2014, 22:15

Why must it be? Given that we have been eating meat for a long, long time, the onus is surely on your side of the discussion to prove that we should change our eating habits, no?

There is no justification for eating meat. The reasons for doing so do not withstand interrogation. If you wish to base your habits on unjustifiable actions and weak intellectual frameworks then fine, but that isn't a rational thing to do.

Also, time isn't the basis for anything. War has also been happening for a long, long time. What difference does that make to its ethical implications?

Why is there no excuse? Again, given that this has been the staple of humans for a long, long time and, indeed, given that a large number of other species are themselves carnivorous or omnivorous, it seems strange to suggest suddenly that there is no excuse for this behaviour.

Ignoring the 'time' thing, other species also rape, commit incest and eat their young. There are great many things that other species do that we find ethically problematic.

But the reason for their being no excuse is that there is no reason provided by supporters of meat eating that justifies their actions. Under all interrogation there is not one single argument that can be considered legitimate in accordance with sound ethical judgement.

We can go through them if you want to? Necessity/pleasure/inferiority/power. None of these things are sound ideological frameworks for making ethical judgements about anything.

This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm fairly sure if you came face to face with many a wild animal, they'd eat you for breakfast no problem and wouldn't choose the most humane way to kill you or the most respectful way to divide up your carcass. I don't see why humans have some special responsibility to not eat other animals when, given the chance, there are many other animals that would gladly take a bit out of you and me.

Other animals don't have sapience or the ability to make ethical judgements. What your essentially saying is that you are subscribing to a set of ethics on a comparative basis with wild animals. Do you think it's rational to base your ethical judgements on the what wild animals do? In that case I take it you think rape, incest and infanticide is also perfectly fine?

That doesn't mean that we can't care about animals. I love animals. Truly. I don't want to see factory farmed animals, nor neglected animals, nor poached animals, nor animals used in circuses or kept locked up in zoos. These things are abhorrent. I don't feel like this out of guilt. I don't feel guilty for consuming meat. I don't really see the connection between doing what animals (including humans) tend to do (eat each other for sustenance/pleasure) and actually still having a respect for the animals and environment around us.

How is it possible to respect something you intend to kill and eat? On what plain of reality does that constitute respect? It's some twisted perverse logic that concludes it is respectful to have something killed, its flesh cut off and then cooked for you to eat.

It is perfectly understandable that people, including yourself, would have a difficult time questioning your social norms and habits. It is well established and reinforced social behaviour to consume meat, but it is fundamentally problematic that human beings look upon other living creatures as something that can be dominated and exploited. Why? Because the ideological framework that this is justified comes from positions of social relationships that we should be challenging, not embracing.

Doing something just because it gives you pleasure, or because you can, or because you're powerful or have a sense of superiority is a pretty fucked up why to think and interact with the world around you.

You can call animal welfare 'liberal guilt' if you like, but actually what is more liberal guilt than apologising for killing animals that would do the exact same to you, given the opportunity?

If you want to base your ethics on what other animals do, then go right ahead, but it opens you up to some pretty dodgy views.

Not to mention that throwing around phrases like 'liberal guilty' really just conceals the potential for discussion behind meaningless phrases.

I don't think you should be so dismissive of the concept of liberal guilt, since it is constantly used to justify ineffective action against injustice and mediate social conflict.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th February 2014, 22:34

That is a massive generalisation.

Thank you for this insight, I am eternally grateful.

Also, specieist? What the fuck?

Yes, speciesist, don't tell me you don't know the meaning of the word. Speciesist as in being "discriminatory," or more properly homicidal (read: genocidal) to members of the animal kingdom not of your own species. What else would you call it?

I guess that makes us planetist, worldist, maybe even atomist or nucleusist next, right?

Rly? Y u do this?

I think you need to make clear the distinction between animal welfare, which is the ideology of those of us who wish to see the actual happiness, wellbeing and living standards/freedom of animals maximised without detriment to human beings or the planet, and animal liberationists, who subscribe to the sort of specieist stuff that you yourself have stated, and generally are rather extreme and difficult to have a rational conversation with.

They're one and the same. You can't say you care about the welfare of non-human persons, and at the same time not only support but prescribe the whole sale slaughter of numerous different species on some cock premise that there will inherently be some world-wide bloodlust. That does not make sense. That's like saying pigs are as smart as dolphins and are best when bacon. Like WTF?

They are a part of the class struggle, really?

Yes, I'm being serious, if fully understand or a appreciate the science, ethology, economics, etc. that forms the basis of my assertion, then this would not appear as ludicrous as apparently it is.

What class do they constitute?

Slave? In addition to this, what class would modern human slaves fall under? I mean, would they and their liberation not be apart of the class struggle? Are animals not apart of labour? When they work is this not work? I mean, for example, a horse helps farmer plow field. Do you think said horse would ordinarily be inclined to do this? Would you argue this is typical or atypical behavior for a horse?

Not only this, this flies in the face of the fact of the historical and current objectification, commodification, persecution, enslavement, etc. of animals. When farmer A buys cow M, why do you think he did so? What do you think this transaction signifies? The farmer purchased the cow for its natural ability to produce milk or work (labor) or accumulate body mass. Its really no different than slaver A buying slave X due to their natural abilities to work (labor) and so on; the obvious exception here being unlike farmer A, slaver A would not eat his asset. I mean, shall I go on? If you recognize the sentience, cognizance, intelligence, etc. of animals; basic logic would tell you animals are every bit of the class struggle.

They have struggled due to economic growth, not due to capitalism directly.

How is murder, enslavement, experimentation, extinction, etc. not "struggling against capitalism directly"?

Only insofar as capitalism has precipitated a great rise in consumption have animals suffered.

What? Are you serious?

But then, you'd have to be some sort of primitivist to argue that the increases in consumption made possible by capitalism over the past few centuries have not been the most revolutionary changes seen by humans in their existence.

If you consider making genocide more humane and or efficient sure why not. This also flies in the face of the horrendous health hazards our obsession with meat has afflicted our species historically. How does this make me a primitivist? The mass consumption of meat and the harvesting thereof does not signify a revolutionary development for our species. There is tons upon tons of fatal diseases associated with the consumption of meat. Knowing this, why are we just going to continue to neglect this fact and regurgitate and perpetuate this myth of the insatiable need for blood? Even saying it was a progressive development seems morally abhorrent.

What we need to do, now we are in a position in general of a matured and even saturated capitalism, is make sure that we both reduce production of meat, and improve distribution of meat, so ensuring that factory farming can be eliminated or at least drastically reduced in scale.

How you arrived at "drastically reduced in scale," and not "abolished" I'll never know. It doesn't make sense! Like what your saying is basically paradoxical.

There is now no excuse for the continued suffering of animals, now that we don't need to consume as much meat as we do, and now that we have an understanding of the psychology and emotional intelligence of animals, and pets, we should appreciate that we have some duty to care for their welfare.

If you recognize this then why can't you then see that the consumption of meat is, in light of all this that you just said of your own volition, wrong? That's like saying while I recognize the sentience, emotional awareness and so on of humans, grandma is delicious when barbecued and humans just want meat. We're omnivores after all. Again, meat consumption is unhealthy so how exactly is it socially responsible to endorse and prescribe it? You a misanthrope? Lol

tallguy

26th February 2014, 22:48

Vox

On the one hand:

The dismissal of our moral (as well as our pragmatic) duty, given we have the destructive capacities we do, to ensure that all other forms of life have the opportunity to survive and prosper on their own terms is just plain stupid.

But, on the other hand:

The anthropomorphising of other forms of life by inappropriately applying to them entirely human concepts such as slavery and rape (born of our uniquely advanced capacity to reason and to model the immediate and longer term consequences of our actions which are, in turn, largely based on our advanced language capacities) is equally stupid.

To suggest that we should singularly apply our human standards of morality to the welfare of other animals is not just stupid, though, it's counter productive. They simply need the space and resources to live life on their own terms. Our moral duty is to ensure that is the case.

Brandon's Impotent Rage

26th February 2014, 22:56

Oh Lord....

This is already turning into another one of those vegan v. carnivore threads that never go anywhere. There will be alot of insults, moaning and sanctimonious sophistry that will result in neither side converting the other and everyone walking away pissed off. I've seen it happen several times already, and it will end the exact same way here.

But in answer to the OP's question:

No, there isn't an Orthodox Marxist position on animal welfare. Marxists of all stripes have differing opinions on the subject, and I believe you should be allowed to form your own.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

26th February 2014, 23:03

[QUOTE=The Anarchist Tension;2725602]
Ignoring the 'time' thing, other species also rape, commit incest and eat their young. There are great many things that other species do that we find ethically problematic.

The difference with things like rape, incest and eating babies is that these are generally accepted as aspects of a universal morality today; there is pretty much (aside from a few crazies) consensus amongst people across the ideological spectrum that these things are wrong.

But the reason for their being no excuse is that there is no reason provided by supporters of meat eating that justifies their actions. Under all interrogation there is not one single argument that can be considered legitimate in accordance with sound ethical judgement.

Again, why should meat eating itself need to be justified? As i've said above, it's not about mirroring the ethical judgements of a wild animal, since clearly humans have the ability to form moral judgements (on rape, incest, eating babies, for example).

How is it possible to respect something you intend to kill and eat? On what plain of reality does that constitute respect? It's some twisted perverse logic that concludes it is respectful to have something killed, its flesh cut off and then cooked for you to eat.

Fucking hell, animals die; I rarely employ the 'nature' argument, but in the wild, it is generally natural that animals die, kill each other etc. I'm not for a moment defending the current state of the meat industry, or the very existence of a meat 'industry' for that matter. What i'm arguing, rather, is that the concept of killing an animal for its meat is not inherently wrong. As long as it doesn't destroy the environment nor fuck up the food chain, then I don't think it deviates from the idea of respecting our planet.

It is perfectly understandable that people, including yourself, would have a difficult time questioning your social norms and habits. It is well established and reinforced social behaviour to consume meat, but it is fundamentally problematic that human beings look upon other living creatures as something that can be dominated and exploited. Why? Because the ideological framework that this is justified comes from positions of social relationships that we should be challenging, not embracing.

There are clearly different levels of social relationships. You yourself admit that animals are not capable of the sapience and ability to make sound ethical judgements that humans can. Similarly, the nature of our social relationships with animals are bound to be qualitatively different to the social relationships we have with other humans.

I don't think you should be so dismissive of the concept of liberal guilt, since it is constantly used to justify ineffective action against injustice and mediate social conflict.

I don't think you've demonstrated particularly effectively that eating meat is an injustice in itself, so I don't really see the need for the phrase 'liberal guilt' here.

Trap Queen Voxxy

26th February 2014, 23:31

Vox

Hey guy.

The anthropomorphising of other forms of life by inappropriately applying to them entirely human concepts such as slavery and rape (born of our uniquely advanced capacity to reason and to model the immediate and longer term consequences of our actions which are, in turn, largely based on our advanced language capacities) is equally stupid.

You do realize we have barely even scratched the surface of the deeply complex and diverse forms of communication in the animal kingdom right? Our ability to reason and language and shit is an even bigger reason as to why we should forgo the consumption of meat and the murder of non-human animals. It's not anthropomorphic to compare human and animal slaves is the same friggin thing. There is no qualities difference except one is human and inedible and one is non-human and edible.

38H5ML_PITY

So, animals can not be sexually assaulted or commit sexual assault?

To suggest that we should singularly apply our human standards of morality to the welfare of other animals is not just stupid, though, it's counter productive. They simply need the space and resources to live life on their own terms. Our moral duty is to ensure that is the case.

I guess some apes are more equal than other apes. :(

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 00:41

The difference with things like rape, incest and eating babies is that these are generally accepted as aspects of a universal morality today; there is pretty much (aside from a few crazies) consensus amongst people across the ideological spectrum that these things are wrong.

Is this difference supposed to be significant in some way?

Again, why should meat eating itself need to be justified?

Because all action and thought require justification, otherwise people would just do things without thinking about what they meant or what their consequences were. In other words we would have the world as it currently is: Lacking critical thought or engagement.

As i've said above, it's not about mirroring the ethical judgements of a wild animal, since clearly humans have the ability to form moral judgements (on rape, incest, eating babies, for example).

So then what is it about? You essentially said that because non-human animals kill other non-human animals it is therefore justifiable for humans to kill non-human animals. I'm trying to understand how that logically follows.

Fucking hell, animals die. I rarely employ the 'nature' argument, but in the wild, it is generally natural that animals die, kill each other etc.

Yes, animals die. But there is a difference between something that happens in nature and then what is natural to humans. Animals kill and eat each other in nature, that is correct, but we are not animals living in nature; we're not wild animals. We have established systems of ethics and concepts about ourselves and the world. We wear clothes and use cutlery.

Why is it that in this particular instance, when animals are concerned, that ability to conceptualise and reason is not applicable? Why is it that suddenly what happens in nature becomes relevant?

I'm not for a moment defending the current state of the meat industry, or the very existence of a meat 'industry' for that matter. What i'm arguing, rather, is that the concept of killing an animal for its meat is not inherently wrong. As long as it doesn't destroy the environment nor fuck up the food chain, then I don't think it deviates from the idea of respecting our planet.

Well, so far you've been unable to really articulate what the basis of understanding a 'wrong' is. You seemed to be saying that it is not wrong to eat animals because other animals do it, but then when that logic was challenged you didn't really have a response.

Now, I'm saying to you that eating animals is "wrong" because it is unjustifiable. There is no basis for doing it that stands up to scrutiny. This exchange is a prime example of the bankruptcy of pro-meat eating arguments. They are void of any intellectual value.

On what basis is it not wrong? Because you think it? Because eating meat is necessary? Because eating meat is pleasurable? Because human beings are superior? Because we are powerful? What is the reason that it is right?

I'm waiting to hear an explanation.

There are clearly different levels of social relationships. You yourself admit that animals are not capable of the sapience and ability to make sound ethical judgements that humans can. Similarly, the nature of our social relationships with animals are bound to be qualitatively different to the social relationships we have with other humans.

Why? Why should our ethics not apply to non-human animals?

I don't think you've demonstrated particularly effectively that eating meat is an injustice in itself...

That comes as no surprise. If you thought I was being effective you would have to change your eating habits and clearly that is not something you want to do. Nevertheless, I think it is clear from your posts that at best your justifications for eating meat are entirely incoherent, confused and not particularly thought out.

I have provided you with a framework by which to critically engage your attitudes, but that requires a willingness and since animals clearly represent to you something of little value, why would you do that? Why would any one, really? The whole structure and ideology of society reinforces your point-of-view as completely justified without you ever having to engage with any intellectual argument. You can go into any shop and buy whatever meat you want. Why bother questioning that?

... so I don't really see the need for the phrase 'liberal guilt' here.

Well, as I explained, the need for the phrase 'liberal guilt' comes from the fact that well-intentioned people whom have no intention of giving up the consumption of meat, but whom feel bad about the conditions in which that meat is produced, try and off-set that feeling by promoting the totally bogus and disingenuous principle of "animal welfare." Like all typical liberal views, they want to talk about making things better, but when it comes down to it, they don't really want anything to fundamentally change.

As I said, it is some twisted and perverse logic to promote such a principle while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of the animals death and mutilation.

BIXX

27th February 2014, 01:07

To suggest that we should singularly apply our human standards of morality to the welfare of other animals is not just stupid, though, it's counter productive. They simply need the space and resources to live life on their own terms. Our moral duty is to ensure that is the case.

How can they live on their own terms if we cage and kill them?

Also, from an amoral standpoint, regardless of ethics or any of that bullshit, the structures that dominate non-human animals are reproductions of many other structures of domination (which means that we still live on a society based on domination, and there will still be human oppression), and we also must interact with them in a certain way (which means there will certainly be human limitation). Now, that is not to say that if I was in to woods and the only way I knew to survive was to eat meat I wouldn't- but that's non-structural, and it isn't out of balance with nature (so it will not hurt us via environmental destruction).

tallguy

27th February 2014, 10:00

How can they live on their own terms if we cage and kill them?

Also, from an amoral standpoint, regardless of ethics or any of that bullshit, the structures that dominate non-human animals are reproductions of many other structures of domination (which means that we still live on a society based on domination, and there will still be human oppression), and we also must interact with them in a certain way (which means there will certainly be human limitation). Now, that is not to say that if I was in to woods and the only way I knew to survive was to eat meat I wouldn't- but that's non-structural, and it isn't out of balance with nature (so it will not hurt us via environmental destruction).
Many of them do not live on their own terms, or anywhere near them, which is precisely the point I am making about industrial farming practices. The rest of your post is incomprehensible to me. Can you re-phrase it please.

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 11:26

I'm not learned enough to know what the orthodox Marxist position is as relates to the welfare of animals, i.e. what kinds of things constitute the philosophical or theoretical underpinning of how animals should/would be treated in socialist/communist societies.

Any thoughts, quotes or references greatly appreciated.

I think that's gonna depend on the society is going to interact with these animals. The truth is AFAIK, Marx didn't really say anything about animal welfare. Given the era he lived in, I think Marx would see animals as an means to an end--rightly or wrongly.

Yes, speciesist, don't tell me you don't know the meaning of the word. Speciesist as in being "discriminatory," or more properly homicidal (read: genocidal) to members of the animal kingdom not of your own species. What else would you call it?

Why only the animal kingdom? Why not include Kingdom Plantae as well as Kingdom Animalia too?

...
You do realize we have barely even scratched the surface of the deeply complex and diverse forms of communication in the animal kingdom right? Our ability to reason and language and shit is an even bigger reason as to why we should forgo the consumption of meat and the murder of non-human animals. It's not anthropomorphic to compare human and animal slaves is the same friggin thing. There is no qualities difference except one is human and inedible and one is non-human and edible

I say your a speciesist too. Why is it murder when it's animals, but not when it's plants. Are they not alive enough for you? What about the diverse forms of communication found in the plant kingdom?

Plants communicate with complex chemical messages, and their roots forage for food just like animals do. Indeed plants even have a rudimentary nervous system that can sense things like sound, light, and touch. When you bite into a fruit, that taste and smell is the release of aromatic compounds. It's the chemical equivalent of a call for help. That's why other plants in the vicinity start releasing compounds like the natural insecticide, nicotine (present in many plants, not just tobacco). Don't believe me? Watch this video on PBS.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2338524490/

And here is a link dealing with the rudimentary intelligence of plants.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

As a bit of an armchair biologist, I reject the idea somehow Animals are the only creatures whose welfare we should be concerned about. And I'm tired of the speciesism of animal rights people. What about plant's rights? Evolution happens in gradations, and nervous systems didn't just appear in animals. Complex sensory systems evolved from more primitive ones. So it makes sense we would observe some rudimentary neurobiology, like memory in plants. Albeit they don't have separate nervous systems.

So why are the rights of animals more important than the rights of plants considering they have sensory systems and neurobiology as well?

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 15:42

What about plant's rights?

On what basis is a plant alive?

Also, since we're not a species of plant, I'm not sure you can really be a specieist when you discuss human views towards plants.

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 16:00

On what basis is a plant alive?

Basic biology. Please don't tell me you are suggesting that plants aren't living things. Plants grow, reproduce, breathe, excrete, forage for food, communicate (through chemical messaging), and respond to stimulus. They have sexual organs called flowers that produce sperm (called pollen) and eggs (called seeds). A seed is a plant embryo. Some plants, like Ginkgo biloba, have the same sex chromosomes that animals have: X and Y. [Amer. Jour. Bot. Vol 41(7):pp545-549]

I go even further than inform you of a primary biological fact that plants are very much indeed alive. You are welcome to verify any of my claims through the sources I provided. You can also do a google search on "plant communication" and "plant neurobiology" for even more materials on the subject.

Also, since we're not a species of plant, I'm not sure you can really be a specieist when you discuss human views towards plants.

You do realize that all living things. Plants, fungi, animals, protists, and bacteria all share the same basic proteomic building blocks. We are all species of living organisms under the same umbrella. If you put human cytochrome c in a yeast it functions the same way as if you did the reverse. It is special pleading to claim you cannot be a speciesist with respect to plants.

BIXX

27th February 2014, 16:23

I think that's gonna depend on the society is going to interact with these animals. The truth is AFAIK, Marx didn't really say anything about animal welfare. Given the era he lived in, I think Marx would see animals as an means to an end--rightly or wrongly.

Why only the animal kingdom? Why not include Kingdom Plantae as well as Kingdom Animalia too?

I say your a speciesist too. Why is it murder when it's animals, but not when it's plants. Are they not alive enough for you? What about the diverse forms of communication found in the plant kingdom?

Plants communicate with complex chemical messages, and their roots forage for food just like animals do. Indeed plants even have a rudimentary nervous system that can sense things like sound, light, and touch. When you bite into a fruit, that taste and smell is the release of aromatic compounds. It's the chemical equivalent of a call for help. That's why other plants in the vicinity start releasing compounds like the natural insecticide, nicotine (present in many plants, not just tobacco). Don't believe me? Watch this video on PBS.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2338524490/

And here is a link dealing with the rudimentary intelligence of plants.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

As a bit of an armchair biologist, I reject the idea somehow Animals are the only creatures whose welfare we should be concerned about. And I'm tired of the speciesism of animal rights people. What about plant's rights? Evolution happens in gradations, and nervous systems didn't just appear in animals. Complex sensory systems evolved from more primitive ones. So it makes sense we would observe some rudimentary neurobiology, like memory in plants. Albeit they don't have separate nervous systems.

So why are the rights of animals more important than the rights of plants considering they have sensory systems and neurobiology as well?

Does a plant "care" when it is eaten? I mean, I know it would "try" not to, but does it have that emotion?

That cry for help you mentioned regarding fruits, I would think it's more of a warning. Of course I could be wrong.

Of course, plants are alive. And if there was some way I could sustain myself without damage to them or animals, I would probably take that route. However, plants also are not capable of feeling as far as I know, and so, due to their inability to "care" (meaning that they can't consider going against me, think it through, etc) about what happens to them, I would be more interested in saving animals. I will wait for new evidence to come out about plants.

(I'm gonna watch/read all the inks you posted- very interesting!)

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 16:32

Does a plant "care" when it is eaten? I mean, I know it would "try" not to, but does it have that emotion?

I don't know. But watch that video, and you will see that trees in forests actually care for their young and kin. There are massive nutrient channels and networks in the soil formed by symbiosis between different flora. Parental trees divert nutrients to others that are genetically related through these channels. That counts for something. Here's another interesting one too.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.ht ml

That cry for help you mentioned regarding fruits, I would think it's more of a warning. Of course I could be wrong.

That might be more accurate.

Of course, plants are alive. And if there was some way I could sustain myself without damage to them or animals, I would probably take that route. However, plants also are not capable of feeling as far as I know, and so, due to their inability to "care" (meaning that they can't consider going against me, think it through, etc) about what happens to them, I would be more interested in saving animals. I will wait for new evidence to come out about plants.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that it privileges animals unfairly when we ignore plants. I'm sure that there are some animals that are arguably less complex than some plants are.

(I'm gonna watch/read all the inks you posted- very interesting!)

Thank you.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 16:34

Basic biology. don't tell me you are suggesting that plants aren't living things. Plants grow, reproduce, breathe, excrete, forage for food, communicate (through chemical messaging), and respond to stimulus. They have sexual organs called flowers that produce sperm (called pollen) and eggs (called seeds). A seed is a plant embryo. Some plants, like Ginkgo biloba, have the same sex chromosomes that animals have: X and Y. [Amer. Jour. Bot. Vol 41(7):pp545-549]

I go even further than inform you of a primary biological fact that plants are very much indeed alive. You are welcome to verify any of my claims through the sources I provided. You can also do a google search on "plant communication" and "plant neurobiology" for even more materials on the subject.

Firstly, don't project your insecurities into my posts. I simply asked you a question. Secondly, if we accept on a physiological level that a plant is alive, on what basis is it relevant in the context of human ethics towards animals?

You do realize that all living things. Plants, fungi, animals, protists, and bacteria all share the same basic proteomic building blocks. We are all species of living organisms under the same umbrella. If you put human cytochrome c in a yeast it functions the same way as if you did the reverse. It is special pleading to claim you cannot be a speciesist with respect to plants.

We can follow your argument through and it logically follows, but I question the purpose of such an exercise. The difference between animals and plants is that animals have certain levels of sentience, albeit to vastly different degrees. Plants don't have any sentience, they don't feel pain or experience emotion etc.

So my question is, why is it significant that plants are living?

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th February 2014, 16:36

Why only the animal kingdom? Why not include Kingdom Plantae as well as Kingdom Animalia too?

Because this thread is about animals and animal welfare/liberation specifically. To be Frank, I'm more interested in your choice in introducing this subject matter within the context of the thread than I am in what you posted.

I say your a speciesist too.

Thas silly but hey, I usually always do get labeled something horrendously inaccurate in every thread I post in so why not.

Why is it murder when it's animals, but not when it's plants. Are they not alive enough for you? What about the diverse forms of communication found in the plant kingdom?

This is stupid in that its incredibly presumptuous, I myself support earth liberation and the ELFs, and I've mentioned the idea of plants having 'feelings' (along with the associated research) once or twice. To say I'm a speciesist goes against everything I've ever said on the subject on this forum ever. As to why I didn't label it 'murder' is due to sentience, emotional awareness, etc. How are we defining 'murder'? I'm game to humor you? Idk

Plants communicate with complex chemical messages, and their roots forage for food just like animals do. Indeed plants even have a rudimentary nervous system that can sense things like sound, light, and touch. When you bite into a fruit, that taste and smell is the release of aromatic compounds. It's the chemical equivalent of a call for help. That's why other plants in the vicinity start releasing compounds like the natural insecticide, nicotine (present in many plants, not just tobacco). Don't believe me? Watch this video on PBS.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2338524490/

And here is a link dealing with the rudimentary intelligence of plants.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

Ok, while this is all very interesting, I promises, was it have to do with animals or animal liberation/welfare?

As a bit of an armchair biologist, I reject the idea somehow Animals are the only creatures whose welfare we should be concerned about. And I'm tired of the speciesism of animal rights people. What about plant's rights? Evolution happens in gradations, and nervous systems didn't just appear in animals. Complex sensory systems evolved from more primitive ones. So it makes sense we would observe some rudimentary neurobiology, like memory in plants. Albeit they don't have separate nervous systems.

Golly that's neat.

So why are the rights of animals more important than the rights of plants considering they have sensory systems and neurobiology as well?

