animal rights and human rights

[James]

A big hello to one and all.
I'm wondering what views are out there regarding 'animal rights' and 'human rights'.

Animal Rights
Do they have them? If so, howcome? If not, why not? Do humans have rights?

Human Rights
Do you think there is such a thing as 'human rights', if so on what basis (and vice versa). Do animals have rights?



I'm predicting that some will say animals don't have rights because they don't have interests (yet humans do). In which case, there is the counter argument (put forward by Singer, for example) that “The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all”; animals suffer, thus have interests, thus have rights. This argument claims that human rights are based on the ability to suffer (if not, then you have the opportunity to make some humans have miore rights or less rights; on the basis of skin, sex or intellect etc).

[AlwaysAnarchy]

A big HELLO to you friend!!! :D :D Welcome! Enjoy your stay at this merry place!

Now as to answer your quesition:

I believe in animal rights. Animals, esp domensticated ones are our friends. If you believe in that everyone has a spirit, they have one too. They should be treated just and kindly. I am a vegan though I don't want to force that on everyone. But animals ought to be and must be treated as humanely as possible. :)

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 04:57 pm
Animal Rights
Do they have them? If so, howcome? If not, why not? Do humans have rights?

No. Animals do not have rights. And it's nothing to do with capacity, despite the fact that animals have never made a solid case for themselves. They're to stupid to understand their own conditions, and so until they say otherwise, we should assume that they don't want rights. They're not humans, and shouldn't be treated humanely.

Animals eat and kill other animals all the time, it's a matter of survival, each species acts in its own interests - at the expence of other species. Humans are no different. Not in principal anyway, we are of course at the top of the food chain, the most advanced species in history and can despose of natural resources as we wish (I know im taking a neutral-technological perspective, this is for serenity's sake). Like all other mammals, we kill other animals for survival. However, to make our lives easier, we pen them, rear them, and mass-slaughter them. Because they're too stupid to escape. We kill them, because it's better for us a species, in turn, animals like lions for example would kill us, for their survival.

The 'torture' of animals often brings us cures to some horrific diseases. Giving them rights will seriously harm humanity. They're not part of our society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

To say otherwise is anti-human.

[James]

thanks for tghe replies. Love Underground: what is your view re: human rights?

[Clarksist]

No. Animals do not have rights. And it's nothing to do with capacity, despite the fact that animals have never made a solid case for themselves. They're to stupid to understand their own conditions, and so until they say otherwise, we should assume that they don't want rights. They're not humans, and shouldn't be treated humanely.

Yeah, cause no dog has ever ran away from a cage.


The 'torture' of animals often brings us cures to some horrific diseases. Giving them rights will seriously harm humanity. They're not part of our society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Even though the purified grain used to feed a massive population of livestock that could otherwise eat natural grown grain (and feed the starving humans with the purified grain)... oh wait I don't want to be "anti-human" by wanting fewer humans to starve.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Animals don't "deserve" rights, but then again, humans don't "deserve" them either.

If you allocate humans rights, its because of altruistic capacities. Animals deserve them as much as we do.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

Human rights are an essentially liberal capitalist idea. Human rights always include the right to property. More importantly, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness never stops people from being killed, imprisioned, tortured.

Here's an article that critique's rights:
http://prole.info/articles/againstdemocracy.html

and of course I'm against animal rights.

[chimx]

i am pro-animal liberation, con-animal rights.

[James]

Personally i'm not sure what my view is... undecided as such. Finding this Singer chap quite interesting though (his book "Animal Liberation" is very concise and easy to read: a rarity in political philosophy!)

loveunderground (i know i already asked you a question but i felt i should reply now whilst i have some time)


No. Animals do not have rights. And it's nothing to do with capacity, despite the fact that animals have never made a solid case for themselves. They're to stupid to understand their own conditions, and so until they say otherwise, we should assume that they don't want rights. They're not humans, and shouldn't be treated humanely.

So do humans have rights? (if so on what grounds etc).
You say that it is nothing to do with capacity, yet you justify human dominance by stating that animals have never "made a solid case for themselves". A mentally retarded chap may not be able to make a solid case for him/herself; same with an infant. Also, you shall find, animals can and do communicate. It is perhaps rather snobish to only recognise human languages as the main means of communication.

What is the difference between humans and other animals? You say animals arn't human (although of course, humans are animals), thus "shouldn't be treated humanely". I'm interested in learning why you think this distinction exists, and howcome.



Animals eat and kill other animals all the time, it's a matter of survival, each species acts in its own interests - at the expence of other species.

And to use the cliche - humans are the only animals that kill for fun (not quite true, as foxes will sometimes go a bit crazy with the killing, but thats beside the point). As you will probably agree, humans are more aware of their situation and can make "rational choice". It is rather easy to avoid eating meat. Or on perhaps a more broader level; to eat more humanely raised animals (e.g. free range over battery chickens).

So on that point, we should really "know better". Perhaps. (as i said: i'm undecided)



Humans are no different. Not in principal anyway, we are of course at the top of the food chain, the most advanced species in history and can despose of natural resources as we wish (I know im taking a neutral-technological perspective, this is for serenity's sake). Like all other mammals, we kill other animals for survival. However, to make our lives easier, we pen them, rear them, and mass-slaughter them. Because they're too stupid to escape. We kill them, because it's better for us a species, in turn, animals like lions for example would kill us, for their survival.

As is pointed out above, animals do try to escape. I know that if someone tries to hit my dog lots, she won't stick around.


The 'torture' of animals often brings us cures to some horrific diseases. Giving them rights will seriously harm humanity. They're not part of our society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Arguably a chimp is far more aware and clever than a "retard", so why not use the retard (or the senile) for experiments?

Your argument does seem rather "rule of the conqueror"; in which case, it can be applied to humans too. If you do apply it to humans too then fair enough, there isn't a contradiction in your argument.

however....it could be used to justify colonialism, surely?

Indeed i have seen the exact same arguments in victorian sources justifying the british empire (i'm currently researching a dissertation on the justification for the matabele war). The british race being "the most advanced". The savages arn't human (as proven scientifically by use of darwin's arguments; and that fact that they can't even speak properly). Winner takes all; won the land from the "nigger" because "we" are better than those savages.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I can't analyze from a framework where the concept of rights exists independently from human conceptualization. Since that is the case, all we have to do to give animals rights is to change our conceptualization. Within the current conceptualization of majority-rule rights, animals should be (and are in some cases) given certain rights. Our current construction of morality, for most people, dictates that we should give animals rights or we should kill certain humans.

Previously, Descartes and others used the soul to justify treating animals differently. We don't have that amongst the left. Now we should be killing people with severe mental disabilities (intelligence similiar to an animal) if we are killing animals. In fact, there is much more cause to do so.

I am not saying that should not be the case, though. I am saying, rather, that many people here (I suspect) will refuse to apply the same ethical considerations to an equivalent human animal.

[James]

Previously, Descartes and others used the soul to justify treating animals differently. We don't have that amongst the left. Now we should be killing people with severe mental disabilities (intelligence similiar to an animal) if we are killing animals. In fact, there is much more cause to do so.

I am not saying that should not be the case, though. I am saying, rather, that many people here (I suspect) will refuse to apply the same ethical considerations to an equivalent human animal.

Aye, this is what Singer concludes (and, i believe, is why he got bashed quite a bit in academic circles).

[RedAnarchist]

I'm all for animal rights and human rights.

[Tekun]

Human rights first and foremost should be our number one concern
That's why its ridiculous for any animal activist to protest the use of animals for medicinal purposes without taking into consideration that without the drugs being tested, thousands or even millions of ppl might die from a very curable disease that was not tested due to animal rights
Dogs and cats in the US are fed better than children in Africa, are these children really less than animals?
I think not
Ppl have no problem when they see a starving child on the TV, yet they can't stand to see an anemic looking cat or dog
You know therez a problem in society when stray dogs/cats are taken in, fed, and made comfortable all while therez thousands of ppl eating out of the garbage and sleeping on the cold and dirty sidewalk
Im am for human rights first and foremost

Now this doesn't mean that I advocate or applaud the massive slaughter of chimps, livestock, or other animals simply for fun/games
I believe that as many animals should be left alone in their natural habitat, to do as they please
However, as humans we have a right to help our fellow man, and if that means using hundreds of animals for medicinal research which might avoid the deaths of millions, than Im all for it

[Sentinel]

Well I'm with LU here, mostly. However, Tekun is also spot on, unnecessary suffering for animals should be avoided, and not simply for emotional reasons.

See how the 'mad cow disease' came to existance: from animals forced into cannibalism. Then again the quality of the meat of south american cows, that stroll free and eat fresh grass, is regarded outstanding.

The shortsightedness and striving for the cheapest alternative, characteristic to capitalism, are harmful to humans in the end. We must be smart about how we treat animals, not as much for their sake, but our own.

There are also intelligent animals which can be argued should be treated with extra respect, whales, chimps, etc.

But anti-vivisectionism is reactionary to the core.

A human is a human, and comes first, always. It's tough shit for our animal friends. If animal testing is required for medical purposes, it must be conducted, and this really isn't even a debatable question imo, among rational people such as communists..