Idk, cause sentience, emotional awareness, pain receptors, etc. probably alot of reasons. Though, neither I or anyone is truly saying this anyway. The OP is about the opinions or beliefs of Marxists/leftists in regards to animals and their liberation. Thas why. Harrumph! Harrumph!

JN99jshaQbY

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 16:40

Firstly, don't project your insecurities into my posts. I simply asked you a question.

I wasn't aware I was projecting any insecurity. I feel rather secure in convictions. I was merely surprised that you weren't aware that plants are alive. They are indeed wonderful creatures!

Secondly, if we accept on a physiological level that a plant is alive, on what basis is it relevant in the context of human ethics towards animals?

Because I feel it privileges animals unjustly.

We can follow your argument through and it logically follows, but I question the purpose of such an exercise. The difference between animals and plants is that animals have certain levels of sentience, albeit to vastly different degrees. Plants don't have any sentience, they don't feel pain or experience emotion etc.

On what grounds do you assert this? How do you know?

So my question is, why is it significant that plants are living?

Because you asked me whether they were alive.

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 16:51

Because this thread is about animals and animal welfare/liberation specifically. To be Frank, I'm more interested in your choice in introducing this subject matter within the context of the thread than I am in what you posted.

Because I feel your view privileges animals unjustly.

This is stupid in that its incredibly presumptuous, I myself support earth liberation and the ELFs, and I've mentioned the idea of plants having 'feelings' (along with the associated research) once or twice. To say I'm a speciesist goes against everything I've ever said on the subject on this forum ever. As to why I didn't label it 'murder' is due to sentience, emotional awareness, etc. How are we defining 'murder'? I'm game to humor you? Idk

Granted I wasn't aware of your previous posts. I appreciate the clarification.

You claim that you mentioned the idea that plants have feelings yet you don't label it murder "due to sentience, emotional awareness, etc." Isn't that a contradiction. Having feelings necessitates a degree of those aforementioned qualities.

Ok, while this is all very interesting, I promises, was it have to do with animals or animal liberation/welfare?

Again: it privileges animals unjustly.

Golly that's neat.

I'm glad you think so. I think it's neat too. I really appreciate the snark too. :laugh:

Trap Queen Voxxy

27th February 2014, 17:18

Because I feel your view privileges animals unjustly.

How? If this were about the plant kingdom or earth liberation, I would mention and talk of such things. Since we're not, I'm not and didn't. Just like with my animal cop thread it's frustrating when animal threads get derailed even though I'm not being dismissive and genuinely recognize what you're getting at.

Granted I wasn't aware of your previous posts. I appreciate the clarification.

Your mastery of Voxology leaves much to be desired.

You claim that you mentioned the idea that plants have feelings yet you don't label it murder "due to sentience, emotional awareness, etc." Isn't that a contradiction. Having feelings necessitates a degree of those aforementioned qualities.

I know it's contradictory. I admittedly don't know to much about the subject past basic things and such. Again, I'm game to humor you though feel you should make a separate thread if you feel so strongly/inclined to do so.

Again: it privileges animals unjustly.

No, it's not. Nothing I've said really is doing this.

I'm glad you think so. I think it's neat too. I really appreciate the snark too. :laugh:

Actually, I was being genuine, not snarky. I just recently learned this word 'golly' and it's my new favorite. I legitimately think its neat.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 17:19

Because I feel it privileges animals unjustly.

But animals are privileged because they have levels of sentience and plants do not. Plants are not sentient on any level.

On what grounds do you assert this? How do you know?

Because they don't have a brain or a nervous system.

Because you asked me whether they were alive.

No I didn't. That is you projecting onto my posts.

consuming negativity

27th February 2014, 17:21

The difference between eating plants and eating animals is that animals are capable of suffering and intelligent thought. We have to eat something, and if we were to choose which of the two was more moral to eat, then obviously it is the plants which should be eaten. It is a sort of "lesser of two evils", if you want to be strictly moral about it. On the topic of morality, though, I find that while a good case can be made that eating animals is almost always unjustifiable when not a necessity for our own life, for a lot of people, eating animals is necessary for a variety of reasons. Particularly in the nonWest, where people might actually still be hunting to supplement their diets with protein, or who can't just hop down to McDonalds and order 50 different cow's meats on a bun. But also in the West, where we are often pigeonholed into having to eat meat at least every once and while, if only for economic reasons. It reminds me a lot of the debate about buying sweatshop clothing or organic foods or any of the other supposedly moral purchases: it's all fine and well if you're going to make the moral choice, but you need to understand that morality without severe sacrifice is often a luxury in our world. Perhaps you already do. I'm just talking.

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 17:27

Because they don't have a brain or a nervous system.

Brains and nervous systems aren't the only possible ways for something to exhibit sentience. Where is your evidence that only brains and nervous systems are the only possible ways of generating sentience?

No I didn't. That is you projecting onto my posts.

I'm afraid not.

On what basis is a plant alive?

Loony Le Fist

27th February 2014, 17:33

How? If this were about the plant kingdom or earth liberation, I would mention and talk of such things. Since we're not, I'm not and didn't. Just like with my animal cop thread it's frustrating when animal threads get derailed even though I'm not being dismissive and genuinely recognize what you're getting at.

Ok well I don't really have much more to add. I made my case.

Your mastery of Voxology leaves much to be desired.

Ok

I know it's contradictory. I admittedly don't know to much about the subject past basic things and such. Again, I'm game to humor you though feel you should make a separate thread if you feel so strongly/inclined to do so.

Thank you. I just felt like chiming in, that's all. I'll leave this thread alone

No, it's not. Nothing I've said really is doing this.

Well it just feels like when you speak of speciesism, it has the implicit message you are talking about animals. But a species can rest under any kingdom in the phylogenic umbrella. So it just seems a bit privledged. But I'll drop it, I promise. :)

Actually, I was being genuine, not snarky. I just recently learned this word 'golly' and it's my new favorite. I legitimately think its neat.

Cool. Well it was nice derailing your thread. :o I'll leave it alone now.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 17:34

Brains and nervous aren't the only possible ways for something to exhibit sentience.

Well, I call that assertion into question. But that notwithstanding, feeling emotion and pain are not possible without a brain or a nervous system.

Where is your evidence that only brains and nervous systems are the only possible ways of generating sentience?

You can't prove a negative. If you want to provide evidence to me that there is an ability for plants to feel, perceive and otherwise experience subjectivity without a brain or a nervous system, then knock yourself out. I am all eyes.

I'm afraid not.

I didn't ask whether they were alive, I asked you to provide a basis for them being alive. If you want to attribute to my question an indication of position for or against then that is you projecting, since my question was void of any commitment. I was simply asking you to provide a basis for them being alive. The words I used to form the sentence pretty much identify that as being the case.

If you made a mistake, that's fine, but don't imply that I am unaware of what I mean.

Axiomasher

27th February 2014, 18:31

...

Ultimately if you're going to consume flesh, why do you care how it's produced? What difference does it make to you?...

I would argue that there is a substantive qualitative difference between an animal raised for its meat in squalid miserable conditions and with little concern for how it is killed on the one hand and an animal raised in conditions which reflect its species needs, where there is attendance to its welfare while alive and where the method of killing is intended to be as quick and painless as practicable. After all, animals do die whether or not at the hands of humans and in the wild animal death is probably often slow, painful and lingering. On this basis I don't think that consumption of flesh automatically means an indifference to how it is produced.

Axiomasher

27th February 2014, 18:39

...

But in answer to the OP's question:

No, there isn't an Orthodox Marxist position on animal welfare. Marxists of all stripes have differing opinions on the subject, and I believe you should be allowed to form your own.

Thanks for this.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 18:45

I would argue that there is a substantive qualitative difference between an animal raised for its meat in squalid miserable conditions and with little concern for how it is killed on the one hand and an animal raised in conditions which reflect its species needs, where there is attendance to its welfare while alive and where the method of killing is intended to be as quick and painless as practicable.

If the argument is that animal welfare is useful because it creates better quality meat then at least that makes sense.

After all, animals do die whether or not at the hands of humans and in the wild animal death is probably often slow, painful and lingering. On this basis I don't think that consumption of flesh automatically means an indifference to how it is produced.

Obviously it doesn't mean an automatic indifference, but it does bring into question the motivations behind it.

If you're going to kill or have killed an animal, mutilate its carcass and then consume its flesh, it is clearly disingenuous to simultaneously care about how it is treated before hand on the basis that you wish to "respect" the animal. I have a much easier time understanding the argument that animal welfare produces better meat, because at least that is consistent with the view that animals are only valuable as a product.

But whether or not animals die is irrelevant to me. I am vegan for many reasons, but the overarching philosophical reason is because fundamentally human beings are not endowed with some automatic entitlement to dominate other living creatures (and the plant) and it is necessary and important to make a more critical appraisal of our actions, motivations and the consequences of both, in regards to how we engage with the plant.

It is my view, and I am yet to be adequately challenged, that there is no intellectual justification for the domination of animals. Not one that is consistent with a desire to establish a compassionate and just society, in any case.

Comrade #138672

27th February 2014, 19:30

At least a lot better than this. I think "animal liberation" is loosely tied to our own emancipation and liberation. Animals may not be people, but they certainly are not machines either.

Axiomasher

27th February 2014, 19:34

...

If you're going to kill or have killed an animal, mutilate its carcass and then consume its flesh, it is clearly disingenuous to simultaneously care about how it is treated before hand on the basis that you wish to "respect" the animal...

But for me there's a big distinction between the living animal and the dead body once killed. I care about how an animal is treated while alive, I don't much care how it is treated when dead, I don't much care how I am treated when dead - for me dead means ceasing to exist, or more accurately ceasing to be a living thing that was once capable of neglect/suffering and so on.

Skyhilist

27th February 2014, 20:06

Human digestive tract, human metabolism, human jaw and tooth structures and a myriad of other anatomical features are all geared to omnivorous eating practices.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

Skyhilist

27th February 2014, 20:09

Also lol at people commenting thinking animal welfare means veganism or something. Animal welfare isn't even animal rights, they're two separate things.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 21:39

But for me there's a big distinction between the living animal and the dead body once killed. I care about how an animal is treated while alive, I don't much care how it is treated when dead, I don't much care how I am treated when dead - for me dead means ceasing to exist, or more accurately ceasing to be a living thing that was once capable of neglect/suffering and so on.

But we are not talking about an animal that is born, lives and dies as a free entity like a human. We are talking about an animal that is born, confined and reared specifically for you to eat. And then, when you have decided you wish to consume its flesh, is killed.

Sea

27th February 2014, 22:55

But there is also no excuse for eating meat in any circumstance, so your argument seems a bit strange.And why is an excuse for eating animal flesh needed any more than an excuse for eating plant matter? (Full disclosure: Personally I don't eat meat for health reasons and because it tastes horrible and bland compared to soy alternatives.) Your argument, which seems a bit strange, assumes that an excuse is needed.
But we are not talking about an animal that is born, lives and dies as a free entity like a human. We are talking about an animal that is born, confined and reared specifically for you to eat. And then, when you have decided you wish to consume its flesh, is killed.And plant liberation? What about plant liberation? We kill those all the time. Some plants we not only raise for out own selfish consumption, but we also discriminate in a spiciest way by giving some plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana) a treatment somewhat akin to the brazen bull.

Plant liberation, and other absurdities, can be justified broadly on the same principles as this distorted variety of animal liberation that alienates the non-human animals from the materialist cause of their suffering is grounded on. The bulk of animal liberation rhetoric and tactics is thoroughly poisoned in this bourgeois-moralist hogwash. The vast bulk of animal liberation is subordinate to human liberation, not because of some speciest bullshit, but because the vast bulk of human-caused animal suffering is a direct result of the same social system that causes the vast bulk of human-caused human suffering.

The only reason any communist would sidestep the issue of animal liberation in the way described in Vox Populi's first post in this thread is because they have rightfully cleansed their brains of the moralist superstitions of "fighting suffering" and "doing the right thing" but yet remain ignorant to any valid materialist justification for animal liberation

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 22:57

You have repeated questions I've already responded to.

Sea

27th February 2014, 23:01

Do you mind linking a few posts? Those who support animal liberation, myself included, would do well to work out a "philosophical or theoretical underpinning" (per the OP) for that tactic that does not rely on morality. Unfortunately, it seems like most of the pro-liberation people in this thread have morals.

The Feral Underclass

27th February 2014, 23:14

I have no idea what you're asking me.

You asked me why an excuse is necessary and, essentially, why plant "liberation" shouldn't be included within the framework I am discussing. Both of these things I have already addressed.

This materialism vs morality false dichotomy is the sign of a faux-intellectualism. The idea that one has to choose between morality and a materialist conception, or at the very least prioritise one over the other, really demonstrates a callow understanding of both these concepts.

Sea

28th February 2014, 00:54

I have no idea what you're asking me.

You asked me why an excuse is necessary and, essentially, why plant "liberation" shouldn't be included within the framework I am discussing. Both of these things I have already addressed.I only asked you to link said posts. Now I have to dig through the whole thread to find them. Don't bother linking them now because by the time you reply I'd have already found them.

This materialism vs morality false dichotomy is the sign of a faux-intellectualism. The idea that one has to choose between morality and a materialist conception, or at the very least prioritise one over the other, really demonstrates a callow understanding of both these concepts.You are correct in observing that there is no contradiction between materialism generally and morality generally, but there is a very gaping contradiction between Marxian materialism and the "do unto others" morality that underpins bourgeois animal liberationism. Considering that VP is a member of PETA, and the few PETAers that I've conversed with on the topic fall back to the most fallacious bourgeois morality when pressed, I presume that that's their "party line". Maybe I'm wrong. In any event, your diagnoses of "faux intellectualism" has no bearing on the argument.

Einkarl

28th February 2014, 03:04

People keep using terms as "slavery" "opression" and "genocide" on non-human animals as if these animals are intelligent enough to grasp any of these human centric concepts. This is silly.

Yes, speciesist, don't tell me you don't know the meaning of the word. Speciesist as in being "discriminatory," or more properly homicidal (read: genocidal) to members of the animal kingdom not of your own species. What else would you call it?

Are you then not being speciesist then for assuming to know what benefits animals? Do you think that owning a pet, such as a dog,is not oppresive to the pet inquestion?

Why shouldn't we, in the event of the workers' revolution, enrich our lives with animal products? If a person decides that a nice steak would be a fantastic meal and that the slaughtering of the animals is viable, then why shouldn't there be meat available for his/her consumption?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

28th February 2014, 04:16

Will continue to post this (http://libcom.org/library/beasts-burden-antagonism-practical-history) in every thread about animal liberation.

Seriously, read it.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

28th February 2014, 04:28

Also, coincidentally, I just happened to be reading this interview with Rod Coronado (http://profanexistence.com/2014/02/26/interview-with-rod-coronado-on-indigenous-resistance-and-animal-liberation-still-defending-wildlife/) at the same time I found this thread. It makes some pr. interesting points, though it might not appeal to someone looking for a Marxian answer to the question of animal liberation.

Creative Destruction

28th February 2014, 05:27

We humans are a part of life and, by virtue of our evolutionary heritage, are largely herbivorous with a little bit of meat on the side. Thus, we are perfectly adapted to live off an entirely herbivorous diet

humans are omnivores, and not in the sense that most of their diets were "mostly" vegetables and with a "little bit of meat on the side." the make up of people's diets throughout our history varies, depending on where they lived and the availability of different foods, but you can count on most of them being a mixture of meat, vegetables and fruits.

we are not perfectly adapted to live off an entirely herbivorous diet. that is just anti-scientific crap. if we had perfectly adapted to a vegetarian diet, then we wouldn't need as many supplements as we do if someone chooses to take that route.

Creative Destruction

28th February 2014, 05:50

Does a plant "care" when it is eaten? I mean, I know it would "try" not to, but does it have that emotion?

That cry for help you mentioned regarding fruits, I would think it's more of a warning. Of course I could be wrong.

Of course, plants are alive. And if there was some way I could sustain myself without damage to them or animals, I would probably take that route. However, plants also are not capable of feeling as far as I know, and so, due to their inability to "care" (meaning that they can't consider going against me, think it through, etc) about what happens to them, I would be more interested in saving animals. I will wait for new evidence to come out about plants.

(I'm gonna watch/read all the inks you posted- very interesting!)

Well, many "cared" enough to evolve in such a way that would make them unpalatable to being consumed. This was the case for much of pre-agricultural vegetation. It was either too bitter, didn't taste good enough or was just simply toxic to human beings. It was humans that -- through early forms of genetic modification -- bred plants that could be edible. But, that was a force of humanity, not necessarily a force of nature outside of human control.

If this discussion hinges on the sentience of things, though, then the question arises of whether it is fine to eat animals who have no sentience. I feel like a lot of this conversation ends up being about comparisons to human sentience. Because we feel and experience pain in a certain way, we automatically assume that this must apply to all animals.

Pain is defined as a negative emotional experience associated with damage done to us in some way. For many animals, we cannot know if they experience pain since we can't know if they can experience emotions to begin with. We do know that many do, but there are many others -- like most insects -- that do not have the sentience required to interpret such an emotion as positive or negative and, even if they did, in fact, lack the known chemical receptors that cause this negative reaction in the first place.

So, then if the argument for ethical vegetarianism is to prevent the suffering of all animals, then it's necessary to ask why and where you base this ethical choice on? If most insects (for example) don't know pain and suffering, why isn't it okay to consume them? And if we should extend rights and protection to insects, as well, even though they can't feel what we know as pain, then why shouldn't we also extend these rights and protections to plants?

And if the standard is going off whether they "care," then how would them "caring" look like? Plants produce toxins in order to prevent themselves from being killed and consumed, but they're probably not sentient or aware. Just as well, neither are most insects, but they still -- evolution-wise -- "care" since many bugs produce or carry toxins to prevent themselves from being killed.

BIXX

28th February 2014, 05:56

Well, many "cared" enough to evolve in such a way that would make them unpalatable to being consumed.

This shows that you are either making a bullshit argument willfully in the hopes that people here are fucking stupid or you know nothing about evolution.

Thirsty Crow

28th February 2014, 06:05

On what basis is a plant alive?

Obviously, plants are dead, inorganic matter. Much like rock.

And obviously, the human species is called animals. Not homo sapiens sapiens, oh no.

Does this piece of buffoonery the species argument boil down to?

Creative Destruction

28th February 2014, 06:06

This shows that you are either making a bullshit argument willfully in the hopes that people here are fucking stupid or you know nothing about evolution.

Nice. You didn't care enough to pay attention. It did serve a good purpose, though: showing you that your application about how things might "care" is nonsense. Aside from that, though, it wasn't even the majority of my post. If your criteria for not consuming something is because it can't have emotions or feelings, then are you cool with eating animals that don't posses these capabilities, either?

You want to have another swing at it?

Creative Destruction

28th February 2014, 07:08

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

the paper by Mills doesn't appear to have undergone any peer review or, at the very least, fact checking. the article by this Blue Jay guy throws up a lot of strawman arguments, as well. he also paraphrases a seriously false extrapolation for one of his "facts" in the beginning:

Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. (source, article #5)

the source: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/dec/fav5.htm

there's a couple of issues there:

in McDougall's "comment" to the article, he concludes, out of nowhere, that our ancestors from 4 million years ago lived on an exclusive diet of plant-based foods. the sources he cites does not back up this argument and it seems to have just been made up. here are the sources he sites:

http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/backbasics.pdf

in this paper, Milton basically lays out what has been the uncontroversial consensus: that hunter-gatherer societies diets varied depending on the regional availability of foods and what the seasons were. and that the reason that early humans probably did not eat as much meat as we do now more has to do with the availability of animals rather than for physiological reasons.

here is the second paper he cites to support this figure:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/665.full

however, as far as i can read, nothing in this says that our ancestors lived on an almost exclusively plant-based diet some 4,000,000 years ago. rather, it's just reiterating what the first paper said: it varies. the only difference is that, since she's comparing modern diets with prehistoric diets, she notes that they consumed more plants and fruits than we currently do (at least in a Western diet.) that's uncontroversial, but it's not at all saying what this Blue Jay guy and McDougall are claiming.

so, i'm highly skeptical of this article you cited. two of the major authors it uses as evidence either haven't had their work reviewed or they engage in sloppy scholarship, as does the author of the article himself.

No_Leaders

28th February 2014, 07:43

My opinion on this matter is that the animal exploitation is connected to other forms of oppression. Animals are basically biological machines to be bought and sold like a simple commodity. I mean if you wonder why in our society workers are treated like biological machines to serve the interest of the rich and why women are treated like biological machines to serve the sexual interest of men just look at the meat and dairy industry. There's a direct coloration between these things and I think it's important for people to recognize all forms of oppression. As an anarchist I feel strongly that their liberation goes hand in hand with liberation of all of us, our brothers and sisters.

This was a really interesting read to anyone interested in animal liberation from a marxist perspective. http://www.akpress.org/makingakillingakpress.html
(http://www.akpress.org/makingakillingakpress.html)

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 08:24

I only asked you to link said posts. Now I have to dig through the whole thread to find them. Don't bother linking them now because by the time you reply I'd have already found them.

Ugh, read the thread, for crying out loud. I'm not responsible for your laziness.

You are correct in observing that there is no contradiction between materialism generally and morality generally, but there is a very gaping contradiction between Marxian materialism and the "do unto others" morality that underpins bourgeois animal liberationism.

I don't know what "do unto others" morality is.

Considering that VP is a member of PETA, and the few PETAers that I've conversed with on the topic fall back to the most fallacious bourgeois morality when pressed, I presume that that's their "party line". Maybe I'm wrong. In any event, your diagnoses of "faux intellectualism" has no bearing on the argument.

Well, I think it does have a bearing actually. I don't think there's much use in engaging with such contrived views.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 08:25

Obviously, plants are dead, inorganic matter. Much like rock.

And obviously, the human species is called animals. Not homo sapiens sapiens, oh no.

Does this piece of buffoonery the species argument boil down to?

Errr, what? :unsure:

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 08:29

People keep using terms as "slavery" "opression" and "genocide" on non-human animals as if these animals are intelligent enough to grasp any of these human centric concepts. This is silly.

I personally avoid using terms like that, but many humans are't intelligent enough to grasp those concepts either. So, what's your point?

tallguy

28th February 2014, 10:57

humans are omnivores, and not in the sense that most of their diets were "mostly" vegetables and with a "little bit of meat on the side." the make up of people's diets throughout our history varies, depending on where they lived and the availability of different foods, but you can count on most of them being a mixture of meat, vegetables and fruits.

we are not perfectly adapted to live off an entirely herbivorous diet. that is just anti-scientific crap. if we had perfectly adapted to a vegetarian diet, then we wouldn't need as many supplements as we do if someone chooses to take that route.
No it's not "anti-scientific crap". We are omnivorous scavengers/hunter-gatherers, by virtue of our evolutionary history. This means we are perfectly well adapted to live off purely flora, if sufficient variety is available, purely fauna, if that is all that is available, or both. However, given that the historically easiest way to satisfy our nutritional needs has been via mostly vegetables with a little bit of meat on the side, this is precisely what our diet has consisted of for the vast majority of humans for the vast majority of our history prior to the advent of the industrial revolution. At which point our diet, at least in the West (and now to a growing degree in some other parts of the world), has significantly diverged from the historical norm and where out intake of carbohydrates and proteins in the form of mass-produced sugars, cereals and meat, has risen massively.

The Jay

28th February 2014, 13:04

Judging from this forum alone, apparently the position is "fuck em, they have nothing to do with the factory, fuck em, we might deal with it later, maybe." Aka workerist/speciesist bullshit. While, no, I'm not making sweeping generalizations about Marxists in some sectarian jab more these are merely observations. Towards the larger Marxist milieu? Hard to tell.

I'm not sure if your looking for specifically a 'Marxist' answer however me, personally, I consider animal liberation to be just as important as human liberation. I'm also a member of PeTA and support/endorse/interact with the ALFs. Idk what else to say except I love animals and I'm extremely disappointed in the mainstream treatment of animal welfare in general and at the Left specifically. While I don't support parliamentary fuckery ordinarily as a matter of urgency I support the Great Ape Project which seeks to give 'personhood' (internationally) to apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, etc.). As well as a number of conservatory efforts.

Non-human animals are subject to the horrors of capitalism and are apart of the class struggle just as you or I. Real talk.

I don't think that animals can be considered as a part of the working class there vox. Sure, they do work and are adorable - sometimes - but I can't see a cow producing any value other than getting fatter.

I'm all for getting rights for Great Apes though. In fact, the same should be done for dolphins and whales.

. . . meat is yummy.

helot

28th February 2014, 13:17

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 13:22

If this discussion hinges on the sentience of things

It doesn't.

Is that satisfactory, helot?

helot

28th February 2014, 13:33

It doesn't.

Is that satisfactory, helot?

Not really no considering the claim has been made multiple times already in this thread. In fact while it may not underpin your complete argument you have also appealed to emotion, pain, sentience in this very thread. It can't apply to all animals, it's verte-centric (coined it! verte- ofc being vertebrate)

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 13:36

Not really no considering the claim has been made multiple times already in this thread.

I'm not really sure how I can expand on my response. This discussion does not hinge on the sentience of things. Not for me at least.

In fact while it may not underpin your complete argument you have also appealed to emotion, pain, sentience in this very thread.

I have discussed those things, yes. If you're trying to make a point, I'm not getting it.

tallguy

28th February 2014, 13:38

I'd very much like someone to respond to rednoise's point about the argument being based on sentience, emotion and pain as i fear it'll just get ignored when they have a perfectly valid point that the argument cannot logically result in an opposition to all meat consumption.
For me, the issue hinges on two things. Firstly, the pain and suffering involved and, secondly, the broader ecological impacts. In the end, the broader ecological impacts are the more important in terms of the overall health of the planetary eco-system. An eco-system on which humans are dependant no more or less than any other form of life. But, for the purpose of my reply in this specific post, I will limit myself to dealing with the pain and suffering aspect of the issue:

We know that many "higher order" animals with complex central nervous systems share many of the same features vis a vis sensory and perceptual apparatus. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the essential perception of pain is equally similar. Where there will be significant differences will be in the more amorphous, existential suffering that occurs around the experience of pain. That is to say, humans, having the preposterously large brains we do and given our consequent capacity to model the future and re-live the past, our capacity for suffering is quite unique. So, for humans, there may be as much suffering contained in the anticipation and remembrance of the experience of pain as may be contained in the experience of pain itself. This is something that most other animals are arguably spared, though not fully by any means. As we move closer to humans on the evolutionary tree, there can be little doubt that animals such as the the great apes have a similar, though more limited, capacity to experience such existentialist suffering. There is no hard and fast, simplistic way of determining the above. It is necessarily, for the moment, reliant on a lot of educated guesswork. I do fear, though, that as our technological means of getting inside other animals' heads improves, we may even find their capacity for such suffering is far more similar to our own than we might like to suppose. Time will tell on that front.

In lieu of the above, it would at least seem sensible to err on the side of caution and try to ensure that an animal's life is as close to that which it was evolved to live as is possible. The reason being, that over the course of its evolutionary history, we might reasonably suppose that the Darwinian evolutionary process will have psychologically equipped the animal to deal with such an existence with the optimum amount of psychological robustness. For, if that was not the case, the animal would likely not have evolved and survived to the point where it still exists today. It therefore logically follows that if we force an animal to live a life that is totally alien to that which it's ancestors were evolved to live, we might also reasonably suppose that this will cause the animal much psychological suffering.

Speaking as a human, who does have the capacity for morality, I know that's just wrong, plain and simple.

helot

28th February 2014, 13:40

I'm not really sure how I can expand on my response. This discussion does not hinge on the sentience of things. Not for me at least.

I have discussed those things, yes. If you're trying to make a point, I'm not getting it.

My point is that it's an argument that's on shaky grounds and isnt based on sound science. It can only justify an opposition of consuming some animals. It ought to be completely irrelevant.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 13:52

My point is that it's an argument that's on shaky grounds and isnt based on sound science. It can only justify an opposition of consuming some animals

I reject the assertion that the concept of sentience, pain or emotion is based on unsound science.

It ought to be completely irrelevant.

The problem with the framework you're using is that it is based on binary thinking. I don't accept that a particular position can only be justified if it is universal to its subject, or then rejected if it is not.

Some animals have sentience and some animals do not, that is true. But that doesn't negate the legitimacy of saying that sentience is an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat.

helot

28th February 2014, 13:54

In the end, the broader ecological impacts are the more important in terms of the overall health of the planetary eco-system. An eco-system on which humans are dependant no more or less than any other form of life. But, for the purpose of my reply in this specific post, I will limit myself to dealing with the pain and suffering aspect of the issue: Awesome, ecological impacts. I'm with you on that one although it can be necessary to kill animals for the protection of eco-systems. Deer in the UK spring to mind. They destroy woodlands due to their population. Ofc it's not a natural occurance humans killed their predators centuries ago.

So killing deer to protect woodlands... their flesh may as well be consumed and their hide used.

We know that many "higher order" animals with complex central nervous systems share many of the same features vis a vis sensory and perceptual apparatus. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to assume that the essential perception of pain is equally similar. where there will be significant diffierneces will be in the broader existential suffering that occurs around tghe experience of pain and suffering. That is to say, humans, having the preosterously large brains we do and, given our consequernt capacity to model the future and re-live the past, our capacity for suffering is quite unique, as is, I would tentatively wager, our capacity for joy. so, for humans, there may be much pain contained in the anticipation and remembrance of suffering as may be contained in the suffering itself. This is something that most other animals are spared, though not fully by any means. As we move closer to humans on the evolutionary tree, there can be little doubt that animals such as the the great apes have a similar, though more limited, capacity to experience such existentialist suffering. There is no hard and fast simplistic way of determining the above, it is necessarily, for the moment, reliant on a lot of educated guesswork. I do fear, though, that as our technological means of getting inside other animals heads improves, we may even find their capacity for such suffering is far more similar to our own than we might want to suppose. Time will tell on that front. I believe it definitely applies to vertebrates, no question. Shit, you can see emotion in loads of animals. The problem is though that there are tons and tons of species that are little more than instinctive automatons that don't even possess nociceptors. There's as much evidence for their suffering as there is for that lettuce i ate earlier.

Kill all the fetuses!

28th February 2014, 14:07

Will continue to post this (http://libcom.org/library/beasts-burden-antagonism-practical-history) in every thread about animal liberation.

Seriously, read it.

I second this. A truly brilliant article, which give so much material about many things, e.g. about a historical development of domestication and its relations and impact on social relations between humans.

A truly fascinating piece, please do read it.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 14:13

That article is basically a rehash of Eternal Treblinka.

helot

28th February 2014, 14:15

I reject the assertion that the concept of sentience, pain or emotion is based on unsound science.

I didn't say the concept as such but it's use as a justification for not eating meat isn't based on science. Meat isn't just vertebrate flesh but the flesh of all members of the kingdom animalia.

The problem with the framework you're using is that it is based on binary thinking. I don't accept that a particular position can only be justified if it is universal to its subject, or then rejected if it is not.

Some animals have sentience and some animals do not, that is true. But that doesn't negate the legitimacy of saying that sentience is an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat.

Sentience, emotion, pain can only be an important part of why you shouldn't eat some animals because only some animals have sentience, emotion, pain.

To use a massively broad category (animal in this case) as something that shouldn't be consumed because of the characteristics of only some of its members is an inherently flawed argument. That is an attempt to universalise what cannot be universalised. I've not counted but i'm quite sure most animals can't feel pain. If this is the case it's an attempt to universalise a minority characteristic. Tell me, how could this argument be an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat if only a minority possess the particular characteristic? It can't because that wouldn't make any fucking sense.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 14:25

I didn't say the concept as such but it's use as a justification for not eating meat isn't based on science.

Based on science in what sense? Sentience, emotion, pain are things experienced by most of the main animals that humans consume. What science are you referring to?

Meat isn't just vertebrate flesh but the flesh of all members of the kingdom animalia.

Yes, and? You make statements that -- interesting and accurate as they are -- don't seem to have much point.

Sentience, emotion, pain can only be an important part of why you shouldn't eat some animals because only some animals have sentience, emotion, pain.

:lol:

To use a massively broad category (animal in this case) as something that shouldn't be consumed because of the characteristics of only some of its members is an inherently flawed argument.

And one that hasn't been made. I don't really understand from what you have constructed your opposition, but it is certainly not from anything I have said.

That is an attempt to universalise what cannot be universalised. I've not counted but i'm quite sure most animals can't feel pain. If this is the case it's an attempt to universalise a minority characteristic. Tell me, how could this argument be an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat if only a minority possess the particular characteristic?

Because the minority that possess it happen to largely be the ones who have their meat eaten. This discussion is about meat-eating and the animals that are eaten, not about whether all animals have sentience.

helot

28th February 2014, 14:40

Based on science in what sense? Sentience, emotion, pain are things experienced by most of the main animals that humans consume. What science are you referring to?

Yes, and? You make statements that -- interesting and accurate as they are -- don't seem to have much point.

Oh i forget you can't read between the lines. You've been reducing meat and animals to vertebrates.

And one that hasn't been made.

Yes it fucking has multiple times. Even you have said it's an important argument.

Because the minority that possess it happen to largely be the ones who have their meat eaten. This discussion is about meat-eating and the animals that are eaten, not about whether all animals have sentience.

Yet you have previously mentioned that sentience is an important factor in why you shouldn't eat meat. You appear to be a disingenuous debater in your attempts to move the goal posts.

What particular species are eaten by humans is irrelevant to the discussion as you have an opposition to the consumption of all animals, tons of which are nothing more than instinctive automatons.

An argument can be made against consuming loads of animals based on sentience but not the consumption of animals generally, only specifically.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 14:50

Oh i forget you can't read between the lines.

It is not my responsibility to try and decipher your meaning. If you do not have the ability to say clearly what you mean, then that is your problem, not mine.

You've been reducing meat and animals to vertebrates.

I don't think that's true, actually. I have been discussing animals that are eaten. That is what this thread is about.

Yes it fucking has multiple times. Even you have said it's an important argument.

Anger issues much.

You said: "To use a massively broad category (animal in this case) as something that shouldn't be consumed because of the characteristics of only some of its members is an inherently flawed argument."

My argument isn't that animals shouldn't be eaten because a minority of its members feel sentience, emotion or pain. My argument is that sentience, emotion and pain form part of my reasoning for why those animals that experience those things shouldn't be eaten.

Yet you have previously mentioned that sentience is an important factor in why you shouldn't eat meat. You appear to be a disingenuous debater in your attempts to move the goal posts.

Yes, I have previously said that sentience is an important factor in why you shouldn't eat meat, but obviously that applies to those animals that experience sentience.

You seem to be incredibly confused and angry, and I don't really understand why.

What particular species are eaten by humans is irrelevant to the discussion as you have a blanket opposition to the consumption of all animals, tons of which are nothing more than instinctive automatons.

But not based entirely on the fact that some animals have sentience...

Since this is a discussion about the animals that humans eat it is entirely relevant to the discussion which species they are.

saputr4

28th February 2014, 14:58

just read, very interesting this discuss

helot

28th February 2014, 16:21

I'll start with the last part first...

Since this is a discussion about the animals that humans eat it is entirely relevant to the discussion which species they are.

Ok then, i conceed that... the species humans consume is important to the discussion.

I don't think that's true, actually. I have been discussing animals that are eaten. That is what this thread is about.

It's not just vertebrates that are eaten by humans. Even in a place like Britain some of the more often consumed animal products are insects.

I'm assuming you've read a fair amount of food labels so i'm sure you've come across things containing carmine/carminic acid/cochineal/natural red 4/E120? It's used for various things. It's used for dying clothes, as food colouring, it's used in cosmetics, in paints. It can be found in alcoholic drinks, in sauces, in marinades, in bakery products, jams, juice, loads of things... it's also used to colour pills and ointments. It is the primary source of the colour red.

Anger issues much.

'fucking' is also used for emphasis as was the case here. Claiming someone's angry is a bit of a lame tactic.

You said: "To use a massively broad category (animal in this case) as something that shouldn't be consumed because of the characteristics of only some of its members is an inherently flawed argument."

My argument isn't that animals shouldn't be eaten because a minority of its members feel sentience, emotion or pain. My argument is that sentience, emotion and pain form part of my reasoning for why those animals that experience those things shouldn't be eaten.

Then the question remains what about other animals?

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 16:23

IIt's not just vertebrates that are eaten by humans. Even in a place like Britain some of the more often consumed animal products are insects.

Yes, you are correct.

I'm assuming you've read a fair amount of food labels so i'm sure you've come across things containing carmine/carminic acid/cochineal/natural red 4/E120? It's used for various things. It's used for dying clothes, as food colouring, it's used in cosmetics, in paints. It can be found in alcoholic drinks, in sauces, in marinades, in bakery products, jams, juice, loads of things... it's also used to colour pills and ointments. It is the primary source of the colour red.

Yes.

'fucking' is also used for emphasis as was the case here. Claiming someone's angry is a bit of a lame tactic.

What do you imagine I'm employing it as a tactic for exactly?

Then the question remains what about other animals?

What about them?

helot

28th February 2014, 16:45

Yes, you are correct. that's why i've been focusing on this.

What do you imagine I'm employing it as a tactic for exactly?

I do not know, all i know is it had no relevance.

What about them?

Context, my friend...

you said: "My argument is that sentience, emotion and pain form part of my reasoning for why those animals that experience those things shouldn't be eaten."

I'm asking what forms the reasoning for other animals.

Tbh, I think the burden of proof is on meat consumption. I just don't like the argument from sentience/emotion/pain.

sosolo

28th February 2014, 16:57

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I'd like to know what people think about eating fish/shellfish/mollusks? You can hardly compare the "sentience" of a pig and a fish.

--sosolo

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th February 2014, 17:06

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I'd like to know what people think about eating fish/shellfish/mollusks? You can hardly compare the "sentience" of a pig and a fish.

--sosolo

Fish are as smart as dogs (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/fish/hidden-lives-fish/), perhaps smarter.

Sinister Intents

28th February 2014, 17:08

I'm not trying to derail the thread, but I'd like to know what people think about eating fish/shellfish/mollusks? You can hardly compare the "sentience" of a pig and a fish.

--sosolo

Well, I personally believe that fish and other sea creatures have sentience of some kind. I'm fine with people eating seafood, I used to be a vegetarian, now I'll pretty much each anything, 'cept fast food

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 17:14

that's why i've been focusing on this.

Rather inexplicably if you ask me.

I do not know, all i know is it had no relevance.

You don't think the manner in which you communicate is relevant? Fair enough.

Context, my friend...

you said: "My argument is that sentience, emotion and pain form part of my reasoning for why those animals that experience those things shouldn't be eaten."

I'm asking what forms the reasoning for other animals.

I suspected that the reason for the tedious exchange between you and I was because you hadn't really read my previous posts. That suspicion appears to be confirmed.

Look, I have stated the reasoning for why I oppose the consumption of meat. If you don't have the courtesy to read what I say the first time I say it, then I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time writing it again.

helot

28th February 2014, 18:55

You don't think the manner in which you communicate is relevant? Fair enough. You just derail things, mate. If you think me using profanity is relevant you need to get your priorities straight.

I suspected that the reason for the tedious exchange between you and I was because you hadn't really read my previous posts. That suspicion appears to be confirmed.

Look, I have stated the reasoning for why I oppose the consumption of meat. If you don't have the courtesy to read what I say the first time I say it, then I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time writing it again.

Pot, meet kettle.

The funny thing is that i have read your posts far more carefully than you've read mine.

You've being trying to read something in my posts that isn't there. If it weren't for the fact i know you're not stupid i'd assume an honest mistake. Take for example post 71 where the first sentence is you purposefully misinterpreting what i was saying... I could do this all day btw.

The only other reasoning you've given is that you dont' see how it can be justified but that's not really been explored has it? I don't really care to explore it tbh as i'm only interested in attacking one specific argument. Asking for reasoning other than sentience/emotion/pain is my attempt to move it away from a discussion of an argument where the predicate cannot lead to the universal conclusion that's attempted. You must accept this because you agreed the very basis of your argument that it is important has been annihilated.

You started by claiming that sentience is an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat because sentience, emotion, pain are things experienced by most of the main animals that humans consume. Then it was pointed out that infact this isn't the case and some of the most consumed animals are insects that lack sentience, emotion, pain which you agreed with in post #80. This means that sentience, emotion, pain cannot be important to opposing animal consumption. Yet when this is pointed out and i attempt to move away from an argument that has been refuted you just start throwing a tantrum and refusing to engage with me.

You're pretty dishonest tbh. It seems to me that you've been backed into a corner you weren't expecting and you don't know where to go from there.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 19:14

You started by claiming that sentience is an important part of why you shouldn't eat meat because sentience, emotion, pain are things experienced by most of the main animals that humans consume.

That is my opinion.

Then it was pointed out that infact this isn't the case and some of the most consumed animals are insects that lack sentience, emotion, pain which you agreed with in post #80.

How does "some of the most consumed" having sentience refute the assertion that a lot of the most consumed have sentience?

Cows, pigs, horse, sheep, ducks, chickens, turkeys, rabbits, pheasants, pigeons, ostrich, kangaroo are all vertebrate, have varying levels of sentience and experience pain. If you want to list the rest of the animals that people eat that are not vertebrates or that do not experience pain, emotions and levels sentience then do so.

This means that sentience, emotion, pain cannot be important to opposing animal consumption.

When the animal is not sentient, that is true.

Yet when this is pointed out and i attempt to move away from an argument that has been refuted you just start throwing a tantrum and refusing to engage with me.

I'm not throwing a tantrum or refusing to engage with you. You have asked me a question I have already answered. If you have read my posts then you will know that.

You're pretty dishonest tbh. It seems to me that you've been backed into a corner you weren't expecting and you don't know where to go from there.

If this is your view, then you are seriously confused.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 19:28

Here is a list of domesticate animals that humans eat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_meat_animals

Out of that list, which is obviously not comprehensive, 36% were animals without a back bone. Of those an even smaller percentage most likely do not have sentience or experience pain.

So what exactly is the argument here?

Einkarl

28th February 2014, 19:35

I personally avoid using terms like that, but many humans are't intelligent enough to grasp those concepts either. So, what's your point?

Stop playing stupid and knock it off with your elitist bullshit. You know damn well that almost every person understands on some level what slavery or opression is even if they don't recognise every instance as such.

My point is that you keep applying these terms invented by humans to describe human conditions and applying it to animals as if any animal comprehends them. You do this because you like to project your emtions own emotions on them. My dog doesn't understand nor can he be educated to understand that he is property, nor does he care. A turkey doesn't know that it is part of food production, it couldn't, nor can it care. These animals did not evolve the required equiment to understand these things for the perservation of their species did not require it.

The whole "speciest" lable is about the dumbest fucking thing. Are animals themselves not speciest? How come we can argue that we are oppresing animals, and describe them as victims in the class struggle and them anthropomorphize, yet not apply the same label to them? sounds pretty speciest to me.

I understand and share the desire to minimize pain and stress but beyond that I really couldn't care any less for the whole "animal liberation movement". How about we emancipate ourselves first, eh?

Lastly again, why shouldn't a person eat meat if thats what he/she wants?

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 19:48

Stop playing stupid and knock it off with your elitist bullshit.

:lol:

You know damn well that almost every person understands on some level what slavery or opression is even if they don't recognise every instance as such.

No I don't know that, and neither do you, unless you have some data to provide. For a start babies and most children don't know what those concepts are...

My point is that you keep applying these terms invented by humans to describe human conditions and applying it to animals as if any animal comprehends them.

No I don't.

You do this because you like to project your emtions own emotions on them. My dog doesn't understand nor can he be educated to understand that he is property, nor does he care. A turkey doesn't know that it is part of food production, it couldn't, nor can it care. These animals did not evolve the required equiment to understand these things for the perservation of their species did not require it.

Some people do that, you are correct, and it's probably not very productive.

The whole "speciest" lable is about the dumbest fucking thing. Are animals themselves not speciest? How come we can argue that we are oppresing animals, and describe them as victims in the class struggle and them anthropomorphize, yet not apply the same label to them? sounds pretty speciest to me.

Speciesism is the idea that humans consider and promote themselves as the primary or superior species on the planet. How would you apply that concept to a non-human animal?

Lastly again, why shouldn't a person eat meat if thats what he/she wants?

Because it's fundamentally unjustifiable.

helot

28th February 2014, 19:50

That is my opinion.

How does "some of the most consumed" do not have sentience refute the assertion that a lot of the most consumed have sentience?

Lol you use the word most. Are you telling me that vertebrates are the most consumed? Fucking hell, you probably have clothing dyed with animal products. Your walls are probably covered in the stuff.

More food products contain cochineal alone than any vertebrate. The most consumed lack sentience.

I'm not throwing a tantrum or refusing to engage with you. You have asked me a question I have already answered. If you have read my posts then you will know that.

Back to this. Seriously, you can't claim i haven't read your posts when you misrepresent mine. It's too ironic.

Let me reiterate it for you...

Most animals lack sentience, emotion, pain. Sentience, emotion, pain cannot be used to argue against the consumption of animals generally, only specifically.

Considering it is invertebrates that are most consumed even in the west it can't even be used to make a claim about the majority of animal consumption.

Here is a list of domesticate animals that humans eat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domesticated_meat_animals

Out of that list, which is obviously not comprehensive, 36% were animals without a back bone. Of those an even smaller percentage most likely do not have sentience or experience pain.

So what exactly is the argument here?

As if you just used a list on wikipedia...

Have you noticed something about that list? Look under insect, it doesnt show cochineal yet we know for a fact that is in food. Your source is flawed. You're just trying to grasp at straws. This post of yours is irrelevant.

That list only shows animals with a specific purpose, the purpose of being food in and of themselves. The insects it shows are ones you can find people eating bowls full of them but not ones used in food as opposed to as food.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 20:00

Sentience, emotion, pain cannot be used to argue against the consumption of animals generally, only specifically.

Yes, I agree.

Considering it is invertebrates that are most consumed even in the west it can't even be used to make a claim about the majority of animal consumption.

I simply don't accept that point of view.

Have you noticed something about that list? Look under insect, it doesnt show cochineal yet we know for a fact that is in food. Your source is flawed. You're just trying to grasp at straws. This post of yours is irrelevant.

75% of the animals listed there are vertebrates that experience some aspect of sentience. Of all the animals that are consumed by humans, the majority of them are to some degree sentient vertebrates.

If you want to provide me with a list that shows that the majority of animals that are consumed by humans are the opposite of that, then do so.

That list only shows animals with a specific purpose, the purpose of being food in and of themselves.

Which is what we are talking about.

Trap Queen Voxxy

28th February 2014, 20:05

Stop playing stupid and knock it off with your elitist bullshit. You know damn well that almost every person understands on some level what slavery or opression is even if they don't recognise every instance as such.

Why so blue grumpy gills?

My point is that you keep applying these terms invented by humans to describe human conditions and applying it to animals as if any animal comprehends them.

Blaise Blaise, the science says otherwise. Dolphins can literally choreograph their own performance routines. Most primates recognize the concept of the Self. I mean there literally have been books (crazy I know) written about this stuff. The fact that animals can experience pain and emotional trauma and how that can lead to psychopathological behavior as a result. In fact, it's common in a lot of animals captivity, particularly in horrendous conditions to develop what is known as 'zoochosis.' I mean, for a personal example, my best friends cat experiences high levels of anxiety in response to certain specific triggers (men, stick items like a broom, etc.) and sports a scar on his nose. All of this seems indicative that he was abused and suffered trauma prior to his adoption and not only this that the patient in question also recalls this trauma and his behavior is directly manipulated by this. It's the same I'm humans who experience traumatic events.

Why then are you so adamant about making arbitrary distinctions? It's describing the same thing. "It's a necropsy not an autopsy." No, it's basically the same fucking thing. Semantics.

You do this because you like to project your emtions own emotions on them. My dog doesn't understand nor can he be educated to understand that he is property, nor does he care. A turkey doesn't know that it is part of food production, it couldn't, nor can it care. These animals did not evolve the required equiment to understand these things for the perservation of their species did not require it.

As someone whose in school for this type of shit I can tell you're wrong and that this has more to do with your own personal lack of understanding in regards to the topic than anything else.

I understand and share the desire to minimize pain and stress but beyond that I really couldn't care any less for the whole "animal liberation movement". How about we emancipate ourselves first, eh?

Because obviously we can't "multi-task." How about we only liberate working class white Anglo-Saxon cis male Protestants and get to the rest later too.

Lastly again, why shouldn't a person eat meat if thats what he/she wants?

Idk why can't I eat people if I want too? Cannibalism is tots natural. Or, why can't I behead and eat male suitors after sex? It's natural.

Einkarl

28th February 2014, 20:07

:lol:

No I don't know that, and neither do you, unless you have some data to provide. For a start babies and most children don't know what those concepts are...

A child can, at a very early, age understand things such as right and wrong, they are able to express unbelievebly complex ideas.Any 7 year old can understand what being forced to do something against your own will is. In time they, will develope the ability to understand these thigns. A dog, or cat, or cow, or fish, or turtle will never, ever be able to do that.

You have no data to prove that animals are sentien or that they have any emotions. You also have no evidence to prove that they are in any way cognicent. You can not prove that any learned action is not just an unfeeling automatic response. I can, however, ask any number of people if they have a basic understanding of what slavery is and I can get an answer. Again, continue to play stupid.

No I don't.

You did when you began to vouch for their rights, implying that they subjugated to oppression. All human ideas.

Speciesism is the idea that humans consider and promote themselves as the primary or superior species on the planet. How would you apply that concept to a non-human animal?

Do animals not by design try to promote the reproduction and survival of their species?

Because it's fundamentally unjustifiable.

Here let me justify it for you. I want to eat meat. I want to enjoy what I eat. I can get it. So I will.

helot

28th February 2014, 20:31

Yes, I agree.

And that has been my point all along.

75% of the animals listed there are vertebrates that experience some aspect of sentience. Of all the animals that are consumed by humans, the majority of them are to some degree sentient vertebrates.

But that list is irrelevant. It is merely an example of some animals used by humans in food. It is no study, it's a website that anyone can edit.

If you want to provide me with a list that shows that the majority of animals that are consumed by humans are the opposite of that, then do so.
tbh i shoudln't really be responding to this post, i was meant to be out of the house ages ago... When i've got some time i will in the meantime you could do some leg work yourself that isn't wikipedia.

Which is what we are talking about.

You quoted me out of context. That list is only a list of animals used as food not in food. There is a technical distinction but for the purpose of whether or not meat was consumed there isn't. The fact you seemed to imply that animals used in food as opposed to as food is fundamentally different when it comes to this discussion is incredibly disingenuous as you would not do the same with regards to your diet.

Why did you want to ignore what i actually put? It's really dishonest of you not to mention incredibly hypocritical considering you were accusing me of not reading your post. You are a chore to discuss things with. I hope you're not like this towards yours comrades in C.A.

Einkarl

28th February 2014, 20:48

Why so blue grumpy gills?

tbh thats a pretty cute expresion.

Blaise Blaise, the science says otherwise. Dolphins can literally choreograph their own performance routines. Most primates recognize the concept of the Self.

Thats cool,I guess? I mean that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that people keep applying terms on animals that they cant grasp, and they can't.

I mean there literally have been books (crazy I know) written about this stuff. The fact that animals can experience pain and emotional trauma and how that can lead to psychopathological behavior as a result. In fact, it's common in a lot of animals captivity, particularly in horrendous conditions to develop what is known as 'zoochosis.' I mean, for a personal example, my best friends cat experiences high levels of anxiety in response to certain specific triggers (men, stick items like a broom, etc.) and sports a scar on his nose. All of this seems indicative that he was abused and suffered trauma prior to his adoption and not only this that the patient in question also recalls this trauma and his behavior is directly manipulated by this. It's the same I'm humans who experience traumatic events.

I beleive animals can feel pain, it is a natural evolutionary development. The cat exhibits a learned behaivior. I mean I feel bad for it, but whats your point? Its still not an oppress entity. It doesn't understand anything

And isn't the ownership of that cat oppressive too? Why is it your neighboors cat. Isn't the ownership of one of these animals as pets a form of opression too?

Why then are you so adamant about making arbitrary distinctions? It's describing the same thing. "It's a necropsy not an autopsy." No, it's basically the same fucking thing. Semantics.

Aren't you arbitrarly deciding what is oppressed based on your own anthropocentric perspective?

As someone whose in school for this type of shit I can tell you're wrong and that this has more to do with your own personal lack of understanding in regards to the topic than anything else. .

"your wrong, im right, shut up". Care to elaborate at least?

Because obviously we can't "multi-task." How about we only liberate working class white Anglo-Saxon cis male Protestants and get to the rest later too.

Yes, because I'm sure that the impoverished, hungry and beaten proletariat of latin america, africa and asia care SO much about some cows.