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Human rights first and foremost should be our number one concern
That's why its ridiculous for any animal activist to protest the use of animals for medicinal purposes without taking into consideration that without the drugs being tested, thousands or even millions of ppl might die from a very curable disease that was not tested due to animal rights
Dogs and cats in the US are fed better than children in Africa, are these children really less than animals?
I think not
Ppl have no problem when they see a starving child on the TV, yet they can't stand to see an anemic looking cat or dog
You know therez a problem in society when stray dogs/cats are taken in, fed, and made comfortable all while therez thousands of ppl eating out of the garbage and sleeping on the cold and dirty sidewalk
Im am for human rights first and foremost

Now this doesn't mean that I advocate or applaud the massive slaughter of chimps, livestock, or other animals simply for fun/games
I believe that as many animals should be left alone in their natural habitat, to do as they please
However, as humans we have a right to help our fellow man, and if that means using hundreds of animals for medicinal research which might avoid the deaths of millions, than Im all for it
I agree wholeheartedly with this post. As an animal-lover, I want to see animals treated humanely when possible. But as I much as I am an animal-lover, I am a people-lover first and foremost. Therefore, experiments on animals that benefit mankind and science need to be permitted. Experiments and/or torturting of animals done for sheer cruelty and sadistic reasons (with no connection to science or medicine, or in any respect advancing humanity) by one individual person ought to be restricted.

Treating animals kindly is important but it is a peripheral issue, the main goal for revolutionaries need to be the liberation of people, of workers, before animals can be liberated. As others have pointed out, abolishing capitalism can actually go a long way and be extremely helpful in destroying some of the more heinous practices committed on animals by humans soley because a profit-motivation. This also applies of course, even more so, to humans as well.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 03:24 am

No. Animals do not have rights. And it's nothing to do with capacity, despite the fact that animals have never made a solid case for themselves. They're to stupid to understand their own conditions, and so until they say otherwise, we should assume that they don't want rights. They're not humans, and shouldn't be treated humanely.

Yeah, cause no dog has ever ran away from a cage.


The 'torture' of animals often brings us cures to some horrific diseases. Giving them rights will seriously harm humanity. They're not part of our society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Even though the purified grain used to feed a massive population of livestock that could otherwise eat natural grown grain (and feed the starving humans with the purified grain)... oh wait I don't want to be "anti-human" by wanting fewer humans to starve.

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Animals don't "deserve" rights, but then again, humans don't "deserve" them either.

If you allocate humans rights, its because of altruistic capacities. Animals deserve them as much as we do.
I second the opinion

[chimx]

there is an underlying assumption in here that all drugs need to be tested on animals.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

You can't be a animal lover and support nasty, painful experiments done on them.

[Red Menace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 05:15 pm
i am pro-animal liberation, con-animal rights.
Aren't they the same thing? ;)

I am for Animal Liberation. I love animals, and I cannot stand to see them any more opressed or abused then humans. That is my stance on the issue.

[Bretty123]

Don't argue for animal liberation from a moral standpoint because it will not prevail with complete satisfaction. The three major positions to be taken are: health, environmental, and economic. I'll give you a taste of each.

Health: Meat (flesh) is hard to digest for a human, because our digestive system is more associable with that of a herbivore. A carnivores digestive tract is 3-6 times body length, whereas ours and the herbivores are roughly 10-12 respectively. This causes meat to get stuck in the tract and rot which causes things such as colon cancer. Eating meat can cause other problems such as heart disease, high cholesterol, and impotency. It has been associated with degenerative arthritis and tumor growth. There is alot more but for the sake of time, look it up.

Environmental: Factory farms use a great deal of fresh water (something that 1/3rd of the global population has no access to) to wash feces out of the area in which they inhabit. Pig farms use roughly one million gallons of fresh water per day. That is a lot of water. These animals are forced to eat antibiotics, steroids, and hormones and then these products come out in the waste which is washed into lagoons that can leak into the surrounding environment. There is a strong correlation by research of the destruction of the surrounding environment of a factory farm and its production. The metals and other products that leak into the environment make high levels of problematic waste in the soil which makes it infertile. Rainforest is being cut down all the time for more farming needs, but the problem with this remains: if we continue to cut down all the rainforest and replace it with farms we will continuously erode away any fertile land and cause vast deserts in time to come about. There are so many problems environmentally with the meat industry, I'm unsatisfied in writing this little. Look it up. Your genuinely interested in helping the world and yourself so try to prove me incorrect.

Economic: I'll simply say this to give you a taste. In a place like Guatemala, seventy give percent of the children are malnourished in some way. However the government and the industries allow forty million pounds of meat be exported annually from this country. This type of government is exactly what your trying to stop. In the current social and geo-political context we exist in, do you think you can be a meat eating revolutionary?

People often forget that everything is tied together. By being a consumer and supporting the industry you are indirectly supporting the exploitation and ignorance of starving people - let alone children. Eating meat is not an advocation of human rights, but one that