Hey lets stop any form of struggle that doesn't cater to some chickens that couldn't care less.

Fighting any struggle is hard, it takes a lot to combat the oppresion of people. It is silly to waste time and effort on animals when we can't even convince fellow proletariat to fight for our own emancipation.

Idk why can't I eat people if I want too? Cannibalism is tots natural. Or, why can't I behead and eat male suitors after sex? It's natural.

Because it is in everyones best interest if we don't start eating each other. Also, I never made the argument that eating meat is "natural"; I don't care if it is "natural" or not. I think everything is natural.

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 21:08

A child can, at a very early, age understand things such as right and wrong, they are able to express unbelievebly complex ideas.

So is a pig (see Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University).

Any 7 year old can understand what being forced to do something against your own will is. In time they, will develope the ability to understand these thigns. A dog, or cat, or cow, or fish, or turtle will never, ever be able to do that.

Unless they are seriously mentally impaired.

In any case, why does the fact that a non-human animal cannot develop complex concepts mean that they should not be part of human ethical judgements?

You have no data to prove that animals are sentien or that they have any emotions. You also have no evidence to prove that they are in any way cognicent. You can not prove that any learned action is not just an unfeeling automatic response. I can, however, ask any number of people if they have a basic understanding of what slavery is and I can get an answer. Again, continue to play stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpzpUeJ9HA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

http://www.inspirationgreen.com/animal-intelligence-videos.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-frontier-animal-intelligence/

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=study+on+animal+intelligence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=e_gQU5rrENSAhAeUpYGIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQgQMwAA

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=study+on+animal+emotion&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Knock yourself out.

You did when you began to vouch for their rights, implying that they subjugated to oppression. All human ideas.

Firstly, I don't advocate animal rights. Secondly, no where in this thread or on this board will you find a quote from me that talks about animals being oppressed.

Do animals not by design try to promote the reproduction and survival of their species?

Wanting to reproduce and survive aren't prerequisites for speciesism, though...

Furthermore, the concept of being a speciesist requires an ability to make a conceptual decision about your own species when compared to another. Since it is only humans that have the ability to make critically engaged and intellectualised comparative judgements, how could speciesism apply to other animals?

Here let me justify it for you. I want to eat meat. I want to enjoy what I eat. I can get it. So I will.

Then I have a question for you: is it your view that ethical judgements and human behaviour should be based upon what people desire or what gives them pleasure?

The Feral Underclass

28th February 2014, 21:22

And that has been my point all along.

I am painfully aware. I have agreed with you every time you've repeated yourself.

But that list is irrelevant. It is merely an example of some animals used by humans in food. It is no study, it's a website that anyone can edit.

So it is your view that in a disussion about the kind of animals that humans eat, a list of animals that humans eat is irrelevant? Hmm. Well. I'm not sure what to say to that.

It may very well be the case that the list does not include animals that are used in food, but in that case are you arguing that the list of animals that are used in food, rather than as food, is of a greater amount of species [that are non-sentient, non-vertebrates] than are sentient vertebrates in and as food? That seems highly unlikely.

tbh i shoudln't really be responding to this post, i was meant to be out of the house ages ago... When i've got some time i will in the meantime you could do some leg work yourself that isn't wikipedia.

Okay then. I found this list: http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/animal-ingredients-list/

That list doesn't seem to demonstrate that there are more non-sentient, non-vertebrate animals used in food as there are sentient, vertebrate animals used as food. In fact, a lot of the animals listed in that list are actually sentient or vertebrate animals. Fait accompli.

That list is only a list of animals used as food not in food. There is a technical distinction but for the purpose of whether or not meat was consumed there isn't. The fact you seemed to imply that animals used in food as opposed to as food is fundamentally different when it comes to this discussion is incredibly disingenuous as you would not do the same with regards to your diet.

If I implied that, then that wasn't my intention. Nevertheless, I think I have adequately demonstrated that you are wrong in saying most animals consumed by humans are non-sentient, non-vertebrates.

Why did you want to ignore what i actually put? It's really dishonest of you not to mention incredibly hypocritical considering you were accusing me of not reading your post.

What you actually put was:

Have you noticed something about that list? Look under insect, it doesnt show cochineal yet we know for a fact that is in food. Your source is flawed. You're just trying to grasp at straws. This post of yours is irrelevant.

That list only shows animals with a specific purpose, the purpose of being food in and of themselves. The insects it shows are ones you can find people eating bowls full of them but not ones used in food as opposed to as food.

I didn't respond to the whole quote because I didn't have anything to add. Your main criticism of my argument is that I provided a list that did not include cochineal as an ingredient. What should I have said to that?

Loony Le Fist

28th February 2014, 21:33

For me, the issue hinges on two things. Firstly, the pain and suffering involved and, secondly, the broader ecological impacts. In the end, the broader ecological impacts are the more important in terms of the overall health of the planetary eco-system. An eco-system on which humans are dependant no more or less than any other form of life. But, for the purpose of my reply in this specific post, I will limit myself to dealing with the pain and suffering aspect of the issue:

We know that many "higher order" animals with complex central nervous systems share many of the same features vis a vis sensory and perceptual apparatus. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the essential perception of pain is equally similar. Where there will be significant differences will be in the more amorphous, existential suffering that occurs around the experience of pain. That is to say, humans, having the preposterously large brains we do and given our consequent capacity to model the future and re-live the past, our capacity for suffering is quite unique. So, for humans, there may be as much suffering contained in the anticipation and remembrance of the experience of pain as may be contained in the experience of pain itself. This is something that most other animals are arguably spared, though not fully by any means. As we move closer to humans on the evolutionary tree, there can be little doubt that animals such as the the great apes have a similar, though more limited, capacity to experience such existentialist suffering.

I promise I'll stay on topic this time (unlike before ;), as I'm sure I've already annoyed The Anarchist Tension and VoX p°PuŁï)

While pain and suffering (existentially or more viscerally) are pretty good metrics for making day-to-day ethical decisions, they cannot be the end-all-be-all. Consider the fairly rare medical condition, congenital analgesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain). People that are afflicted simply do not feel pain. Would that grant us the right to cause them physical harm? In the future, I'm convinced that humans will eventually became capable of breeding animals that are genetically modified to not feel pain or be sentient. They might have brains and nervous systems, but they would not function and be vestigial. Would that then grant us license to put them in pens in these horrid factory conditions we currently do? Personally (and emotionally) I still don't think it would.

This issue is very complicated and charged emotionally. I don't think it will ever cease to be. It is very difficult to develop a rigorous argument against causing suffering that do not appeal to our particular way of sensing the world. Any argument against speciesism (as previously defined), unfortunately, is in itself speciesist.

Like most people, I am averse to causing animals unnecessary harm. For me, however there is no way to intellectually limit this to just animals. Some of the arguments presented seem to single out animals as more "evolved". But looking more closely at the topic it is unfair to say this. All forms of life currently on earth have been evolving for the same amount of time. All forms of life are just as "advanced" as us. Just as we have evolved appropriate sensory apparatus for interpreting the world based on our particular environment, so have they. And besides who are we to say much about sentience. After all I have previously alluded to the fact that plants might have some rudimentary form of sentience. It isn't as if sentience appeared suddenly, it evolved over many eons. Indeed it can be shown that parental trees "care" for their seedlings and kin by redirecting nutrients to them in forests.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2338524490/
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

I'm all for getting rights for Great Apes though. In fact, the same should be done for dolphins and whales.

I completely agree here. While being speciesist nonetheless, these animals have a level of sentience that makes me emotionally bound to protect them. Great Apes have intelligences on par with a four year old human child. And human children currently have more rights than great apes.

To briefly touch on the topic of being a vegetarian, I agree that it is the best way to deal with our current crises. Plants only require a fraction of the water that animals need for the same amount of food production. I myself try to avoid eating meat, perhaps doing so once a month. I admit that I can make a mean jerk chicken or sirloin steak and enjoy it. Everyone probably should be a vegetarian for practical reasons, but I refuse to demonize those that choose to eat meat.

Einkarl

1st March 2014, 00:39

So is a pig (see Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University).

Okay one more time. I'm not arguing that animals can't show intelligence. I'm saying something completely different. This pig is not nearly as smart as an 6-year old.

Unless they are seriously mentally impaired..

In any case, why does the fact that a non-human animal cannot develop complex concepts mean that they should not be part of human ethical judgements?

Because it hinders human developement. To oppose the use of animals to fit human needs puts a cap on what people can use to enrich their lives in anyway possible for no real reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpzpUeJ9HA8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8

http://www.inspirationgreen.com/animal-intelligence-videos.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-frontier-animal-intelligence/

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=study+on+animal+intelligence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=e_gQU5rrENSAhAeUpYGIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQgQMwAA

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=study+on+animal+emotion&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Knock yourself out.

You claim that I can't prove that most people understand on some level what slavery is. I said that you cant prove that any learned action by an animal is not just an unfeeling automatic response.

Firstly, I don't advocate animal rights. Secondly, no where in this thread or on this board will you find a quote from me that talks about animals being oppressed.

I apologize.

Wanting to reproduce and survive aren't prerequisites for speciesism, though...

Furthermore, the concept of being a speciesist requires an ability to make a conceptual decision about your own species when compared to another. Since it is only humans that have the ability to make critically engaged and intellectualised comparative judgements, how could speciesism apply to other animals?

Okay my point exactly. We know that only humans can make complex judgements and understand ideas. You've been arguing against that notion and now suddenly you agree with it to fit your idea of speciesism.

Then I have a question for you: is it your view that ethical judgements and human behaviour should be based upon what people desire or what gives them pleasure?

I base my ethical judgements on the empathy I feel for other people, and I use that as my justification. I also beleive that humans should not be restricted in their developement and enrichment as long as they don't harm others ability to do so. I understand that you may feel similarly about animals and that is fine, you're probably a very kind person, but I am infinitely more concerned about people.

There is also a bit of self interest (as all proletariat should have). I am a Marxist because I advocate for my class and I advocate the emancipation of those with my common enemy i.e Capitalism. I like to eat meat and use animals products, I know most people do as well. So I advocate to continue doing so as long as it is sustainable. I don't like to harm animals for no reason, I don't like bloodsports, and I think that people who do are a little psychotic. I am all for conservation and I am all for reducing the suffering of an animal, beyond that im not very concerned.

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st March 2014, 01:57

tbh thats a pretty cute expresion.

Of course it is, I'm adorable.

Thats cool,I guess? I mean that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that people keep applying terms on animals that they cant grasp, and they can't.

It has total relevance given that you appear to be asserting that while animals can feel pain, they don't understand anything, they're bewildered meat machines acting on base, primitive instincts honed by evolution. Is this not a fair summation? What I said is but a beginning of an elaboration as to why your statements and sentiments couldn't be farther from the truth.

I beleive animals can feel pain, it is a natural evolutionary development. The cat exhibits a learned behaivior. I mean I feel bad for it, but whats your point? Its still not an oppress entity. It doesn't understand anything

The high levels of anxiety experienced by the cat is a conditioned or "learned" response to a specific stressor, yes. Humans are also conditioned in the same manner (see Behaviorism). How this negates my assertion I'm not sure and why you feel this point of fact confirms your own is equally confusing. Cats are incredibly intelligent, deeply emotional, etc. There so much like humans in this respect.

In the same manner that a humanity recognize his plight and his negative conditions and begin to exhibit psychopathologic behavior due to being in captivity so to do animals; hence why I mentioned 'zoochosis.' This particular psychological condition occurs from being held in captivity and isolation. Here is a little bit of info (http://circuswatchwa.org/zoochosis.htm).

Now, you're wondering what's this have to do with anything? Animals are consciously aware of their oppression, their aware of this negative treatment and horrid conditions, they retain memory and process such experiences just like humans, they develop trauma related illnesses (physical/emotional) due to these experiences and so on. To say they do not understand or recognize their plight is unreal to me and goes against what we currently know and are continuing to learn more about is the depth, complexity and similarity of the ethology and intelligence of animals. Why else do you think animals have historically chosen for comparative psychological experiments?

Even putting all this aside even if they didn't understand (which they do arguably) what difference does it make? We understand, we don't have any excuses whatsoever and if humans want to pretend to be such enlightened fucks why then can we not act like enlightened fucks?

And isn't the ownership of that cat oppressive too? Why is it your neighboors cat. Isn't the ownership of one of these animals as pets a form of opression too?

Yes and no. Pet ownership can be oppressive yes however it can also be perfectly ethical if not something absolutely positive. When I speak if pet ownership here I am talking of responsible pet ownership. I spend several hours everyday, checking and maintaining my arachnid enclosures, catering to their needs both physical and otherwise. I also see to the overall physical and emotional health of my cat (whom I see as my fur baby and a suitable candidate considering my inability to procreate) and to her intellectual stimulation as well.

How I treat my animals is a worlds difference than the usual "food and water," horseshit. I don't think that is responsible pet ownership and once I get my DVM, I would strongly advise said owners to either change their care habits or give up ownership. There is such things as legitimate sanctuaries. Some animals wouldn't survive in the wild and it would be thoroughly irresponsible to release them into it. Animals of different species befriending one another and cohabiting has been observed in numerous different cases/species. It's not that hard to see how all this came about historically.

Aren't you arbitrarly deciding what is oppressed based on your own anthropocentric perspective?

No. What I'm saying is based upon objective data and conclusions drawn forthwith. Everything I've said is based upon observed behavior in animals.

"your wrong, im right, shut up". Care to elaborate at least?

I was being lazy but my point was I'm pursuing my DVM and am an aspiring zoo vet and in addition to this I plain on getting supporting degrees in ethology and pathology. I do a lot of reading and research about this stuff. I go to school for this stuff. I've spoken to several senior veterinarians already. Everything I've ever read in any journal, article, book, etc. every teacher I've spoken too or vet or whoever, every doc or video I've seen all contradict what your saying. Your assertions do not reflect our current understanding if the animal kingdom.

If you want some books, some I've been reading that are really good are...

•The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience by Donald R. Griffin.

•Mental Evolution in Animals by George John Romanes (MA, LLD, FRS), with posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin (MA, LLD, FRS).

These are also very old and even they don't reflect just how much we know now but are a good intro into what I'm talking about.

Simply put animals do "get it."

Yes, because I'm sure that the impoverished, hungry and beaten proletariat of latin america, africa and asia care SO much about some cows.

Da, I like how India wasn't mentioned. Go to India and see how much they don't care about cows. This being said, this is a pretty baseless and meaningless assertion.

Hey lets stop any form of struggle that doesn't cater to some chickens that couldn't care less.

Hey, lets be dismissive and ignorant for no reason. I don't see how animal liberation and human liberation aren't linked and can't both be struggled for at the same time. Again, this is a baseless and meaningless assertions.

Fighting any struggle is hard, it takes a lot to combat the oppresion of people. It is silly to waste time and effort on animals when we can't even convince fellow proletariat to fight for our own emancipation.

Meaningless. Logical fallacies. Silly. Idealist. Etc.

Because it is in everyones best interest if we don't start eating each other.

From a medical perspective it's within everyone's best interests to abstain from meat consumption; equally so it's socially irresponsible to endorse or prescribe it. Since we're forgoing concerns of the food itself, it's life and potential and very real health hazards, why can't I eat humans? What if I kept them in humane settings and killed them in a humane manner and treated their remains with the utmost respect? Why not? Same to be said with my male suitors. I could feed them and clothe them and take real good care if them. Why not?

Also, I never made the argument that eating meat is "natural"; I don't care if it is "natural" or not. I think everything is natural.

I was reading between the lines, from what other basis would you argue this? Malignant narcissism and callousness?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

1st March 2014, 03:13

Einkarl

1st March 2014, 03:35

Of course it is, I'm adorable.
:rolleyes:

It has total relevance given that you appear to be asserting that while animals can feel pain, they don't understand anything, they're bewildered meat machines acting on base, primitive instincts honed by evolution. Is this not a fair summation? What I said is but a beginning of an elaboration as to why your statements and sentiments couldn't be farther from the truth.

I never said animals can't understand "anything". I said that you can't apply all these human concepts onto them as if they have can grasp such. An animal does not feel shame or disgrace, it can not feel its dignity taken away from it, it has no concept of justice or virtue.

The high levels of anxiety experienced by the car is a conditioned or "learned" (very poor word btw) response to a specific stressor, yes. How this negates my assertion I'm not sure and why you feel this point of fact confirms your own is equally confusing. Cats are incredibly intelligent, deeply emotional, etc. There so much like humans in this respect.

Here we go again. You are projecting your emotions and concepts onto that cat.

I may also think that your or whoever's cat is stressed and afraid, so what?
But regardless of what you or I think, doesn't prove that A.) the cat isn't just executing an automatic response, and more importantly that B.) that cat has any notion of being oppressed or property.

In the same manner that a humanity recognize his plight and his negative conditions and begin to exhibit psychopathologic behavior due to being in captivity so to do animals; hence why I mentioned 'zoochosis.' This particular psychological condition occurs from being held in captivity and isolation. Here is a little bit of info (http://circuswatchwa.org/zoochosis.htm).

Now, you're wondering what's this have to do with anything? Animals are consciously aware of their oppression, their aware of this negative treatment and horrid conditions, they retain memory and process such experiences just like humans, they develop trauma related illnesses (physical/emotional) due to these experiences and so on. To say they do not understand or recognize their plight is unreal to me and goes against what we currently know and are continuing to learn more about is the depth, complexity and similarity of the ethology and intelligence of animals.

A turkey doesn't understand where it is, why its there, what will happen to it, it probably has no concept of life or death. I does not see itself as an oppresed entity, it holds no resentment towards people. It has no dignity to have it taken away, it is just a turkey. So no it can not understand its subjugation.

Why else do you think animals have historically chosen for comparative psychological experiments? Okay, please one more time. I am not arguing if animals can or cannot learn things. They, like us, must evolved the necesarry capacity to learn certain things for survival. Can we please move on?

Also it is worth mentioning that in our discussion we keep treating all animals as equal in sentience and in understanding, which I think is silly. I think that some animals are just more worthy of empathy than others. A dog for example is just more sentient than a bug or a sea sponge

Even putting all this aside even if they didn't understand (which they do arguably) what difference does it make? We understand, we don't have any excuses whatsoever and if humans want to pretend to be such enlightened fucks why then can we not act like enlightened fucks?

Because wasting time and effort on basically nothing. I don't think people should give up things that make their life better over some vauge notion.

Yes and no. Pet ownership can be oppressive yes however it can also be perfectly ethical if not something absolutely positive. When I speak if pet ownership here I am talking of responsible pet ownership. I spend several hours everyday, checking and maintaining my arachnid enclosures, catering to their needs both physical and otherwise. I also see to the overall physical and emotional health of my cat (whom I see as my fur baby and a suitable candidate considering my inability to procreate) and to her intellectual stimulation as well.

Do you not then own animals exclusively for your own pleasure? Or are you telling me your spiders enjoy being enclosed and looked at by you because i don't even think they know you exist.

You're cat does not see itself as your baby nor you as its parent. Your cat sees you as a thing that feeds it, it may tolerate you, hell I might be able to admit that it "likes" you in some way, but it does not love you back. It is not a person; it does not think like you and me. And again you take pleasure in owning it like property. It is you who is projecting human ideas and concepts onto the cat, and regardless of how you treat it that makes you its opressor. That is speciesm if I've ever seen it.

How I treat my animals is a worlds difference than the usual "food and water," horseshit. I don't think that is responsible pet ownership and once I get my DVM, I would strongly advise said owners to either change their care habits or give up ownership. There is such things as legitimate sanctuaries. Some animals wouldn't survive in the wild and it would be thoroughly irresponsible to release them into it. Animals of different species befriending one another and cohabiting has been observed in numerous different cases/species. It's not that hard to see how all this came about historically. you are just posturing and moving goalposts now.

"I treat my african slave with SO much kindness, there ain't nothing I wouldn't do for him. Well I dare say he is as happy as can be living on the plantation with me."

No. What I'm saying is based upon objective data and conclusions drawn forthwith. Everything I've said is based upon observed behavior in animals. I have yet to see that.

I was being lazy but my point was I'm pursuing my DVM and am an aspiring zoo vet and in addition to this I plain on getting supporting degrees in ethology and pathology. I do a lot of reading and research about this stuff. I go to school for this stuff. I've spoken to several senior veterinarians already. Everything I've ever read in any journal, article, book, etc. every teacher I've spoken too or vet or whoever, every doc or video I've seen all contradict what your saying. Your assertions do not reflect our current understanding if the animal kingdom.

If you want some books, some I've been reading that are really good are...

•The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience by Donald R. Griffin.

•Mental Evolution in Animals by George John Romanes (MA, LLD, FRS), with posthumous essay on instinct by Charles Darwin (MA, LLD, FRS).

These are also very old and even they don't reflect just how much we know now but are a good intro into what I'm talking about.

Simply put animals do "get it.".

Half of this statement is completely anecdotal, I too can probably find several professionals and experts on the subject that will disagree.

Da, I like how India wasn't mentioned. Go to India and see how much they don't care about cows. This being said, this is a pretty baseless and meaningless assertion.

I guess India is not in Asia anymore.

Regardless, their reason not to eat beef is purely superstition. But, hell they still use cows for labor and milk, so they too oppress them because it benefits them. Again, people are better off using animals as food and material for other aplications. Why take that away? Humans must have precedence between humans don't you think?

Hey, lets be dismissive and ignorant for no reason. I don't see how animal liberation and human liberation aren't linked and can't both be struggled for at the same time. Again, this is a baseless and meaningless assertions.

Actually no their are not. Humans have ALWAYS benefited from the domestication and consumption of animals. I don't see how this is going to change in post-revolutionary society and I don't see chickens in the ranks of any revolutionary military.

Meaningless. Logical fallacies. Silly. Idealist. Etc.

The pot calling the kettle black. But go ahead Vox, just shrug it off. You know its true.

From a medical perspective it's within everyone's best interests to abstain from meat consumption; equally so it's socially irresponsible to endorse or prescribe it.

Well thats whole different can of worms, and something that is very contested by the way. Some doctors will undoubtly disagree with you.

What if I want to enjoy eating my food?

Since we're forgoing concerns of the food itself, it's life and potential and very real health hazards, why can't I eat humans? What if I kept them in humane settings and killed them in a humane manner and treated their remains with the utmost respect? Why not? Same to be said with my male suitors. I could feed them and clothe them and take real good care if them. Why not?

Because humans, unlike animals, do feel shame or disgrace, have dignity. And again it is in the best interest of all people not to eat each other.

Cows don't care if they get eaten once they are dead. A cow doesn't contemplate its existance, it is just not smart enough.

from what other basis would you argue this? Malignant narcissism and callousness? I explained this in a reply to The Anarchist Tension.

No_Leaders

1st March 2014, 04:02

Do those who disagree with meat-eating think that vegetarianism, or veganism, should be mandatory? And what should be done with all the agricultural animals? They will probably live longer and in better conditions in a more ethical agricultural model than our current one than they would be just living in the wild. I can think of numerous more ethical ways of consuming meat that don't incur as much suffering. I think it's good to want more ethical treatment of animals, but I don't think it's useful to equate or draw an analogy between meat-eating with rape or slavery.
Well see in my opinion I see it as another form of oppression which I think is how a lot of the more radical elements of the animal rights movement views it (ALF types). I don't hold it against people who eat meat, hell it took me a long time to eventually turn vegetarian. I wouldn't go as far as to say someone who's eating meat is the equivalent to a slaver owner. However I do think the way animals have turned into merely a commodity or biological machine is no different than how workers are in turn treated as biological machines to serve the financial interests of the rich. How women are treated as biological machines to serve the sexual impulses of men. I mean we treat animals like shit and basically say they're expendable and that their torture in factory farms, the fur industry, labs etc. is not a big deal. Well what about workers who are exploited treated as expendable by the rich by the bosses? Or the sexism that women have to deal with, or homophobia, racism and so on. You treat animals like shit it's only a matter of time before you treat other people like shit. These things are all connected it's all the same bullshit that we need to fight against. Again, not everyone will agree I don't expect everyone to but it's how I see it. I can recognize animal exploitation as just another part of the overall struggle against all forms of oppression.

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2014, 09:11

Okay one more time. I'm not arguing that animals can't show intelligence. I'm saying something completely different. This pig is not nearly as smart as an 6-year old.

If this: "You also have no evidence to prove that they are in any way cognicent" (sic) doesn't mean you are questioning whether animals can show intelligence, what does it mean?

Professor Curtis demonstrated in his extensive study that a pig has the same emotional and intellectual capacity as a three year-old child. Your argument seemed to be that a human child is somehow privileged in a way that a pig is not because they "express complex ideas." Well, so can a pig. So now what?

Because it hinders human developement. To oppose the use of animals to fit human needs puts a cap on what people can use to enrich their lives in anyway possible for no real reason.

Firstly, humans don't need animals for anything. Secondly, there are a great many things that could be used that would potentially "enrich" our lives that in a communist society will and should become redundant. We should be moving away from the idea that we can have 'things' just because we want them. That attitude is a legacy of a commodity-fetishism that capitalist ideology reinforces. We should move away from this ideas that 'things' should enrich our lives to an idea that enrichment is the pursuit of compassion, justice and rationality.

The material reorganisation of our world should give rise to new thinking and a new critical approach to how we engage with the world around us. If the reorganisation of the material basis of our lives does not free us from the ideology and social relationships that have seen us dehumanised, selfish, greedy and apathetic, then what is the point?

You claim that I can't prove that most people understand on some level what slavery is. I said that you cant prove that any learned action by an animal is not just an unfeeling automatic response.

Well for a start I didn't say that most people don't understand. What I said was: "many humans are't intelligent enough to grasp those concepts either." I then qualified that by saying babies and children (who are humans by the way).

The point of making this distinction was to question the motivation behind your comments and to try and work out what relevance it has that humans have this intelligence. How is this supposed to inform out attitude to other animals?

Okay my point exactly. We know that only humans can make complex judgements and understand ideas. You've been arguing against that notion and now suddenly you agree with it to fit your idea of speciesism.

I haven't been arguing against that notion, I have been trying to mitigate the severe position you are alluding to that suggests this is somehow significant to our understanding of how we relate to animals. Yes, humans are the only animals that can form these ideas, but we are not the only animals to have intelligence or sentience.

I base my ethical judgements on the empathy I feel for other people, and I use that as my justification.

Why is it that 'people' are only afforded your empathy?

I also beleive that humans should not be restricted in their developement and enrichment as long as they don't harm others ability to do so. I understand that you may feel similarly about animals and that is fine, you're probably a very kind person, but I am infinitely more concerned about people.

But that is just an excuse. The only reason you would be "more concerned about people" is if, when we get down to it, you simply don't care about other animals, which just makes your view that we should treat animals kindly (before we kill them) entirely disingenuous. It is simply not the case that this is a binary position in which you have to choose between humans or non-human animals.

Also, I question this idea of 'development' and 'enrichment'. I think you are over-emphasising how much development and enrichment other animals actually bring to our lives.

Talking specifically about eating, animal fat (meat, cheeses, milk), which are all incredibly high in saturated fat, are a leading cause of heart disease and seriously increase your risks of cancer, as well as other associated metabolic diseases. Animal fat is incredibly unhealthy and provides very little nutritional value. How does that help in the development and enrichment of human beings?

There is also a bit of self interest (as all proletariat should have). I am a Marxist because I advocate for my class and I advocate the emancipation of those with my common enemy i.e Capitalism. I like to eat meat and use animals products, I know most people do as well. So I advocate to continue doing so as long as it is sustainable.

But this is a very limited position and I don't understand why you would really reject the pursuit of an intellectual and critical appraisal of your attitudes and actions to something that forms an important part of human activity. That strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded.

Liking something is not the basis by which you do it. If we all made decisions based on what we like doing then where would the world be? In many respects you are simply reinforcing the legacy of capitalist social relationships that reject critical interrogation of our actions and behaviour. Of course most people like to eat meat and use animal products, because most people don't think about what that is and what it means. Most people never question their actions because capitalist ideology presents it as completely normal. People aren't taught to be critical and in a world that constantly reinforces the consumption of animals, why would any one bother?

So I advocate to continue doing so as long as it is sustainable. I don't like to harm animals for no reason, I don't like bloodsports, and I think that people who do are a little psychotic. I am all for conservation and I am all for reducing the suffering of an animal, beyond that im not very concerned.

It is necessary to abandon these liberal sentiments and harden to the necessity of brutal and relentless criticism of everything.

You call yourself a Marxist? Well it is Marx who said, "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists." That doesn't mean you can cherry-pick, simply because you enjoy doing something.

Marshal of the People

1st March 2014, 10:59

Einkarl

1st March 2014, 11:55

If this: "You also have no evidence to prove that they are in any way cognicent" (sic) doesn't mean you are questioning whether animals can show intelligence, what does it mean?

Professor Curtis demonstrated in his extensive study that a pig has the same emotional and intellectual capacity as a three year-old child. Your argument seemed to be that a human child is somehow privileged in a way that a pig is not because they "express complex ideas." Well, so can a pig. So now what?

Okay what is that complex idea?

Oh and great, now we are talking about human privilege.

Firstly, humans don't need animals for anything. This is so silly, it's actually kind of hurtful. Damn you.

Where have you been the past 10,000 years? Animals are used in everything from paint to toothpaste to sugar. Your beer contains animal products as do your cigarettes. Plastics, glues, motor oil and dyes. Fucking flu vaccines are cultivated from chickens, Hormone replacement therapy requires to forcefully empregnate horses. In just about anything you can think of, some animal had to get fucked over. Humans owe their success from being able to dominate other animals.

Secondly, there are a great many things that could be used that would potentially "enrich" our lives that in a communist society will and should become redundant.

I guess enjoying our selves is suddenly a bourgeois concept.

We should be moving away from the idea that we can have 'things' just because we want them. That attitude is a legacy of a commodity-fetishism that capitalist ideology reinforces.

I don't think you know what commodity-fetishism is because it is not whatever you're trying say it is.

Commodities won't exist in communism and Capitalism, like Communism, is not an ideology.

We should move away from this ideas that 'things' should enrich our lives to an idea that enrichment is the pursuit of compassion, justice and rationality.

So according to you, under communism, we all sit around being nice to each other and pretending to be high and mighty.

I'm pretty sure personal property is something that we will have post revolution.

The material reorganisation of our world should give rise to new thinking and a new critical approach to how we engage with the world around us. If the reorganisation of the material basis of our lives does not free us from the ideology and social relationships that have seen us dehumanised, selfish, greedy and apathetic, then what is the point?

Marxism and the emancipation of the proletariat is not about making us better people and feeling fuzzy rainbows inside. It is in the best self interest of the class to overthrow the capitalist system. The working class must be selfish and greedy, it must forcefully take everything it can because it benefits them. The use of animals by and for the proletariat is perfectly fine if not encouraged. There is no ethical basis for Marxism, only our own self interest.

I haven't been arguing against that notion, I have been trying to mitigate the severe position you are alluding to that suggests this is somehow significant to our understanding of how we relate to animals. Yes, humans are the only animals that can form these ideas, but we are not the only animals to have intelligence or sentience.

So? Do all animals have the same level of sencience then? Do I have to worry about the feelings of a sponge?

Why is it that 'people' are only afforded your empathy?

I sympathize with animals. I just think humans are way more important.

But that is just an excuse. The only reason you would be "more concerned about people" is if, when we get down to it, you simply don't care about other animals, which just makes your view that we should treat animals kindly (before we kill them) entirely disingenuous. It is simply not the case that this is a binary position in which you have to choose between humans or non-human animals.
It is when you take humans ability to benefit from the "exploitation" of animals.

And if it according to you (I disagree) it really boils down to simply not caring about other animals, then to an extent I'm fine with that notion.

Also, I question this idea of 'development' and 'enrichment'. I think you are over-emphasising how much development and enrichment other animals actually bring to our lives.

Talking specifically about eating, animal fat (meat, cheeses, milk), which are all incredibly high in saturated fat, are a leading cause of heart disease and seriously increase your risks of cancer, as well as other associated metabolic diseases. Animal fat is incredibly unhealthy and provides very little nutritional value. How does that help in the development and enrichment of human beings?

Animal proteins are fantastic, they contain all the amino acids hat we need. Meat helps to increase muscle mass and healthy bone development. Meat increases testosterone and may even reduce the risk of depression in both men and female. Your heart disease claim has been debunked, it is the way meat is processed that increases heart disease and increases cholesterol. And there is next to no correlation between cancer and eating meat. I can provide sources if you wish.

But if eating meat makes me happy does that not enriching my life? A simple anectode, today I made a lasagna with ground beef, cheese, and of course, pasta (all animal products).When I took my first bite, it made me geniunely happy. I had not eaten something so beautifully tasty in a while and I feel it enriched the lives of everyone who tasted it. Is being happy not important?

But this is a very limited position and I don't understand why you would really reject the pursuit of an intellectual and critical appraisal of your attitudes and actions to something that forms an important part of human activity. That strikes me as incredibly narrow-minded.

Are we not engaging in discussing each other's attitudes? Is this not apprasing them?

The funny thing is, is that I consider your position to be completely idealist and narrow minded as well.

I've said to pro-lifers "If you don't like abortion, then don't get one". Well if you don't like to eat or use animal products, don't. You guys are even using some of the same arguments as the prolifers; "But its alive!" or "It has feelings!". Don't we, however, ultimately we put precendence on the woman because she is more important?

Liking something is not the basis by which you do it. So we play games, listen to music and watch movies not because we enjoy them, but because some other reason? OK!

If we all made decisions based on what we like doing then where would the world be? In many respects you are simply reinforcing the legacy of capitalist social relationships that reject critical interrogation of our actions and behaviour.

I beleive my position is completely material based.

Of course most people like to eat meat and use animal products, because most people don't think about what that is and what it means. Most people never question their actions because capitalist ideology presents it as completely normal. People aren't taught to be critical and in a world that constantly reinforces the consumption of animals, why would any one bother?

No, most people are not stupid to not comprehend that eating meat harms the animal.
Most people understand that animals can feel pain. We just value our enjoyment of their use way more.
Your position of vegitarianism bourgeois in origin and sentiment, it is Liberal pandering to emotion. It has no material basis and it does not concern the struggle for revolution. People will continue to eat meat after the revolution. Why shouldn't they? To cater to some cow or chicken? Because we don't want crabs or fish to be traumatized?

You call yourself a Marxist? Well it is Marx who said, "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists." That doesn't mean you can cherry-pick, simply because you enjoy doing something.

Quoting Marx are we?

"Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation."

or how about
"The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It is not distinct from that activity; it is that activity. Man makes his life activity itself an object of his will and consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity directly distinguishes man from animal life activity. Only because of that is he ... is a conscious being – i.e., his own life is an object for him... only because of that is his activity free activity" .

Marx enjoyed the hell out of a good wine and cheese. Im also fairly certain he ate meat aswell. I don't think he was concerned much for the struggle of turkeys when he saw his fellow man mistreated in the streets of London.

I want to apologize in advance if my post is kind of incoherent or lazy, its six in the morning here and I kinda don't give too much of a damn. But I'll try to address any problems this causes in the afternoon (US Central).

Trap Queen Voxxy

1st March 2014, 18:43

:rolleyes:

^-^

I never said animals can't understand "anything". I said that you can't apply all these human concepts onto them as if they have can grasp such.

And I've been contesting this in a straight forward and concise way. You refuse to acknowledge anything I say.

An animal does not feel shame or disgrace, it can not feel its dignity taken away from it, it has no concept of justice or virtue.

Children under the age if 5 do not feel shame or guilt or feel its dignity taken away from it and has no concept whatsoever of justice or virtue. Can I lure children into my gingerbread house and bake them into meat pies? Can I force them to perform routines for my profit?

Here we go again. You are projecting your emotions and concepts onto that cat.

No, I'm actually not (http://cats.about.com/od/amyshojai/tp/how-cats-show-love.htm). There is numerous, objective reasons as to why I say my cat loves me because it does. If this does not qualify as 'love' then children do not love their parents.

I may also think that your or whoever's cat is stressed and afraid, so what?

Do I really have to feed it to you? :(

But regardless of what you or I think, doesn't prove that A.) the cat isn't just executing an automatic response, and more importantly that B.) that cat has any notion of being oppressed or property.

It's not an innate, automatic response. It's a conditioned response and cats have complex thought processes and so on. While no, cats do conceptualizer things like slavery or oppression, it still understands that this is an unfavorable environment; which that is my whole point.

A turkey doesn't understand where it is, why its there, what will happen to it, it probably has no concept of life or death.

Dude, stop using friggin scarecrows. All you're doing is trying to trivialize the subject being discussed to the point of absurdity and then knock it down to confirm your cockamamy assertions. I know because I often use this form of critique however within this context, it's absolutely disgusting. Elephants have been known to grieve, understand and conceptualize death and their behavior is effected accordingly and so on (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#/search). Even assuming what you're saying is true (which I think is debatable), human children are on the same level as said turkey and we don't see that as being a valid Thanksgiving center piece; why not?

I does not see itself as an oppresed entity, it holds no resentment towards people. It has no dignity to have it taken away, it is just a turkey. So no it can not understand its subjugation.

You're over-simplifying the subject. While no, it probably can't conceptualize slavery or oppression philosophically it does understand and it's behavior is shaped by its unfavorable conditions. Again, children, some of the elderly and mentally disabled cant conceptualize such things can I exploit, kill and eat them? If not, why not (while not resorting to the typical "Bert der hermernsss" counter-argument)?

Okay, please one more time. I am not arguing if animals can or cannot learn things. They, like us, must evolved the necesarry capacity to learn certain things for survival. Can we please move on?

:glare: it's like talking to a brick wall.

Also it is worth mentioning that in our discussion we keep treating all animals as equal in sentience and in understanding, which I think is silly. I think that some animals are just more worthy of empathy than others. A dog for example is just more sentient than a bug or a sea sponge

I never claimed animals have equal sentience, intelligence, etc. You keep cherry picking your examples and making highly inaccurate generalizations based upon that. That's what not I and TAT, have been responding too. What do you expect? This is also a very boarish and ignorant attitude to have. I think it speaks volumes if you personally. Again, if we want to be enlightened fucks we have to act like enlightened fucks.

Because wasting time and effort on basically nothing. I don't think people should give up things that make their life better over some vauge notion.

The revolution is about the total and complete annihilation of civilization as we know it. How the fuck is animal lib a "waste of time and effort"? It's not some vague notion, these are facts; concrete, objective, cold, hard facts. Clear as crystal, black and white. Nothing I have said is some esoteric, hippy babble but legitimate and accepted facts based on science and research. You just refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't confirm your preconceived notion that animals are dumbfucks and as such deserve to be killed and eaten (not always in that order). I don't know clearer I could possibly be.

Do you not then own animals exclusively for your own pleasure?

No, as previously stated I am an aspiring veterinarian so while ny 'ownership' does most definately serve a personal purpose, equally so it serves a practical, academic purpose as well. My direct care, also helps give me experience in the treatment of these animals specifically and of basic veterinary concepts in general.

Or are you telling me your spiders enjoy being enclosed and looked at by you because i don't even think they know you exist.

To correct you, I said arachnids, not specifically spiders. I own presently one Chilean rose hair tarantula and 2 black widow spiders (true spiders). My tarantula specifically would be dead without my care considering the last time it molted I had to surgically help him molt. So there's that. "Spiders," are actually more intelligent than we realize and are aware of other animals that exist and interact with them.

You're cat does not see itself as your baby nor you as its parent.

Debatable. Ask ice pick, lol, see what he says.

Your cat sees you as a thing that feeds it, it may tolerate you, hell I might be able to admit that it "likes" you in some way, but it does not love you back.

Yes it does (http://cats.about.com/od/amyshojai/tp/how-cats-show-love.htm). Your just ignorant of feline ethology. I am not. :)

It is not a person; it does not think like you and me.

Define 'personhood.'

And again you take pleasure in owning it like property.

I do not "own" my cat like property and tbh, any experienced cat owner will tell you, you don't really "own" cats. Not only this but she came to me. I literally found her on my back door step as a kitten, all scared and alone. Apparently the mother has been trying to kill her litter by walking back and forth across the road. Out of the 4 that were at my doorstep originally, only my cat survived. I rescued her in every single sense of the word and have since cared for her as if she really were my own human child. I phrase it as because that is the level of care responsible pet ownership demands.

Literally, I've gone a day or two with no food because I felt feeding her was more important. Needless to say, you labeling me as an oppressor is absurd and highly insulting. My cat (like my tarantula) would be dead without me.

It is you who is projecting human ideas and concepts onto the cat, and regardless of how you treat it that makes you its opressor.

I've already deconstructed this above and feel no reason to repeat what I've already said yet again. Cats are incredibly intelligent and do feel emotions, have sentience and recognize hostile/unfavorable environments. The can express these emotions and attachments by numerous and complex verbal and nonverbal expressions. It's not my fault if you're wholly ignorant of feline ethology.

That is speciesm if I've ever seen it.

No, it's not, and again, I find this incredibly insulting.

you are just posturing and moving goalposts now.

No, I'm not and I would like for you to elaborate on how I am doing so.

"I treat my african slave with SO much kindness, there ain't nothing I wouldn't do for him. Well I dare say he is as happy as can be living on the plantation with me."

Oh no, a completely inaccurate and absurd comparison; all my arguments are now invalid.

I have yet to see that.

Both I (and TAT) have listed numerous, non-biased, objective sources. You refuse to accept or acknowledge any of them. It's not my fault for you doing so.

Half of this statement is completely anecdotal, I too can probably find several professionals and experts on the subject that will disagree.

I guess India is not in Asia anymore.

I never said it wasn't, more I was just pointing out the hilarity in your sweeping generalizations considering a) numerous Asiatic countries don't eat beef, pork or meat in general. Even assuming your generalizations are true (which they're not) its ultimately irrelevant.

Regardless, their reason not to eat beef is purely superstition.

No, it's not.

But, hell they still use cows for labor and milk, so they too oppress them because it benefits them.

So?

Again, people are better off using animals as food and material for other aplications.

No, they aren't. This exploitative relationship benefits neither the cow or (ultimately) the human.

Why take that away?

Because they deserve to have access to better and healthier food choices and better, more efficient ways of agriculture. That's why.

Humans must have precedence between humans don't you think?

Lol, wut?

Actually no their are not. Humans have ALWAYS benefited from the domestication and consumption of animals.

Unless you count epidemic levels of cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc. as positive developments for humans, then, no, you're absolutely wrong. I don't know of anyone that would argue that the present way in which we obtain meat or meat consumption is an actual benefit to mankind.

I don't see how this is going to change in post-revolutionary society and I don't see chickens in the ranks of any revolutionary military.

While I don't agree with the practice animals have been used in combat for centuries and are still used today. You creating an absurd caricature signifies nothing other than your own ignorance and its from this basis I would deem it meaningless.

The pot calling the kettle black.

:rolleyes: how?

But go ahead Vox, just shrug it off. You know its true.

That's not what I'm doing. I've explained myself thoroughly and provided objective, verifiable references (none of which YOU have done btw). If you want to continue to think this then fine.

Well thats whole different can of worms

No it's not.

and something that is very contested by the way. Some doctors will undoubtly disagree with you.

Then you are certainly welcome to provide a logical and fleshed out counter-argument and cite references from said hypothetical medical professionals who support, reiterate or support said counter-argument.

What if I want to enjoy eating my food?

Again, what if I happen to have always had a craving for human flesh and have an incredible curiosity of how it tastes, it's textures, etc. and the idea of me consuming said meat seems incredibly pleasurable. Going upon your logic, why can't I enjoy my food and eat humans, specifically children whom can't conceptualize shame or subjugation?

Because humans, unlike animals, do feel shame or disgrace, have dignity.

Well adjusted, mentally well, physically fit, perfect adult humans, sure. But not all adult humans and definitely not children. Again, following your logic, why then can't I prey upon those that don't?

And again it is in the best interest of all people not to eat each other.

Following your logic, it's against your interests for me to prey upon other humans however this says nothing of my interests and wants which is to consume human flesh and enjoy my food.

Cows don't care if they get eaten once they are dead. A cow doesn't contemplate its existance, it is just not smart enough.

Debatable. Even if so, most humans don't either. So, what's your point? Just because adult humans in theory have the capacity to do this, doesn't mean it always the case. Again, meaningless, baseless, and irrelevant.

I explained this in a reply to The Anarchist Tension.

Tbh, I haven't been paying attention to you and his convo. Me and you are talking and it would be appreciated if you would respond to me directly or at least link me to relevant posts.

helot

1st March 2014, 19:32

So it is your view that in a disussion about the kind of animals that humans eat, a list of animals that humans eat is irrelevant? Hmm. Well. I'm not sure what to say to that.

Do you just like constructing strawman arguments or something? If you're too focussed on misrepresenting what i'm saying you can talk to yourself.

I didn't saya list i said that list. Why don't you pay some attention?

It may very well be the case that the list does not include animals that are used in food, but in that case are you arguing that the list of animals that are used in food, rather than as food, is of a greater amount of species [that are non-sentient, non-vertebrates] than are sentient vertebrates in and as food? That seems highly unlikely.

Okay then. I found this list: http://www.peta.org/living/beauty/animal-ingredients-list/

That list doesn't seem to demonstrate that there are more non-sentient, non-vertebrate animals used in food as there are sentient, vertebrate animals used as food. In fact, a lot of the animals listed in that list are actually sentient or vertebrate animals. Fait accompli.

Maybe amount of species is wrong. Let's ignore everything previously said on this as in hindsight we've not set anything out. I'll conceed previous ignorance on my part.

How shall we compare? Shall we compare the amount of differing species? Shall we compare different species by weight, or by members of that species? It's a tricky problem as to go back to the cochineal example... more cochineal are needed to give one strawberry milkshake it's colour than cows are needed for one steak.

I believe this also has relevance to vertebrates consumed by humans. How do we compare pigs to cows and the level at which they're consumed? Let's just use steers for this example as they along with cows, bulls and heifers are used as beef. A steer is killed just before it reaches 750kg. A domestic pig weighs in at max 350kg. We'll also assume it's all just meat so no bones or any other 'waste' product for easy comparison. That's 2 pigs for each steer that's killed for the same amount of meat. If we compare consumption purely by weight we'll get a nice image of the amount of meat that's consumed by people but not the amount of animals killed for this consumption.

What you actually put was:

I didn't respond to the whole quote because I didn't have anything to add. Your main criticism of my argument is that I provided a list that did not include cochineal as an ingredient. What should I have said to that?

Are you purposefully being daft? I was using cochineal as an example that the list you provided is fundamentally insufficient as it does not include all animal species used in food, just the more well known meat products.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st March 2014, 20:22

I generally prefer animals over humans because animals don't really do things which upset me or things I don't like plus my pets are very obedient. I think animals should be given the right to life and also the right to not be exploited, I have no problem with animals being used to make milk (or other products such as silk, eggs, etc.) as long as they are not exploited (they shall be given good lodgings, food, holidays and working conditions) or harmed in any way.

What definition of exploitation are you using here?

The treatment of animals has nothing to do with exploitation, since animals are not given recompense for their meat, skin, milk or eggs. Unless you want to start giving animals wages, or labour vouchers cos, y'know, animals rights?!?!

The Feral Underclass

1st March 2014, 22:33

What definition of exploitation are you using here?

The treatment of animals has nothing to do with exploitation, since animals are not given recompense for their meat, skin, milk or eggs. Unless you want to start giving animals wages, or labour vouchers cos, y'know, animals rights?!?!

That isn't the definition of exploitation though, to be fair.

PhoenixAsh

1st March 2014, 23:39

A long long time ago I was living in a student coed dorm. 17 people on one floor sharing a kitchen, toilets, showers and living room.

Because we didn't have much money I used to buy my food in bulk and prepare that which would spoil. So I backed a 1kg meatloaf pie to keep the meat edible. It was the cheapest meatloaf possible which is half to half (pork and cow...for those not familiar with the concept). One night I was eating and one of the students came up to the table and gave me a lecture about food:

"You know an animal died for you to eat that? Don't you feel sorry?"
"Uhuh. But it gets better" I told her. "This is half-to-half so basically two animals died for me to enjoy this." She walked away angrily. The next day I found all my food containing meat thrown away. I confronted her about it and she confessed she threw my food away because it was the product of murder and the exploitation of living creatures. I shrugged it off...had no real food for a week.

She had the habit of taking a shower then dressing in the showers and then immediately go for breakfast. A few days after out initial exchange I entered the living room when she was eating her breakfast. So I said my good morning wished her a pleasant breakfast and casually asked how she was enjoying her eggs and milk. She knew me. So she knew this question probably meant something was up. So she asked "what is wrong?'

I told her that those eggs and that milk had come to her breakfast table from exploitation of animals. We argued. She called me names. I called her names. She got angry and she walked back to her room. Where she discovered a lot of her stuff missing. So...being very smart...because she was really really fucking smart by the way. She confronted me about it.

So I confessed. I told her that while she was in the shower an getting dressed...I had decided to assist her in her cause to free her from any and all objects in her possession which either were a direct result of or indirectly contributed to animal murder and exploitation. This included most shoes (because I am very certain those animals didn't voluntarily part with their skin...and probably also didn't first die of natural causes); most of her cosmetics (those 100+ pieces that weren't labelled "animal friendly"....which were just a few pieces); her very expensive leather jacket (again...fairly certain that animal objected to it being made into something to wear); some other clothes (mostly furry things); but also those made of silk or containing silk and wool. I also threw away any body lotions, medication and several other stuff that contained anything that was either a product of animals or was product of agricultural activity which encroaches on or destroys natural habitats. I also threw most of her non indigenous fruits away for the same reason.

Most of it was salvageable...because we were students and I was lazy and threw it away in the kitchen containers....which also ironically still contained whatever was left of my previously thrown away food. Because besides being lazy...students are also disgusting in their cleaning habits.

We didn't speak about animal welfare ever again....though we did end up dating a few months later. Which was entirely tied to the fact that she was very sick and I was nice enough to make her chicken soup and take care of her for a few weeks.

Don't eat meat if you don't like it. But before you give a morality lecture on exploitation of animals or killing animals...be very sure you are not using any...ANY...product that contributes to the exploitation or killing of animals or destroys natural habitats of wildlife and endangered species.

PhoenixAsh

1st March 2014, 23:42

Adding to the above...if the revolution takes away metaphorical bacon (becaue I can't eat it) I will have to start a counter revolution.

BIXX

2nd March 2014, 01:37

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 01:54

@PhoenixAsh: so what you're saying is that if you're too poor to never use animal products then you can't be an animal liberationist?

And also, I have wool products (from sheep sheeted by friends of mine and knitted by my mom, primarily), but that's not an oppressive use of an animal product- sheep get sick and die if they aren't sheered.

Which is odd because sheep never used to do that. Might they be specifically have been selectively bred to create a variant that is unable to shed its own wool and actually produces more and more of it? Hmm...I wonder.

So while your new sweater is growing on the back of that bred sheep...flies lay their eggs in its fleece...which produces maggots which in turn produce infections and more often than not...the maggots eat the flesh of the sheep. Which leads rangers to use a technique called Mulesing (look it up). Some sheep die of heat exhaustion from their fleece. Others are castrated using rubber bands.

Then of course there is the sheering. Jeej....finally relieved of their fleece and all those nasty maggots and infections! Unfortunately...sheering is done in the spring...at a time when it is often still too cold for not having a fleece. So thousands of sheep die yearly because of hypothermia and cold related illness.

And lets not forget the huddling in holding pens and the feedlots.

All in all...if I have to believe the vegans and the misogynists at PETA....15 million lambs die in the wool industry every year.

Plus..in Australia...the wool industry is directly responsible for the death of millions of kangaroos every year and certain types of wallibis have become endangered because of overgrazing by sheeps kept for their wool production.

So....you know....have the wool pulled over your eyes by all means.

Just do not pretend you can lecture meat eaters on being amoral (because that is where all the arguments come down to) while wearing a wool containing sweater.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 02:31

@PhoenixAsh: so what you're saying is that if you're too poor to never use animal products then you can't be an animal liberationist?

How can you be too poor to chose to use non-animal products? < obviously I am baiting you here ;) So think about your answer :)

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 02:44

I don't want to really go that way...but animal liberation...if taken to its logical extreme is tantamount to genocide of millions of animals. After all...these species would never be able to survive on their own because they are specifically bred for production purposes. Milk cows, meat cows...sheep, chickens, etc. etc.

This would solve itself in 15-20 years absolute max...sooner if they can't hack it...which is the life expectancy of cows and pigs...if taken good care of...which are easily the long lived creatures on the list of consumption and production animals.

Naturally we can't let them go wild either...this would be an ecological disaster...and having them reproduce would probably be a bad idea. So until the last generation of them dies they have to roam free with care takers seeing to it that they do not die. And free would be an ecological disaster; killing wildlife etc. etc.

So it comes down to ....letting species die out....killing them because they would endanger wildlife...or eating them. The end result is the same.

Einkarl

2nd March 2014, 04:29

And I've been contesting this in a straight forward and concise way. You refuse to acknowledge anything I say.

All you are doing is saying that animals can feel pain, fear and are able to problem solve. Okay. Thats not what I'm arguing against

Children under the age if 5 do not feel shame or guilt or feel its dignity taken away from it and has no concept whatsoever of justice or virtue. You haven't been around children have you? Any basic high-school psychology class will disprove this. Find any 2-4 year old then take away his toy,call him names and make him feel worthless or even just treat his sibling or classmate differently. You are going to see some ver poignant reactions. You are so delusional, that you've forgotten what being in kindergarten or preschool is like.

Look up Jane Elliot, the Marshmallow Test, the Monster Study. And there are a million more.

Can I lure children into my gingerbread house and bake them into meat pies? Can I force them to perform routines for my profit? Humans already trick and enslave children and adults using coersion, I don't see the relevance in this.

No, I'm actually not (http://cats.about.com/od/amyshojai/tp/how-cats-show-love.htm). There is numerous, objective reasons as to why I say my cat loves me because it does. If this does not qualify as 'love' then children do not love their parents.

Thats rich! Way to throw away any pretence of scientific validity. What is this link meant to prove? That cats are social animals and know how to be submissive? Your article is baseless as all hell. Fuck I can do an equally as stupid. I'ma call it 10 Ways Your Venus Flytrap Loves You Cats have social hierarchys, they mark territory and are submissve to stronger cats. These behaviors are done by cats that are lower in the hierarchy to cats that are higher in the hierarchy. Dogs exhibit a similar behavior when they lay on their back.

Now lets ask why emotions, especifically love, exist. Love, like all emotions, evolved for specific reasons. Emotions serve a function in survival and reproduction. A child loves his/her parent because it ensures that child will have an insentive to stay under that parent's protection. A parent loves his/her child because it ensures the survivability of the species. A mother chemically bonds with her child immediately. Newborns who lack physical contanct with other people often die for apperently no reason.

A cat may 'love' its off-spring but it does not love you. Humans are affectionate amongst other humans because we are pack animals. Dogs may exhibit similar emotions for the same reasons. Cats, though social, are not dependant on other cats. They have no reason to evolve these emotions, it doesn't help them.

Do I really have to feed it to you? :(
Nah, I don't think it would taste too good.:lol:

Plus I like cats, i too enjoy their company. But I'm not gonna kid myself into beleiving that my cat likes me as much as I like it.

It's not an innate, automatic response. It's a conditioned response and cats have complex thought processes and so on. While no, cats do conceptualizer things like slavery or oppression, it still understands that this is an unfavorable environment; which that is my whole point. No it is an innate automatic response to a learned stimuli. Your cat knows that X is harmful and reacts by running away. It didn't learn to run away, it is a response it was born with. Humans also have innate automatic responses, the difference is that can also at the same time understand the nature of the stimuli, your cat cannot.

Dude, stop using friggin scarecrows. All you're doing is trying to trivialize the subject being discussed to the point of absurdity and then knock it down to confirm your cockamamy assertions. Prove to me that a turkey knows any of these things. Go ahead. Fucking do it, because if you can I will die of shock.

I know because I often use this form of critique however within this context, it's absolutely disgusting.
:rolleyes:

Elephants have been known to grieve, understand and conceptualize death and their behavior is effected accordingly and so on (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_cognition#/search)

Maybe elephants can. But elephants aren't mass bred for food are they?

Even assuming what you're saying is true (which I think is debatable), human children are on the same level as said turkey and we don't see that as being a valid Thanksgiving center piece; why not?
Remind me who is trivializing the subject being discussed to the point of absurdity again?
How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that a child possed of language, tool use, the ability to artistically express itself. Is on the same level as some stupid fucking turkeys. Turkeys and birds in general are fucking vicious. I've seen a group of turkeys attack kill a single other turkey for no reason.

You're over-simplifying the subject. While no, it probably can't conceptualize slavery or oppression philosophically it does understand...
Wait what? Does it or does it not understand? You're saying two different things here. Just a paragraph ago you seemed pretty ademant that they can. I also like the use of the word "probably" as if there is any doubt.

and it's behavior is shaped by its unfavorable conditions. Again, children, some of the elderly and mentally disabled cant conceptualize such things Shut up Vox your being both ableist and ageist.

can I exploit, kill and eat them? If not, why not (while not resorting to the typical "Bert der hermernsss" counter-argument)?
Again,the notion that children can't think in the abstract has been thurougly debunked. Hey Vox, being mentally disabled doesn't mean you're an emotionless sack of flesh, I suggest you stop being an ignorant douche.

:glare: it's like talking to a brick wall.

I know right! It just keeps bouncing back the same idealist crap over and over again!

I never claimed animals have equal sentience, intelligence, etc. You keep cherry picking your examples and making highly inaccurate generalizations based upon that. I never claimed that you claimed that, but we keep talking talking about it like it is

That's what not I and TAT, have been responding too. What do you expect? This is also a very boarish and ignorant attitude to have. Ignorant to what?

I think it speaks volumes if you personally.
:blushing:

Again, if we want to be enlightened fucks we have to act like enlightened fucks. Who the fuck wants to be an "enlightened fuck", what does that even mean? Is that how you view your self? That seems pretty pompous and vain.

The revolution is about the total and complete annihilation of civilization as we know it. A.) no it isn't and B.) Again,what does that even mean?
The revolution is about the emancipation of the working class and all those who make it up. It is about a change in the modes of production. Marxists understand that the oppression of all peoples is inherent to the capitalist system. Fighting Capitalism fights these oppressions. We care only for the proletariat. Do things in the name of the proletariat to benefit the proletariat. To give up the use of animals does not benefit the proletariat. So fuck em'

How the fuck is animal lib a "waste of time and effort"? It's not some vague notion, these are facts; concrete, objective, cold, hard facts. Clear as crystal, black and white. Nothing I have said is some esoteric, hippy babble but legitimate and accepted facts based on science and research.[/B]

All your "facts" are about animals ability to problem solve and your own personal feelings about your cat. I'm sorry if none of these proves animals understand their conditions.

You just refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't confirm your preconceived notion Projecting are we?

No, as previously stated I am an aspiring veterinarian so while ny 'ownership' does most definately serve a personal purpose, equally so it serves a practical, academic purpose as well. My direct care, also helps give me experience in the treatment of these animals specifically and of basic veterinary concepts in general.

It is still for pleasure and it is still for your sake. How is that any different?

To correct you, I said arachnids, not specifically spiders. I own presently one Chilean rose hair tarantula and 2 black widow spiders (true spiders). Tarantulas are spiders too, learn to taxonomy.

My tarantula specifically would be dead without my care considering the last time it molted I had to surgically help him molt. So there's that. "Spiders," are actually more intelligent than we realize and are aware of other animals that exist and interact with them. You still keep them for your pleasure. You didn't see in the future that your taratula was going to need your help molting and then decide to bring him in. And you still keep your spiders in an enclosure.
Why not liberate them? let them roam your house.

Debatable. Ask ice pick, lol, see what he says.

I do not know who ice pick is. Please tell me it's not your cat. If it is you're out of your fucking gourd.

Yes it does (http://cats.about.com/od/amyshojai/tp/how-cats-show-love.htm). Your just ignorant of feline ethology. I am not. :)

I've already talked about this link and how shallow it is.

Define 'personhood.'
:glare:

I do not "own" my cat like property and tbh, any experienced cat owner will tell you, you don't really "own" cats.

I've owned several cats my entire life. Yes cats are independant animals, you still have a lot of power over him.

Not only this but she came to me.
Are you saying that cat has precognitive abilities? Can it read minds and see into the future?

I literally found her on my back door step as a kitten, all scared and alone. Apparently the mother has been trying to kill her litter by walking back and forth across the road. There goes that cat love.

Out of the 4 that were at my doorstep originally, only my cat survived. I rescued her in every single sense of the word and have since cared for her as if she really were my own human child. I phrase it as because that is the level of care responsible pet ownership demands. You've never cared for a child have you?

Literally, I've gone a day or two with no food because I felt feeding her was more important. Well thats just stupid

Needless to say, you labeling me as an oppressor is absurd and highly insulting. My cat (like my tarantula) would be dead without me. No it wouldn't cats are excellent hunters. How many cats have you owned?

I've already deconstructed this above and feel no reason to repeat what I've already said yet again. Cats are incredibly intelligent and do feel emotions, have sentience and recognize hostile/unfavorable environments. The can express these emotions and attachments by numerous and complex verbal and nonverbal expressions. It's not my fault if you're wholly ignorant of feline ethology. "The idea that my cat loves me back in the same way I love it is comforting to me. Although it is logically unsound to think this way. I will continue to assert this dilusion because it makes me feel good." Listen I used to think this way but it just isn't true.

No, it's not, and again, I find this incredibly insulting. Yes, it is. I already explained how.

No, I'm not and I would like for you to elaborate on how I am doing so. "what I do is completely fine and fair. I am a friend to the animals. Having them enclosed and dependant on me for my own ends isn't oppressive and demeaning. But when others do it, shame on them! Meat is murder!"

Oh no, a completely inaccurate and absurd comparison; all my arguments are now invalid. How is this inaccurate? You say animals are slaves and oppresed beings. That they are equally as important as humans. How is then my comparison absurd? You claim you are super nice to your animals, many slave owners said the same thing. They also said their slaves couldn't survive on their own. They said it would be irresponsible to let them free. See how fucking lame your stance is?

Both I (and TAT) have listed numerous, non-biased, objective sources. You refuse to accept or acknowledge any of them. It's not my fault for you doing so. I challenged the notion that animals understand their oppression (something you and TAT disagreed with), and that therefore A.) you can't apply human concepts such as slavery or oppression or discrimination onto animals and B.) That therefore "liberating" them is therefore a waste of effort and detrimental. None of your or TAT's links disprove this. All you guys are saying is that some animals are smart and can solve problems.

I never said it wasn't, more I was just pointing out the hilarity in your sweeping generalizations considering

I said Latin america, africa and asia.

You singled out India. Implying that I'm trying to shy away from India. I didn't think I'd have to include India as seperate from asia.

[QUOTE=VoX p°PuŁï;2726441]a) numerous Asiatic countries don't eat beef, pork or meat in general. Even assuming your generalizations are true (which they're not) its ultimately irrelevant. Even in places they do they still use animals for labor, food, and material for other uses.

No, it's not.
Hindus that don't eat meat don't do so because it is forbidden in their religion, its not because of some nation wide animal liberation sentiment

So?

So I don't think they will be too keen on letting go of animal "oppression" either. Nor do I think that any revolutionary situation there will result in such.

No, they aren't. This exploitative relationship benefits neither the cow or (ultimately) the human.
What detriments does the human face in using animal products (other than hurr durr meat es bad fur u!). In every "exploitative" relationship the exploiter always benefits. If they didn't, why even exploit to begin with?

Because they deserve to have access to better and healthier food choices and better, more efficient ways of agriculture. That's why. So you want to force everybody to go vegan? What if they don't want to? meat makes most people happy.

Lol, wut?

You're not good with reading comprehension are you?

"People should be more concerned with people."

Unless you count epidemic levels of cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc. as positive developments for humans, then, no, you're absolutely wrong. I don't know of anyone that would argue that the present way in which we obtain meat or meat consumption is an actual benefit to mankind. What a gross oversimplification. I also discussed this in a reply to ATA.

While I don't agree with the practice animals have been used in combat for centuries and are still used today. You creating an absurd caricature signifies nothing other than your own ignorance and its from this basis I would deem it meaningless. Fuck me there is a pattern here! Thanks Vox! The only reason I disagree with you and your idealist, hippy crap is because I'm ignorant. Now I know!

:rolleyes: how?
Because all your claims are meaningless, filled with logical fallacies, silly and idealist.

That's not what I'm doing. I've explained myself thoroughly and provided objective, verifiable references (none of which YOU have done btw). If you want to continue to think this then fine.

No it's not.
Yes vox, yes it is. Were not debating nutrishion here

Then you are certainly welcome to provide a logical and fleshed out counter-argument and cite references from said hypothetical medical professionals who support, reiterate or support said counter-argument.
I've also mentioned this to ATA. Go look for it. its in the thread. No, I'm not going to repeat myself.

Again, what if I happen to have always had a craving for human flesh and have an incredible curiosity of how it tastes, it's textures, etc. and the idea of me consuming said meat seems incredibly pleasurable. Going upon your logic, why can't I enjoy my food and eat humans, specifically children whom can't conceptualize shame or subjugation?

I've already gone over how children do conceptulize shame and subjugation. You ageist fuck.

Well adjusted, mentally well, physically fit, perfect adult humans, sure. But not all adult humans and definitely not children. Again, following your logic, why then can't I prey upon those that don't? Jesus christ do you ever stop being elitist? Again I already mentioned this

Following your logic, it's against your interests for me to prey upon other humans however this says nothing of my interests and wants which is to consume human flesh and enjoy my food.

Is it not in your interests not to be eaten your self?

Debatable. Even if so, most humans don't either. So, what's your point? Just because adult humans in theory have the capacity to do this, doesn't mean it always the case. Again, meaningless, baseless, and irrelevant.
Does your back ever hurt from having your head so far up your own ass?

Tbh, I haven't been paying attention to you and his convo. Me and you are talking and it would be appreciated if you would respond to me directly or at least link me to relevant posts. Its in the thread.

BIXX

2nd March 2014, 04:48

Which is odd because sheep never used to do that. Might they be specifically have been selectively bred to create a variant that is unable to shed its own wool and actually produces more and more of it? Hmm...I wonder.

I never said it was natural that this happened to them. Of course they were bred to for wool like that- something I think should never have happened.

So while your new sweater is growing on the back of that bred sheep...flies lay their eggs in its fleece...which produces maggots which in turn produce infections and more often than not...the maggots eat the flesh of the sheep. Which leads rangers to use a technique called Mulesing (look it up). Some sheep die of heat exhaustion from their fleece. Others are castrated using rubber bands.

Then of course there is the sheering. Jeej....finally relieved of their fleece and all those nasty maggots and infections! Unfortunately...sheering is done in the spring...at a time when it is often still too cold for not having a fleece. So thousands of sheep die yearly because of hypothermia and cold related illness.

And lets not forget the huddling in holding pens and the feedlots.

All in all...if I have to believe the vegans and the misogynists at PETA....15 million lambs die in the wool industry every year.

Plus..in Australia...the wool industry is directly responsible for the death of millions of kangaroos every year and certain types of wallibis have become endangered because of overgrazing by sheeps kept for their wool production.

So....you know....have the wool pulled over your eyes by all means.

Just do not pretend you can lecture meat eaters on being amoral (because that is where all the arguments come down to) while wearing a wool containing sweater.

Yo, I'm not saying it's all good in the wool industry, I'm just saying that now, sometimes you need to sheer a sheep or else it gets sick. Don't try and say that I said that the wool industry is good, by any standards. Don't try and straw man this. If my argument was "wool is always good for sheep" then your stupid fucking argument might make sense.

How can you be too poor to chose to use non-animal products?

Well I suppose if you don't care if you starve/live an ok life then you can't be too poor to not hurt animals.

Ok, let's talk about food: most processed food is involved in the exploitation of animals. Breads often have dairy (actually a bunch of things have dairy), if you use sugar it is possible that it was filtered through bone char (not common, but possible). To add to that: many good are processed by companies that support animal cruelty. So if you support them by buying their product, you support animal cruelty. Honey, you hurt bees. In a previous well documented scandal, Mcdonalds was cat frying their fries in beef tallow (so don't be surprised if others do the same). Butter is on a large amount of shit as well. The list goes on.

Clothing: most clothing is fine, avoiding leather and wool isn't too hard (again, I believe that if the sheep are kept in a safe and "happy" environment, then it's ok to sheer them- they'd get sick and die otherwise). However you still gotta check.

Lotions, shampoos, etc...:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/02/9aduqegu.jpg

That little picture doesn't really mean shit. All it means is that this SPECIFIC product wasn't tested on animals. However, it still is the result of much animal testing, as they were made possible by animal testing.

So if you have the time and Internet access to do all that research to figure out which products were in no way connected to animal cruelty, and figure out which products NEVER were processed in a factory that supports or utilizes animal cruelty, and then have the money required to BUY the (few) products that remain (which also tend to be more expensive) then I conclude that you might even be fabulously wealthy- but I for one, don't have that kind of time. My family is a family that fucking works, I go to school, etc...

Now, you can try and eat only organic foods, but they generally cost more as well. And that still doesn't solve your other problems.

Also not all animal liberationist arguments are moralistic- there are a few in this thread that are obviously not. I think you should learn to understand what people have said before you respond to it. Otherwise you look stupid.

I don't want to really go that way...but animal liberation...if taken to its logical extreme is tantamount to genocide of millions of animals. After all...these species would never be able to survive on their own because they are specifically bred for production purposes. Milk cows, meat cows...sheep, chickens, etc. etc.

This would solve itself in 15-20 years absolute max...sooner if they can't hack it...which is the life expectancy of cows and pigs...if taken good care of...which are easily the long lived creatures on the list of consumption and production animals.

Naturally we can't let them go wild either...this would be an ecological disaster...and having them reproduce would probably be a bad idea. So until the last generation of them dies they have to roam free with care takers seeing to it that they do not die. And free would be an ecological disaster; killing wildlife etc. etc.

So it comes down to ....letting species die out....killing them because they would endanger wildlife...or eating them. The end result is the same.

They don't have to be independent of humans to be free from cruelty and oppression. I believe Vox Populi can tell you that with some very compelling evidence.

In other words, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You cannot be free from oppressing animals in the context of capitalism and civilization, but we can sure as shit try.

The Feral Underclass

2nd March 2014, 08:16

An interesting article I just stumbled across on the Huffpost.

Eliminate animal fats from your diet. (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/neal-barnard-md/plant-based-diet_b_4868619.html?utm_hp_ref=uk)

Ocean Seal

2nd March 2014, 08:20

Watch the careful hypocrisy of the bourgeois state. Michael Vick is the worst guy since judas for making animals fight animals, but making animals fight people (lets give them a fucking medal).

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd March 2014, 10:12

That isn't the definition of exploitation though, to be fair.

If an animal is not given the equivalent recompense to the value of their 'labour', then that's technically exploitation, right? But i'm saying that's a ridiculous idea.

Also, I would be interested in seeing some of the sources of information in the article you posted.

I agree with its general premise - that stuff like bacon, butter and other meat products high in saturated animal fat content serves no dietary purpose -, but i'm not sure I believe that skinless chicken breast, for example, takes 23% of its calories from saturated fat. In fact, looking at the wording of the article, it's been very sneaky. It just refers to 'fat'. Mono-unsaturated fats, even from animal sources, are qualitatively different in dietary function from saturated fats. He's cherry-picking evidence to fit his argument; there is no scientifically sound argument to put lean chicken breast, for example (or poached eggs, or turkey breast, or many other animal food products) in the same health or dietary category as foods like bacon.

Of course, if you change his conclusion slightly from 'avoid animal products', to 'avoid animal products that are high in saturated fat and reduce consumption of animal products across the board', then you would have a sensible article. As it is, however, the article is not really factually sound and is somewhat mis-leading; meat products like chicken breast have no causal link to high cholesterol and heart disease. To suggest so is just wrong.

The Feral Underclass

2nd March 2014, 10:28

If an animal is not given the equivalent recompense to the value of their 'labour', then that's technically exploitation, right? But i'm saying that's a ridiculous idea.

That could possibly be described as a Marxian definition, but it's not the literal definition of exploitation. Money doesn't have to be involved in order for it to be exploitation -- in a literal sense at least.

Also, I would be interested in seeing some of the sources of information in the article you posted.

I agree with its general premise - that stuff like bacon, butter and other meat products high in saturated animal fat content serves no dietary purpose -, but i'm not sure I believe that skinless chicken breast, for example, takes 23% of its calories from saturated fat. In fact, looking at the wording of the article, it's been very sneaky. It just refers to 'fat'. Mono-unsaturated fats, even from animal sources, are qualitatively different in dietary function from saturated fats. He's cherry-picking evidence to fit his argument; there is no scientifically sound argument to put lean chicken breast, for example (or poached eggs, or turkey breast, or many other animal food products) in the same health or dietary category as foods like bacon.

Yes, it is probably worth doing a little more research. The basic premise of his article i.e. animal fat is unhealthy, should be what we take away from it though.

Of course, if you change his conclusion slightly from 'avoid animal products', to 'avoid animal products that are high in saturated fat and reduce consumption of animal products across the board', then you would have a sensible article. As it is, however, the article is not really factually sound and is somewhat mis-leading; meat products like chicken breast have no causal link to high cholesterol and heart disease. To suggest so is just wrong.

But I think the point is that all animal fat has high volumes of saturated fat, and I don't think that's a particularly difficult thesis to prove. Doing a cursory Google search, the Google nutritional value calculator says that 13g of chicken has 17% of your daily allowance of saturated fat. That seems pretty high to me, no matter how you approach this.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd March 2014, 12:04

That could possibly be described as a Marxian definition, but it's not the literal definition of exploitation. Money doesn't have to be involved in order for it to be exploitation -- in a literal sense at least.

I was of the understanding that some users here were incorporating the exploitation of animals into a class strugglist worldview. All we have to do is substitute money for some other medium of compensation. I'm saying that, money or other form of compensation, it's a ridiculous notion that animals are, in a Marxist sense, exploited.

Yes, it is probably worth doing a little more research. The basic premise of his article i.e. animal fat is unhealthy, should be what we take away from it though.

That's close but a bit simplistic. A certain amount of fats are necessary, though these are best derived from non-animal sources. A certain amount of animal fat is satisfactory. There is a qualitative, and of course quantitative, difference to one's nutritional intake and its impact on health between, say, not cutting the skin off a roast chicken breast, and adding 2 rashers of butter-fried bacon to your eggs every morning. The latter is reckless and hugely unhealthy, the former by itself probably won't have any substantial impact on your health, ceteris paribus.

Doing a cursory Google search, the Google nutritional value calculator says that 13g of chicken has 17% of your daily allowance of saturated fat. That seems pretty high to me, no matter how you approach this.

Roast chicken legs, or fried chicken, perhaps. But, as I was saying before, using parts of the chicken like the breast, and using healthier methods of cooking such as grilling, without the skin, means that you are avoiding such levels of animal fat. 100g of skinless chicken breast has a minimal amount of fat in. It's not unhealthy.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 12:26

I never said it was natural that this happened to them. Of course they were bred to for wool like that- something I think should never have happened. Yo, I'm not saying it's all good in the wool industry, I'm just saying that now, sometimes you need to sheer a sheep or else it gets sick. Don't try and say that I said that the wool industry is good, by any standards. Don't try and straw man this. If my argument was "wool is always good for sheep" then your stupid fucking argument might make sense.

You said you had wool products and that that wasn't exploitive use of animal products because sheep need to get sheered.

Well I suppose if you don't care if you starve/live an ok life then you can't be too poor to not hurt animals.

That was one of the reasons why I asked that question. Because as you correctly say:

Ok, let's talk about food: most processed food is involved in the exploitation of animals. Breads often have dairy (actually a bunch of things have dairy), if you use sugar it is possible that it was filtered through bone char (not common, but possible). To add to that: many good are processed by companies that support animal cruelty. So if you support them by buying their product, you support animal cruelty. Honey, you hurt bees. In a previous well documented scandal, Mcdonalds was cat frying their fries in beef tallow (so don't be surprised if others do the same). Butter is on a large amount of shit as well. The list goes on.

Clothing: most clothing is fine, avoiding leather and wool isn't too hard (again, I believe that if the sheep are kept in a safe and "happy" environment, then it's ok to sheer them- they'd get sick and die otherwise). However you still gotta check.

Lotions, shampoos, etc...:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/03/02/9aduqegu.jpg

That little picture doesn't really mean shit. All it means is that this SPECIFIC product wasn't tested on animals. However, it still is the result of much animal testing, as they were made possible by animal testing.

So if you have the time and Internet access to do all that research to figure out which products were in no way connected to animal cruelty, and figure out which products NEVER were processed in a factory that supports or utilizes animal cruelty, and then have the money required to BUY the (few) products that remain (which also tend to be more expensive) then I conclude that you might even be fabulously wealthy- but I for one, don't have that kind of time. My family is a family that fucking works, I go to school, etc...

Now, you can try and eat only organic foods, but they generally cost more as well. And that still doesn't solve your other problems.

Also not all animal liberationist arguments are moralistic- there are a few in this thread that are obviously not. I think you should learn to understand what people have said before you respond to it. Otherwise you look stupid.

I did not respond to anybody. I wrote a contribution to the thread. You responded to me and I answered....so yeah. I am not sure what you are trying to say about learning what people have said before you respond....you were the one responding.

But the animal liberationist arguments always unfailingly boil down to moralism against people who are none vegan and inherently animal liberation is in itself an ethical and moral argument....more often than not tantamount to emotional blackmail.

Especially in the context of the fact that you are always unable to eliminate animal products or products that directly contribute to the destruction of habitats and extinction of species.....you know....like some biofuels. What a fucking scam that was.

They don't have to be independent of humans to be free from cruelty and oppression. I believe Vox Populi can tell you that with some very compelling evidence.

I don't think it is possible to not be free from humans and not be exploited. We have bred animals for production purposes in greater and greater numbers. These animals can not survive without humans....we have bred the ultimate slaves. They are depended on our continued care and exploitation.

But that is not my entire point. What animal liberatinists always forget....the sheer amount of animals we currently have will hugely impact the habitats and survival chances of those we do not have.....if we do not regularly maintain their numbers...in other words...if we don't kill them.

We have 1.3 billion cows on this planet. Cows have an average life span of 15 years...and produce 1-2 offspring a year. Do the math.

In other words, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You cannot be free from oppressing animals in the context of capitalism and civilization, but we can sure as shit try.

I have every clue of what I am talking about but you fail to see the obvious....you can't. We are not rabbits....we don't just eat grass. There is NO omnivorous animal on this planet which doesn't need meat to sustain itself.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 12:32

Yes, it is probably worth doing a little more research. The basic premise of his article i.e. animal fat is unhealthy, should be what we take away from it though.

But I think the point is that all animal fat has high volumes of saturated fat, and I don't think that's a particularly difficult thesis to prove. Doing a cursory Google search, the Google nutritional value calculator says that 13g of chicken has 17% of your daily allowance of saturated fat. That seems pretty high to me, no matter how you approach this.

It depends on body structure and activity levels what your daily doses is. Also if you were to count all the recommended nutrition values....you could just about eat two apples (yeah I know I am exaggerating...but the point is the recommended daily doses is never near enough for actual sustenance)

Most foods contain ridiculous amounts of unhealthy micro nutrition though...not just meat.

Plus of course....a well balanced vegetarian diet is also unhealthy....lacking in vitamine D and zinc etc.

The Feral Underclass

2nd March 2014, 13:29

I was of the understanding that some users here were incorporating the exploitation of animals into a class strugglist worldview. All we have to do is substitute money for some other medium of compensation. I'm saying that, money or other form of compensation, it's a ridiculous notion that animals are, in a Marxist sense, exploited.

But animals are literally exploited. Whether people are incorporating that into a class worldview, it remains a fact.

That's close but a bit simplistic. A certain amount of fats are necessary, though these are best derived from non-animal sources. A certain amount of animal fat is satisfactory. There is a qualitative, and of course quantitative, difference to one's nutritional intake and its impact on health between, say, not cutting the skin off a roast chicken breast, and adding 2 rashers of butter-fried bacon to your eggs every morning. The latter is reckless and hugely unhealthy, the former by itself probably won't have any substantial impact on your health, ceteris paribus.

Yes, all things are different by degree. Nevertheless, the premise that animal fat is unhealthy isn't disproved. Even if we ruled chicken out, other meats that produce fats irrespective of how they're cooked, remain unhealthy.

Anyway, it was just an article I saw that was sort of relevant to this discussion. I'm not here to make a particularly emphatic defence of it.

Roast chicken legs, or fried chicken, perhaps. But, as I was saying before, using parts of the chicken like the breast, and using healthier methods of cooking such as grilling, without the skin, means that you are avoiding such levels of animal fat. 100g of skinless chicken breast has a minimal amount of fat in. It's not unhealthy.

This just strikes me as pedantry to be honest. In the grand scheme of things, is it really that important whether 100g of skinless chicken breast grilled is healthier than other forms of cooking chicken when we look at all meats?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd March 2014, 13:40

[QUOTE=The Anarchist Tension;2726614]But animals are literally exploited. Whether people are incorporating that into a class worldview, it remains a fact.

Not all of this is related to the eating of meat, of course.

Yes, all things are different by degree. Nevertheless, the premise that animal fat is unhealthy isn't disproved. Even if we ruled chicken out, other meats that produce fats irrespective of how they're cooked, remain unhealthy.

The point I was making is that there are animal products, in particular poultry, that can be used in a way that they are a positive addition to a human's diet.

This just strikes me as pedantry to be honest. In the grand scheme of things, is it really that important whether 100g of skinless chicken breast grilled is healthier than other forms of cooking chicken when we look at all meats?

I think it's important in a debate on vegetarianism vs eating meat, in the sense that one of the key arguments against eating meat is that it is unhealthy because of the link between excessive consumption of animal fats and negative health consequences for humans. We can see, actually, that there are some meats that are worth consuming as they are good for us, depending on what part of the animal we use and how we cook it. Chicken, Turkey etc. belong to this group - they are an excellent low fat source of protein.

Axiomasher

2nd March 2014, 15:05

But we are not talking about an animal that is born, lives and dies as a free entity like a human. We are talking about an animal that is born, confined and reared specifically for you to eat. And then, when you have decided you wish to consume its flesh, is killed.

Provided that the animal's conditions while alive meets a high standard of welfare, i.e. are attendant to its species needs (by which I mean what kind of food is available to it, what kind of shelter, what kind of socialisation and so on), and provided that the method of killing is as quick and painless as is practicable, then I'm ok with that. In the wild, animals are at risk of all kinds of injury, disease and predation, and easily of slow and painful death.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 15:47

There is not real argument in health when it comes to diet...seeing as diet is very depending on the individual and both meat and non meat diets pose their risks to health.

There is also no real argument in exploitation when it comes to meat...seeing as all the factors combined would not pose a solution to this problem nor is it limited to meat eating. And we have already established that right now...it is pretty much impossible to eliminate exploitative or destructive products from our daily lives.

Nor is the argument against meat eating found in any form of moralism...since pretty much the whole exploitation of animals is a crossover field not limited to the meat industry...in fact...it even crosses over in the the environmentalist camps as well as several bio products are directly responsible for the destruction of, imbalance in and encroaching on habitats and species sustainability.

So then the only thing left is to realize that there is no possible way to eliminate animal exploitation at this very moment...unless we adopt notions and accept implications akin to primitivism: less people.

Eliminating meat from our diets is simply shifting the balance. It would require fast amount of fields for production of plant food sources (which would then raise the question previously raised about specieism) which would encroach and destroy fast amounts of habitats and wild life...and would basically render huge tracks of the earth infertile.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 15:51

Axiomasher

2nd March 2014, 16:14

I don't know how successful they are but I'm aware of attempts to 'grow' meat in vats. It's not impossible that, once perfected, consumption of 'animal flesh' will no longer involve actual living animals.

BIXX

2nd March 2014, 16:33

You said you had wool products and that that wasn't exploitative use of animal products because sheep need to get sheered.

Those specific wool products aren't. Here is what I actually said:

And also, I have wool products (from sheep sheeted by friends of mine and knitted by my mom, primarily), but that's not an oppressive use of an animal product- sheep get sick and die if they aren't sheered.

These sheep are cleaned, fed, and kept in safe, “happy” conditions. The relationship is symbiotic, not oppressive.

I did not respond to anybody. I wrote a contribution to the thread. You responded to me and I answered....so yeah. I am not sure what you are trying to say about learning what people have said before you respond....you were the one responding.

You responded to a thread, dumbass. That's what the “reply” button does- it allows you to type out a message in response to the other points made in the thread. Now, seeing as you apparently read none of the thread, maybe you shouldn't be responding.

But the animal liberationist arguments always unfailingly boil down to moralism against people who are none vegan and inherently animal liberation is in itself an ethical and moral argument....more often than not tantamount to emotional blackmail.

Prove it.

Especially in the context of the fact that you are always unable to eliminate animal products or products that directly contribute to the destruction of habitats and extinction of species.....you know....like some biofuels. What a fucking scam that was.

Why does that idea that we can't mean that we shouldn't try? As an example:

So what, because we can't solve problem we may as well make it worse? If we apply that logic to slavery then we get some very fucked up results.

I don't think it is possible to not be free from humans and not be exploited. We have bred animals for production purposes in greater and greater numbers. These animals can not survive without humans....we have bred the ultimate slaves. They are depended on our continued care and exploitation.

Just because they rely on us doesn't mean they are oppressed- is a child oppressed by a parent?

But that is not my entire point. What animal liberatinists always forget....the sheer amount of animals we currently have will hugely impact the habitats and survival chances of those we do not have.....if we do not regularly maintain their numbers...in other words...if we don't kill them.

We have 1.3 billion cows on this planet. Cows have an average life span of 15 years...and produce 1-2 offspring a year. Do the math.

“Do the math” isn't an argument.

Do you think that they produced so many offspring before humans domesticated them? Cause if they did this problem would happen anyway. This means it's not natural for them to breed that much, so maybe we could limit their breeding?

We cam take care of them, and maybe have them breed less, or just take care of them and not try to make them breed (as is common). There are many solutions- saying “Do the math” sounds good but it really means you still have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I have every clue of what I am talking about but you fail to see the obvious....you can't. We are not rabbits....we don't just eat grass. There is NO omnivorous animal on this planet which doesn't need meat to sustain itself.

Can't tell if trolling... Or really fucking stupid.

BIXX

2nd March 2014, 16:35

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd March 2014, 16:35

Which leaves the question of how to treat animals more or less a moral one...which comes down to: "what does it cost us if we treat them better and find alternatives." or better said: "Why aren't we treating them better?"

And, by extension, 'who is treating animals badly?' and therefore, 'why won't they stop?'

The responsibility for over-consumption, like it is across the capitalist production process, lies on the supply side. Firms use advertising, propaganda and pricing strategies to increase consumption of meat beyond what is necessary for sustenance and enjoyment, and for those of us who are concerned with the welfare of animals, beyond what is palatable. Only through a revolutionary change in the way that food in general is produced and distributed can we begin to make substantial and long-lasting improvements to the welfare of animals and the planet, in addition to improving some of the auxiliary concerns of over-consumption re: the health of individuals, healthcare provision and so on.

Axiomasher

2nd March 2014, 17:24

I am curious about this. I think it could prove very interesting.

BBC News Story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143)

The world's first lab-grown burger has been cooked and eaten at a news conference in London.

Scientists took cells from a cow and, at an institute in the Netherlands, turned them into strips of muscle that they combined to make a patty.
One food expert said it was "close to meat, but not that juicy" and another said it tasted like a real burger.

Researchers say the technology could be a sustainable way of meeting what they say is a growing demand for meat.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 18:28

Those specific wool products aren't. Here is what I actually said:

These sheep are cleaned, fed, and kept in safe, “happy” conditions. The relationship is symbiotic, not oppressive.

Right. I'll take your word for it. Next time maybe you should consider to specify that you are making an exception to these specific product...

Btw...You did use the word: primarily...which means you also use other wool products.

But that is not the point. Your sentence without the brackets is the main communicator...your primary assertion was sheep need sheering.

You responded to a thread, dumbass. That's what the “reply” button does- it allows you to type out a message in response to the other points made in the thread. Now, seeing as you apparently read none of the thread, maybe you shouldn't be responding.

Yes...and I stand by what I said. The whole concept of animal liberation is moralistic and founded in ethics.

Prove it.

I don't need to prove it...you know it is a fact. Animal liberation is rooted purely in ethics and not in objectivism. Especially when it comes to our diets all arguments boil down to: living creature died for you to eat that. Hence why all the animal rights organisations make heavy use of showing excesses in the food industry and moralize that we could do without meat...failing to take into consideration that doing so would entail a huge rise in cost of living (as you yourself were kind enough to point out...which is why I told you I was baiting you)

Which...by the way if you have followed the thread yourself...you would have seen occurring more than once.

Why does that idea that we can't mean that we shouldn't try? As an example:

So what, because we can't solve problem we may as well make it worse? If we apply that logic to slavery then we get some very fucked up results.

Slavery is very easily solved. It isn't necessary and there are no adverse effects of eliminating slavery...as opposed to liberating all animals and shutting down meat in our diets.

Just because they rely on us doesn't mean they are oppressed- is a child oppressed by a parent?

Animals rely on us for the simple fact we made sure they rely on us for their continued survival. We did that because we could more effectively use them for production. I never used the word oppressed in the part you quote. I said exploited. If you could provide me with an example of how we use children for food, clothing or ingredients...then yes....we are. But I haven't seen any lotions that are made from baby parts. So I don't know

“Do the math” isn't an argument.

The argument was quite clear and made by me before. Liberating the entire life stock would devastate the environment....or will be tantamount to mass genocide. It was quite clear. You focused on the last three words because you haven't found an argument on content.

An example....a few years ago...maybe decades. An animal liberation organisation freed hundreds of ferrets or minx...or whatever. As a direct result of that action....wildlife and free roaming life stock was devastated in the area and took years to recover. Most of those freed minx also died of starvation, dehydration and simply not being able to survive.

Do you think that they produced so many offspring before humans domesticated them? Cause if they did this problem would happen anyway. This means it's not natural for them to breed that much, so maybe we could limit their breeding?

I do and we could. We could also reduce their population by eating them. Which is kind of the way nature goes.

We cam take care of them, and maybe have them breed less, or just take care of them and not try to make them breed (as is common). There are many solutions- saying “Do the math” sounds good but it really means you still have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I actually do...because your argument still hinges on us intervening with nature and their freedom. Which is by itself counter to the idea of liberation. And yes...I know the liberation movement is divided between total freedom advocates and limited freedom advocates.

Can't tell if trolling... Or really fucking stupid.

Omnivores eat meat. Hence why they are called omnivores and not herbivores. They eat meat because they need it in their diet. Because, like it or not, there is no vegetarian equivalent for it...no matter how you are going to argue...without resorting to synthetic supplements. Which aren't natural.

If most omnivores are given the choice between veggies/fruit and meat....they will go for meat. Like apes. Which usually specifically hunt for monkeys, birds and other meat sources.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 18:35

And, by extension, 'who is treating animals badly?' and therefore, 'why won't they stop?'

The responsibility for over-consumption, like it is across the capitalist production process, lies on the supply side. Firms use advertising, propaganda and pricing strategies to increase consumption of meat beyond what is necessary for sustenance and enjoyment, and for those of us who are concerned with the welfare of animals, beyond what is palatable. Only through a revolutionary change in the way that food in general is produced and distributed can we begin to make substantial and long-lasting improvements to the welfare of animals and the planet, in addition to improving some of the auxiliary concerns of over-consumption re: the health of individuals, healthcare provision and so on.

Exactly. I would even go further and say that because of capitalist exploitation of humans there is created an income division which necessitate the competition on meat production prices. In other words: solve income inequality and we will solve a lot of issues concerning over production of many things...but specifically meat.

There is also no objective reason to mistreat animals for meat production. There is no direct profit from it. Stomping on cows, hitting them, mutilating them all are not inherent to production of meat but rather much of these mistreatments are resulting from alienation of humans as in the Marxist view.

PhoenixAsh

2nd March 2014, 18:36

BBC News Story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143)

This would be a very interesting development. The question would be what the possible health risks are in the long run.

BIXX

2nd March 2014, 22:10

Right. I'll take your word for it. Next time maybe you should consider to specify that you are making an exception to these specific product...

Btw...You did use the word: primarily...which means you also use other wool products.

Knitted by my mom primarily, other than that I have one thing made by my dad and another by my girlfriend.

I actually was told I needed wool for skiing recently- It turns out, everything, besides the few hats and scarves that mave been made for me, is a either cotton or cotton-poly. I doubt very many people here have a huge amount of wool in any of their clothing.

But that is not the point. Your sentence without the brackets is the main communicator...your primary assertion was sheep need sheering.

Which they do. Again, never claimed the circumstances under which that happens are good 100% of the time.

Yes...and I stand by what I said. The whole concept of animal liberation is moralistic and founded in ethics.

You still gotta prove that.

I don't need to prove it...you know it is a fact. Animal liberation is rooted purely in ethics and not in objectivism. Especially when it comes to our diets all arguments boil down to: living creature died for you to eat that. Hence why all the animal rights organisations make heavy use of showing excesses in the food industry and moralize that we could do without meat...failing to take into consideration that doing so would entail a huge rise in cost of living (as you yourself were kind enough to point out...which is why I told you I was baiting you)

You're incorrect- people here have shown that it is not just a moral question, but a question of our own liberation as well.

Also, yes, it would increase the cost of living, because it's so hard to find products that don't aren't involved in the oppression of animals. The point is to try and stop the oppression of animals, part of which is (if you have the ability) not supporting their oppression by buying certain products.

Which...by the way if you have followed the thread yourself...you would have seen occurring more than once.

Yes, I know it happened more than once. However, "more than once" does not mean "every single time" as you are trying to say it does.

Slavery is very easily solved. It isn't necessary and there are no adverse effects of eliminating slavery...as opposed to liberating all animals and shutting down meat in our diets.

You wouldn't have believed that in slave times. Just as you don't believe that about animals now.

Animals rely on us for the simple fact we made sure they rely on us for their continued survival. We did that because we could more effectively use them for production. I never used the word oppressed in the part you quote. I said exploited. If you could provide me with an example of how we use children for food, clothing or ingredients...then yes....we are. But I haven't seen any lotions that are made from baby parts. So I don't know

So we just don't use them as ingredients, clothing, food. What is so hard for you to understand? Just because we did a certain thing to make production more efficient in the past doesn't mean we have to use that same development now for production.

The argument was quite clear and made by me before. Liberating the entire life stock would devastate the environment....or will be tantamount to mass genocide. It was quite clear. You focused on the last three words because you haven't found an argument on content.

Yeah but your argument was based on false assumptions. one of them being that the only way to liberate animals is to set them all loose.

An example....a few years ago...maybe decades. An animal liberation organisation freed hundreds of ferrets or minx...or whatever. As a direct result of that action....wildlife and free roaming life stock was devastated in the area and took years to recover. Most of those freed minx also died of starvation, dehydration and simply not being able to survive.

Like I said, that isn't the only way to free animals.

I do

aaaaaaannnnnndddd false. They did not produce as much offspring before we began breeding them.

and we could. We could also reduce their population by eating them. Which is kind of the way nature goes.

and continue those structures of domination? No, that is not natural.

I actually do...because your argument still hinges on us intervening with nature and their freedom. Which is by itself counter to the idea of liberation. And yes...I know the liberation movement is divided between total freedom advocates and limited freedom advocates.

If we intervene with the freedom of animals we are also intervening in our own freedom, as has been shown in this thread before and honestly I am getting tired of having to ask you to read the thread.

Omnivores eat meat.

Hold up, your original premise was that they COULD NOT SURVIVE without eating meat, which we so obviously can. Admit that your premise was wrong. don't try to change it.

Hence why they are called omnivores and not herbivores. They eat meat because they need it in their diet. Because, like it or not, there is no vegetarian equivalent for it...no matter how you are going to argue...without resorting to synthetic supplements. Which aren't natural.

Humans survive with no meat in their diet... So yes, omnivores can survive without meat.

If most omnivores are given the choice between veggies/fruit and meat....they will go for meat. Like apes. Which usually specifically hunt for monkeys, birds and other meat sources.

Yes, but this proves nothing- they can go without it. Just like us.

o well this is ok I guess

2nd March 2014, 22:36

there is no vegetarian equivalent for it...no matter how you are going to argue...without resorting to synthetic supplements. Which aren't natural. yo uh hold up
maybe it matters for other animals, but why should humans give a single fuck about supplements not being natural?

PhoenixAsh

3rd March 2014, 00:21

yo uh hold up
maybe it matters for other animals, but why should humans give a single fuck about supplements not being natural?

I do. Because most supplements actually have adverse health effects.

PhoenixAsh

3rd March 2014, 00:51

Knitted by my mom primarily, other than that I have one thing made by my dad and another by my girlfriend.

I actually was told I needed wool for skiing recently- It turns out, everything, besides the few hats and scarves that mave been made for me, is a either cotton or cotton-poly. I doubt very many people here have a huge amount of wool in any of their clothing.

Which they do. Again, never claimed the circumstances under which that happens are good 100% of the time.

Fine.

You still gotta prove that.

I don't have to. in fact it is basically the assertion of the animal liberation movement itself.

However....what would you argue why we shouldn't eat meat?

You're incorrect- people here have shown that it is not just a moral question, but a question of our own liberation as well.

Now...they have argued that....which is not the same as "showing".

Also, yes, it would increase the cost of living, because it's so hard to find products that don't aren't involved in the oppression of animals. The point is to try and stop the oppression of animals, part of which is (if you have the ability) not supporting their oppression by buying certain products.

But buying others that do the same...the animal liberation movement seeks to give animals rights. Which is fine by me. I do not necessarily disagree. What I do disagree with is the assertion that these rights will somehow end exploitation...and I disagree with the supposition that vegetarianism will hugely end exploitation of animals and is therefore necessary. Especially given the fact that world vegetarianism will simply destroy much of the worlds remaining habitats and wildlife.

I also disagree animal liberation should be part of the revolutionary narrative.

Yes, I know it happened more than once. However, "more than once" does not mean "every single time" as you are trying to say it does.

But more than once does validate a response specifically against that line of reasoning.

Plus I stated that it is the logical conclusion. That others haven't argued it yet doesn't mean that it is the logical extend of arguments given.

You wouldn't have believed that in slave times. Just as you don't believe that about animals now.

Who knows. I wasn't alive in slave times so I can't tell. Maybe I would have been an abolitionist....maybe you would have been a slave trader. Who knows.

I am also somebody who values a natural approach to diet....which means I see meat as a vital part of it. Which would mean I will always and every time oppose a forced vegetarian agenda....even if there are vegetarian alternatives.

So we just don't use them as ingredients, clothing, food. What is so hard for you to understand? Just because we did a certain thing to make production more efficient in the past doesn't mean we have to use that same development now for production.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I simply do not want to do that because it makes no sense at all?

h but your argument was based on false assumptions. one of them being that the only way to liberate animals is to set them all loose.

Really? Because I am of the opinion that liberation means liberation not complete and utter dependence on. I also reject the notion that coexistence or a symbiotic relationship necessarily would mean we should stop eating them.

Like I said, that isn't the only way to free animals.

Yes...your opinion is exactly the same as mine: we keep them captured under our complete control. The only difference is I want to eat them too. I know this. You have taken until this post to figure out we are arguing the same thing.

aaaaaaannnnnndddd false. They did not produce as much offspring before we began breeding them.

fine I didn't read the "before" . But I argued the same position before. So we agree on this.

and continue those structures of domination? No, that is not natural.

As opposed to keep them all captured but be nicer to them? Sounds to me a like a animal liberation variation of Social Democracy.

If we intervene with the freedom of animals we are also intervening in our own freedom, as has been shown in this thread before and honestly I am getting tired of having to ask you to read the thread.

Really? Because I do not agree with those arguments. I do not think our own freedom depends on not exploiting animals.

Hold up, your original premise was that they COULD NOT SURVIVE without eating meat, which we so obviously can. Admit that your premise was wrong. don't try to change it.

I don't try to change it. Omnivores eat meat. They eat meat because it is an essential part of their diet because of the nutrient resources in meat that aren't present or under present in non meat products. Like Zinc and vitamine B12....which is why vegetarians who do NOT supplement these will actually get sick.

In fact....and that is ironic...a lot of veggie food is actually flavored with MSG to mimic the taste of meat. Which is just there to piss you off...and not part of my arguments.

Humans survive with no meat in their diet... So yes, omnivores can survive without meat.

Yes. They survive and usually get sick and suffer lack of energy. Which to me...sounds like crap as an argument in favor of not eating Bambi or Stomper. Both of which taste absolutely fantastic and I won't lose a nights sleep or feel less liberated when I have them properly prepared.

Yes, but this proves nothing- they can go without it. Just like us.

Actually...you have to prove that statement. But just to be fair to you....why do you think they eat meat?

Alan OldStudent

3rd March 2014, 10:18

I watched this thread with initially a bit of interest but also a bit of dread, and I have been hesitant to participate in it because I thought it might turn out the way that it has.

Without casting stones at anyone, I have a few things to say on this subject.

We human beings have evolved to be social animals, and as far as our eating habits go, it is true that we have evolved to be omnivores. That means meat-eating has played an important, if not essential, role in our evolution. There is a large degree of variety in our diets that we humans choose from culture to culture and era to era. Some cultures have been vegetarian, and a few have been largely meat eating, with plenty of other dietary schemes.

One of the characteristics that seems to be hardwired into our brains is the capacity and the urge for a certain degree of empathy. There is little doubt in my mind that this tendency to value empathy is an evolutionary advantage for a highly intelligent and social species such as our own homo sapiens. This empathy is part of what enables us to cooperate enough to live as social beings, and our whole evolution involves a degree of social cooperation and empathy as a survival mechanism. It has been, evolutionarily speaking, an effective adaptive mechanism. Our mythology reflects this. For example, the Bible says: "Woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up." (Ecclesiastes 4:10)

The social dimension of human behavior is perhaps a core kernel in Marxism, because we require a certain amount of cooperation and empathy to apply labor to the fruits of nature, to enable us to survive and thrive. This is true of all class societies, as well as that classless stage of society known as the old stone age, which lasted for 95% of our time on this earth.

Moreover, we have evolved from earlier animals, and there is a lot we share with the animals, especially animals that are closer to us. Animals such as livestock, dogs, cats, (especially the mammals) seem to have emotional states and a psychology that is not entirely foreign to us. There are some remarkable similarities, despite the obvious differences, in animal and human psychology, empathy, capacity for communication and friendship. People in most all human cultures form very close relationships with animals, even become friends with animals. Animals comfort us, seek comfort from us, love us, seek approval from us, and so on. In our culture, deep relationships with cats and dogs is quite common.

Many will tell you that they bond with a cat or dog, communicate and have a friendship with a cat or a dog. A really important and concrete example is a service dog. I feel like a great friendship with my Maine Coon cat who actually mourned for several months after my wife died, who loves me, who seeks to comfort me when I need it. In turn, I love her and treat her with dignity and respect, care for her needs. That fulfills a need in me to take care of a sentient creature now that my wife is dead.

I killed many animals for meat in my youth. I also frequently helped my father butcher the larger animals. That was back in the 1950s. I have never really enjoyed doing that. To be able to do that, I had to deliberately avoid making friends with these animals, because I helped feed them and care for them. Although they were raised for food, I always treated them with respect and dignity and avoided any kind of cruelty. I felt sadness when they died, but I did not make friends with them.

It never seemed morally repugnant to me to raise animals for food. But I sympathize with those opposed to killing animals for food. My wife, who was a socialist until she died, was also a pacifist and a vegetarian. She used to say that she did not want to eat anything with a face and a mother. I did most of the cooking for her during her last years as she was quite disabled, and I learned to be a good vegetarian cook. What I made for her was tasty, healthful, and nourishing.

Although I do eat small qualities of meat, I find it hard to eat much pork, maybe because it's not kosher, although I am not at all religious (I'm an atheist), and I violate lots of other kosher laws. To me, pigs seem more like us than cows, sheep, chickens, and so on. They are so intelligent. Probably culture plays a part in this for me.

What offends me greatly is cruelty to animals. In fact, cruelty towards any sentient being angers me, repels me, disgusts me. It's hard for me to relate to those who take pleasure from suffering in any form. And unlike conditions of livestock raising in my youth, modern factory farming fosters cruelty to animals as well as degrades the sensibility of human workers, dulling empathy, killing off a bit of their humanity.

The pressures and constant speed-up on agricultural workers, the horribly unsanitary, crowded, and uncomfortable pens and cages that factory farms put animals in, and so on undermine any capacity for treating animals with empathy and respect. Cruelty becomes a manly virtue and kindliness becomes an effete weakness. That's why these animal advocates who infiltrate factory farms and film the systematic mistreatment of animals can get so many underground pictures of cattle being skinned alive, tortured, sexually abused, and the abusers seeming to enjoy themselves. The reaction of agribusiness seems to be to try to put whistleblowers in jail and to outlaw exposing their hideous business. Factory farming fosters thuggery and bullying, and I really hate cruelty of all types.

I do not have an answer to the original poster's question about what a Marxist position on this might be. As far as I know, Marx did not discuss matters of morality much, although in reading him, his sense of moral outrage against capitalism and exploitation seems quite evident. Nevertheless, this moral consideration was not the core of his analysis and critique of capitalism. I think he was trying to be descriptive and scientific and avoid a lot of the idealism of the utopian socialist currents of the 19th century.

Nevertheless, perhaps there is a basis for a Marxian consideration of the cruelty of modern livestock industry. If we condone the cruelty and disrespect to animals that the factory farm seem to build into their business plan, we coarsen an important part of our humanity and dull our capacity for empathy. And when we coarsen and dull our capacity for empathy, we lessen our ability to relate to other workers, to appeal to their sense of human decency, and thereby undermine, to a certain extent, our effectiveness as revolutionaries.

In some cultures, those who eat meat give thanks to the spirit of the animals. It is good to realize that the food chain is more of a circle than a line. Ultimately, we humans become worm food. I used to sign forum messages back in the 1980s with this phrase: "We are both the honored guests and the main course in the great feast of life."

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

tallguy

3rd March 2014, 18:26

Outstanding post Alan

fgilbert2

4th March 2014, 06:36

fantastic good stuff, Alan Oldstudent. Thanks!

Sea

5th March 2014, 23:23

MOVING ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE
Dude, I understand. I'm glad that the Experimental injection has a 100% effectiveness, I'm not gonna derail the thread. Simply I think it's terrible we use animals for research like this. But it's necessary otherwise we won't find a cure for this horrible diseaseWhy do you think it's terrible?

Sinister Intents

5th March 2014, 23:27

MOVING ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE
Why do you think it's terrible?

Lol alright.
I think it's terrible because we're using our fellow beings for research. As per the thread this is about, isn't it quite horrible we're giving animals HIV to conduct research on the disease? It'd also be unethical to use people! However, I do see the purpose of this kind of research and it can be beneficial. We don't need to use animals for cosmetic research nor military research, but for disease research.

Sea

5th March 2014, 23:52

The quoting function is completely and utterly broken for me, so I'm doing it my way:

Moreover, we have evolved from earlier animals, and there is a lot we share with the animals, especially animals that are closer to us. Animals such as livestock, dogs, cats, (especially the mammals) seem to have emotional states and a psychology that is not entirely foreign to us. There are some remarkable similarities, despite the obvious differences, in animal and human psychology, empathy, capacity for communication and friendship. People in most all human cultures form very close relationships with animals, even become friends with animals. Animals comfort us, seek comfort from us, love us, seek approval from us, and so on. In our culture, deep relationships with cats and dogs is quite common.Our relationships with cats and dogs is completely arbitrary. Are we less human than Hindus because we kill cattle to suit our needs? Are Koreans less human than us because dog meat is used in some Korean dishes?
My wife, who was a socialist until she died, was also a pacifistThat is strange.
She used to say that she did not want to eat anything with a face and a mother.As much as I am sorry for your loss, this is irrelevant and subjective. Additionally, your wife was guilty of anthropomorphizing other species by forcing the human conception of mother hood upon then.

Although I do eat small qualities of meat, I find it hard to eat much pork, maybe because it's not kosher, although I am not at all religious (I'm an atheist), and I violate lots of other kosher laws. To me, pigs seem more like us than cows, sheep, chickens, and so on. They are so intelligent. Probably culture plays a part in this for me. Pigs are demonstrably intelligent. How does this make them worth more? If this standard of yours were applied to indivituals of the same species (ie, homo sapiens) it would be a valid conclusion that mentally challenged individuals are worth less than the those who are especially bright. Obviously this is nonsense. In addition, how you feel is irrelevant. Clearly I feel very different from you and yet I do not use this to fluff up my argument.
What offends me greatly is cruelty to animals. In fact, cruelty towards any sentient being angers me, repels me, disgusts me.This is likewise subjective and irrelevant.
It's hard for me to relate to those who take pleasure from suffering in any form.Straw man. Let's assume for the sake of argument that nobody involved in the act itself derives any particular pleasure from the act.
And unlike conditions of livestock raising in my youthSo now the problem is not in the act itself, but how the act is carried out? This seems like an unwarranted and arbitrary leap in your argument.
modern factory farming fosters cruelty to animals as well as degrades the sensibility of human workers, dulling empathy, killing off a bit of their humanity.Unfalsifiable, unquantifiable untestable rubbish. These conceptions of "humanity" are just as made-up as feelings of "higher purpose". How are the workers involved less human? What metaphysical garbage defines "humanity" if not species?

The pressures and constant speed-up on agricultural workers, the horribly unsanitary, crowded, and uncomfortable pens and cages that factory farms put animals in, and so on undermine any capacity for treating animals with empathy and respect. Cruelty becomes a manly virtue and kindliness becomes an effete weakness.I agree completely with the first sentence, with the caveat that it assumes we should be treating non-human animals with dignity and kindness in the first place. The second sentence is dubious and seems to be based on nothing more than your own speculation. If you really do think that factory farming has an impact on gender stereotypes, I'd like to see some evidence.
That's why these animal advocates who infiltrate factory farms and film the systematic mistreatment of animals can get so many underground pictures of cattle being skinned alive, tortured, sexually abused, and the abusers seeming to enjoy themselves. The reaction of agribusiness seems to be to try to put whistleblowers in jail and to outlaw exposing their hideous business. Factory farming fosters thuggery and bullying, and I really hate cruelty of all types. Their abusers would be workers, would they not? Here you contradict your previous paragraph.
The reaction of agribusiness seems to be to try to put whistleblowers in jail and to outlaw exposing their hideous business. Factory farming fosters thuggery and bullying, and I really hate cruelty of all types.Not just factory farming, but capitalism in general. A change in farming methodology would do very little in this regard.
I think he was trying to be descriptive and scientific and avoid a lot of the idealism of the utopian socialist currents of the 19th century.What haughty standards he set!
Nevertheless, perhaps there is a basis for a Marxian consideration of the cruelty of modern livestock industry. If we condone the cruelty and disrespect to animals that the factory farm seem to build into their business plan, we coarsen an important part of our humanity and dull our capacity for empathy. And when we coarsen and dull our capacity for empathy, we lessen our ability to relate to other workers, to appeal to their sense of human decency, and thereby undermine, to a certain extent, our effectiveness as revolutionaries.The first sentence isn't such a framework (obviously, as it does not intend to be) so I will not critique it. The second falls back to the same metaphysical hogwash of "humanity" as discussed above. The third is dubious and inherits the problems of the second.
In some cultures, those who eat meat give thanks to the spirit of the animals.Irrelevant.
It is good to realize that the food chain is more of a circle than a line. Ultimately, we humans become worm food. I used to sign forum messages back in the 1980s with this phrase: "We are both the honored guests and the main course in the great feast of life."As far as this discussion goes it's pretty much a straight line -- there's nobody corralling and slaughtering us for food. Yet.

Soylent green, anyone?

Sea

5th March 2014, 23:59

Lol alright.
I think it's terrible because we're using our fellow beings for research. As per the thread this is about, isn't it quite horrible we're giving animals HIV to conduct research on the disease? It'd also be unethical to use people! However, I do see the purpose of this kind of research and it can be beneficial. We don't need to use animals for cosmetic research nor military research, but for disease research.All "beings" are just complex chemical reactions. You, me, and the man on the moon. I have a hard time feeling empathy towards such things. The sole reason that I oppose human testing in such an instance is because it removes the possibility that I may unwillingly be used as a test subject. That is not ethics; it is my own selfishness.

edit: oh my god I'm starting to sound like an individualist! what's happening to me?

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 00:06

All "beings" are just complex chemical reactions. You, me, and the man on the moon. I have a hard time feeling empathy towards such things. The sole reason that I oppose human testing in such an instance is because it removes the possibility that I may unwillingly be used as a test subject. That is not ethics; it is my own selfishness.

Yes, I understand that we're all chemical reactions, and that that is what life essentially is. From my point of view in believing that all creatures have a kind of 'spirit' and are reborn after death. But my bizarre beliefs have nothing to do with this in reality and you're essentially right, but I still see it as unethical and I hope our technology gets to the point where we don't need animal testing, and the end of animal testing will probably come when socialism is achieved by humanity.
Also Sea, how would you feel if I sprayed cosmetics into your eyes, nose, and ears, and on your skin to see how it would affect you?

The Feral Underclass

6th March 2014, 00:14

Another interesting article: Diets high in meat, eggs and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/04/animal-protein-diets-smoking-meat-eggs-dairy)

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 00:17

Another interesting article: Diets high in meat, eggs and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/04/animal-protein-diets-smoking-meat-eggs-dairy)

All stuff gotten from factory farms... Did this article include organic? I haven't read it and won't have the time tonight

The Feral Underclass

6th March 2014, 00:19

All stuff gotten from factory farms... Did this article include organic? I haven't read it and won't have the time tonight

It has nothing to do with how the food is farmed.

BIXX

6th March 2014, 00:22

All "beings" are just complex chemical reactions. You, me, and the man on the moon. I have a hard time feeling empathy towards such things. The sole reason that I oppose human testing in such an instance is because it removes the possibility that I may unwillingly be used as a test subject. That is not ethics; it is my own selfishness.

There are selfish reasons to oppose animal testing, namely that it recreates structures of domination and again, manipulates us into acting in certain ways. These don't affect us as directly as us avoiding being tested on directly, but they do affect us.

edit: oh my god I'm starting to sound like an individualist! what's happening to me?

Yes... Join the dark side... :lol:

Sea

6th March 2014, 00:31

all creatures have a kind of 'spirit' and are reborn after deathNaughty Toki. Go sit over there. On the bench. Next to Remus. (nah, just kidding, we love you both)
But my bizarre beliefs have nothing to do with this in reality and you're essentially right, but I still see it as unethical and I hope our technology gets to the point where we don't need animal testing, and the end of animal testing will probably come when socialism is achieved by humanity.For a lot of things animal testing is inefficient and basically pointless and is justified only on the ignorance of those who decide that animal testing should be used for a certain product. Obviously it is to be opposed for such things. Regarding cosmetics specifically, that whole wretched industry is grounded in patriarchial bullshit double-standards and deserves nothing other than, well, I won't say because I'm not prepared to handle a mysterious pizza van parked outside my house.
Also Sea, how would you feel if I sprayed cosmetics into your eyes, nose, and ears, and on your skin to see how it would affect you?I would feel very pretty? (see above)
Yes... Join the dark side... :lol:Do you really have cookies?

Sinister Intents

6th March 2014, 00:39

@ Sea:
Naughty Toki. Go sit over there. On the bench. Next to Remus. (nah, just kidding, we love you)
Oh no :crying: (yay ^-^ I feel acceptance for once)

For a lot of things animal testing is inefficient and basically pointless and is justified only on the ignorance of those who decide that animal testing should be used for a certain product. Obviously it is to be opposed for such things. Regarding cosmetics specifically, that whole wretched industry is grounded in patriarchial bullshit double-standards and deserves nothing other than, well, I won't say because I'm not prepared to handle a mysterious pizza van parked outside my house.
Indeed comrade! No disagreement there!!

I would feel very pretty?
My ex asked me that :( she was excessively pro PeTA, I'm only pro PeTA as much as Vox Populi, and I agree with her a lot. I disagree with the liberals ov PeTA

TheWannabeAnarchist

6th March 2014, 04:23

Funny, I tend to take a middle ground on this. I'm planning to go sort-of vegetarian soon. I won't eat pork, beef, or chicken, but I will still eat fish, shrimp, etc. I won't stop drinking milk entirely, at least not right away, but I do think factory farming is abhorrent, so I'll gradually transition to almond milk, maybe raw/unpasteurized milk from the farmer's market too. I'll eat cage-free eggs.

Of course, this costs a lot, but it's a sacrifice I'll make any day. But I have nothing against anyone who does eat meat. No problemo. I just hope that in a socialist future, people won't eat as much meat, allowing factory farms to die off once and for all.

neola

6th March 2014, 04:57

What about going to be vegan? It has no animal product.

Ritzy Cat

6th March 2014, 05:08

If animals want rights, they will have to fight for them themselves.

They are hundreds of millions of years away from reaching class consciousness, though.

Planet of the Apes is probably alluding to a future proletarian revolution among the world's primates...

Alan OldStudent

6th March 2014, 10:25

Hello Sea,

You quoted me saying:

Moreover, we have evolved from earlier animals, and there is a lot we share with the animals, especially animals that are closer to us. Animals such as livestock, dogs, cats, (especially the mammals) seem to have emotional states and a psychology that is not entirely foreign to us. There are some remarkable similarities, despite the obvious differences, in animal and human psychology, empathy, capacity for communication and friendship. People in most all human cultures form very close relationships with animals, even become friends with animals. Animals comfort us, seek comfort from us, love us, seek approval from us, and so on. In our culture, deep relationships with cats and dogs is quite common.
To which you responded:

Our relationships with cats and dogs is completely arbitrary. Are we less human than Hindus because we kill cattle to suit our needs? Are Koreans less human than us because dog meat is used in some Korean dishes?

I'm mystified by what you mean by "completely arbitrary." There are reasons people in our culture make friends with cats and dogs. I don't think eating cows, dogs, or cats is inhuman. Eating dogs, cats, horses is perfectly acceptable in some cultures, not in others. So what?

Your point escapes me entirely. What the hell are you driving at?

You do concede that many people make friends with dogs and cats in our culture, don't you?. You do concede many species of animals have emotions and even a sense of loyalty, don't you? You know about service dog training, right?

You also find it strange that my wife, who was a socialist, was also a pacifist. What's so strange about that? Lots of socialists are pacifists. I'm a socialist but not a pacifist, and my wife and I just had a difference of opinion about that and lots of other things too. During World War II, she was in London during the German bombing campaigns and had clear memories of being in the bomb shelters as a child during the air raids. Maybe this had something to do with her hatred of war and her pacifism. I don't know.

When I mentioned she used to say she did "not want to eat anything with a face and a mother," you said:

As much as I am sorry for your loss, this is irrelevant and subjective. Additionally, your wife was guilty of anthropomorphizing other species by forcing the human conception of mother hood upon then.

Your sympathy for my loss, such as it is, is appreciated. Of course my grief and sorrow are subjective. So bloody what? What point are you trying to make? Are you trivializing my grief because it's subjective? I hope not because I don't want to think of you as being a fatuous twit.

And yes, she also made a subjective judgment that eating meat was not for her. She was somewhat repelled by the idea. That was subjective, too. So what? It was her decision. She never tried to stop me from eating meat. But then, maybe you want to trivialize her feelings too.

Moreover, how does her personal decision not to eat other animals equate to anthropomorphizing human motherhood on other species? Anyway, what the hell does "anthropomorphizing human motherhood on other species mean? Her decision wasn't an argument against eating meat. It was her description of her own personal decision, and I respected it because I respected her. Why would you want to quarrel with such a personal decision?

You said:

Pigs are demonstrably intelligent. How does this make them worth more?
I never said they were worth more. It happens that on an emotional level, I feel more of a sense of kinship and identity to pigs than chickens or even cows or buffalo. Thus, I'm much less inclined to want to dine on their flesh. Before you say it, yes I concede that's subjective. In turn, I'd like you to concede that's not an argument, a political position, or anything other than my personal preference.

If this standard of yours were applied to indivituals of the same species (ie, homo sapiens) it would be a valid conclusion that mentally challenged individuals are worth less than the those who are especially bright. Obviously this is nonsense.
You refer to "this standard of yours." Once again, what the hell are you talking about? Where did I set a standard? Of course, if I were basing an argument against eating pigs because they're smarter than chickens, your point would be relevant instead of merely tiresome and quarrelsome.

Please note: I was making no argument against eating pork. I really don't care if you grease your chin with fatback every weekday and twice on Sundays. Go for it. I was explaining why I choose not to eat pork very often. You talked about the "straw man" argument. Kettle, meet pot!

Here's a question for you: Have you ever participated in slaughtering livestock, an animal you fed, cleaned up after, cared for--as I have? Have you ever skinned, gutted, scraped, scalded, and butchered livestock as I have? Or do you get your meat in neat little packages in the supermarket? Not that this is particularly relevant. I'd just like to know.

I wonder how you would deal with shooting a pig or cow between the eyes with a 22 pistol and then cutting its throat to drain its blood. I wonder how you would deal with pulling out the animal's guts, lungs, liver? I wonder how you would deal with the smell, the offal? I've done stuff like that. Have you?

You further state:

In addition, how you feel is irrelevant.
How I feel is irrelevant to you. It's not irrelevant to me. Your statement sounds smug and even elitist to me because you trivialize my feelings. In my personal, off-line life, I try to avoid people who trivialize my feelings.

Clearly I feel very different from you and yet I do not use this to fluff up my argument.
It's not at all clear to me how you feel apart from your eagerness to argue about inconsequential details. I'm not using anything to "fluff up" an argument pro or con meat eating because I really didn't offer one.

When I state:

What offends me greatly is cruelty to animals. In fact, cruelty towards any sentient being angers me, repels me, disgusts me.
You say that's likewise subjective and irrelevant. Yes, it's subjective. So what? Yes, it's irrelevant to you. So what?

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

Comrade Sea, here's a real corker! When I say

It's hard for me to relate to those who take pleasure from suffering in any form.
You say:

Straw man. Let's assume for the sake of argument that nobody involved in the act itself derives any particular pleasure from the act.
Straw man?)? You show no understanding of what the straw man argument is. It's not just an epithet to be glibly tossed like some kind of verbal hand grenade, you know. The straw man fallacy has a meaning, and when you misuse the term like that, you get egg in your face.

The Straw Man fallacy sets up a caricature of an opponent's argument and refutes that instead of addressing the issues the opponent raises. See this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) on the Straw Man fallacy.

What argument am I misstating? What argument am I trying to refute? What the hell are you referring to?

There are many other such tiresome quibbles that you bring up in some sort of talmudic orgy of irrelevant self-satisfied gotchas. You say such statements of mine as these are metaphysical appeals to some idealistic sense of human nature:

What offends me greatly is cruelty to animals. In fact, cruelty towards any sentient being angers me, repels me, disgusts me. It's hard for me to relate to those who take pleasure from suffering in any form. And unlike conditions of livestock raising in my youth, modern factory farming fosters cruelty to animals as well as degrades the sensibility of human workers, dulling empathy, killing off a bit of their humanity.

Let's get real, shall we? You agree that we homo sapiens evolved as a social species, that cooperative labor played a large role in making us who we are, right? You agree we have emotions and feelings, like other closely-related species, especially mammals, right? You agree that feelings of cooperation are necessary for any kind of social labor to occur, and that without social labor, we could not exist as a species, right? You agree that some degree of cooperation is necessary for humans to live socially, must serve as some kind of evolutionary adaptation, right? Presumably, you would also agree that empathy might be a facet of social cohesion, an important evolutionary advantage. I hope you're not going to say that these phenomena do not exist, that saying so is some kind of metaphysical claptrap with no scientific basis, that there is not a socio-biological-evolutionary dimension in our evolution as a species.

How would such a position be subjective, then? Isn't that position quite consistent with the position of Engels in "The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" and "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"? Do you think Engels mucked about in metaphysics and subjectivism?

Oh yes, unfalsifiable, right? What the hell do you mean when you say that? Do you know what Karl Popper meant by that? How would that apply to what I wrote. How would Popper explain the unfalsifiability of the proposition "2 + 2 = 4"?
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide2.gif

When I mentioned that it's "good to realize that the food chain is more of a circle than a line, you responded

As far as this discussion goes it's pretty much a straight line -- there's nobody corralling and slaughtering us for food. Yet.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but dead people are either cremated or they rot.

If they're cremated, they become ash and gases, and those ashes and gases become food for plants.
If they rot, they become food for bacteria, flies, insects, worms, and so on. That's what rotting is--organisms feeding on our body.

We're not at the top of the food chain. We're part of a food cycle. We are both the honored guests and the main course in the festival of life.

Isn't that much more circular than linear? New life springs out of our dead remains when we cease to exist and will continue to do so for as long as our planet can sustain our existence as living beings.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

PhoenixAsh

6th March 2014, 20:20

Another interesting article: Diets high in meat, eggs and dairy could be as harmful to health as smoking (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/04/animal-protein-diets-smoking-meat-eggs-dairy)

I could cite several articles which link fat to cancer, carbohydrates to cancer, low protein to cancer....and if I dig into it I can even dig up an article which will link carrots to increase in cancer risk...plus there are articles that link vegetarianism to an increase in colorectal cancer. Not to mention conflicting articles about the necessity to eat meat released with a 2 day time span by conflicting research facilities in 2013.

I am however not going to do so because it is already established fact that meat has played an essential part in human evolution and human brain development. But also because the question whether meat is healthy because it increases the risk of certain illness is offset by the fact that vegetarian diets do the same....plus the abundant positive effects of either diet in certain aspects of human life depending what is subjectively relevant for the individual. Both also have equal far stretching impact on the environment with adverse affects on animals.

Neither therefore are, as of yet, an argument in a larger discussion of animal welfare in combination with human diet. In my opinion any debate about animal welfare which holds the premises that eating meat should be abolished is a non starter, counter intuitive and basically fundamentally dishonest.

Eating or not eating meat is a personal choice and should remain so. I won't argue vegetarians need to eat meat and I would not accept vegetarians telling me I can't eat meat because of some moral and ethical argument.

To put it bluntly....I like bambi. I like bambi when he darts through the forest doing bambi things and I like him with a nice berry sauce.
I don´t see much difference in stalking bambi and shooting him and keeping bambi in a pen until I think it is time to have bambi steak.
What is however entirely relevant is how bambi can live his life between the day he is born and the day I decide to eat him.

And that is basically how far I think any debate about animal welfare
should go: how do we treat the animals we use and need....and how do we prevent unnecessary mistreatment of them.

I do not ascribe to speciesism as a way to elevate animals to the same position as humans. Nor do I think it should be an integral part of revolutionary politics...as is happening now in many anarchist and autonomous scenes....but rather an integral part of the larger debate of how humans interact with the environment for personal gain and how this affects the class struggle and future of human development.

In this area there are gains to be made....not in the debate whether meat is healthy or not.

The Feral Underclass

6th March 2014, 20:26

Eating or not eating meat is a personal choice and should remain so.

That assumes that humans are in control of the decisions they make, and as we have clearly seen from this thread, human beings, even those so-called "revolutionaries," completely lack control over the way they live their lives. Most human beings are totally incapable of critically assessing their actions and making rational choices based upon those assessments.

You don't choose to eat meat any more than a person chooses to go to work. You do it because that's what you've always done and because that's what you're supposed to do. You can keep constructing your silly little opinions to obfuscate that reality, but you're not fooling me I'm afraid.

PhoenixAsh

6th March 2014, 20:45

That assumes that humans are in control of the decisions they make, and as we have clearly seen from this thread, human beings, even those so-called "revolutionaries," completely lack control over the way they live their lives. Most human beings are totally incapable of critically assessing their actions and making rational choices based upon those assessments.

You don't choose to eat meat any more than a person chooses to go to work. You do it because that's what you've always done and because that's what you're supposed to do. You can keep constructing your silly little opinions to obfuscate that reality, but you're not fooling me I'm afraid.

Well...seeing I am not some entirely peer pressure regulated individual I can't relate to anything you say. But seeing as you, here claim, to have personal experience with having others regulate your entire live for you simply by their approval or disapproval...I will take your word for it. I guess this explains why you are so presumptuously, dismissive and arrogant in your attitude.

Knowing next to nothing about me I think it is highly humorous to see you basically basing your entire post on the assumption that I haven't done the "veggie" and "macro-biotic" thing...that being untrue...what point are you actually trying to make....other than...you know: "Wha wha people disagree with me so they must be stupid mindless puppets" and "OMG I AM FUCKING AWESOME...BOW DOWN BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY TAT"?

:laugh:

Alan OldStudent

6th March 2014, 21:40

Hello Comrade PhoenixAsh,

You wrote:

I am however not going to do so because it is already established fact that meat has played an essential part in human evolution and human brain development. But also because the question whether meat is healthy because it increases the risk of certain illness is offset by the fact that vegetarian diets do the same....plus the abundant positive effects of either diet in certain aspects of human life depending what is subjectively relevant for the individual. Both also have equal far stretching impact on the environment with adverse affects on animals.
Those are good points. A large part of the problem with food production is that it's being produced to boost the profit margins of the agribusiness industry on a world scale--not to provide nourishing and enjoyable food for the benefit of humanity. The technologies of modern agriculture, antibiotics, fertilization and so on could be used in an environmentally healthful manner to abolish hunger and famine, to feed every hungry person. We have the technology now to abolish hunger.

Instead, that technology is being used in an environmentally destructive way that reaps profits for entities like Montsanto while they more-and-more poison our environment, leaving the costs of remediation to the rest of us.
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

In my opinion any debate about animal welfare which holds the premises that eating meat should be abolished is a non starter, counter intuitive and basically fundamentally dishonest.

Eating or not eating meat is a personal choice and should remain so. I won't argue vegetarians need to eat meat and I would not accept vegetarians telling me I can't eat meat because of some moral and ethical argument.

That's the approach I take on this question. I was married to a vegetarian for years. Until she became so ill, she did most of the cooking and seldom cooked meat. She was an excellent cook and I seldom missed eating meat. If I wanted meat, I went out. For decades, I ate meat only a few times a month, when we went out on a dinner date.

She never hassled me about me ordering meat, although she joked that in my case, eating pork was not only not kosher, it was cannibalism. When she became too ill to be able to cook in the last years and months of her life, I developed some decent vegetarian recipes that she could eat

http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

And that is basically how far I think any debate about animal welfare
should go: how do we treat the animals we use and need....and how do we prevent unnecessary mistreatment of them.

I do not ascribe to speciesism as a way to elevate animals to the same position as humans. Nor do I think it should be an integral part of revolutionary politics...as is happening now in many anarchist and autonomous scenes....but rather an integral part of the larger debate of how humans interact with the environment for personal gain and how this affects the class struggle and future of human development.

Actually, the environmental question and impact of our food production can be a powerful argument for abolishing capitalism. The agribusiness industry takes a callous attitude towards the future of the human race, as well as a callous attitude toward the animals we raise for food.

Agribusiness is one of the poster children for the horrors of capitalism.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra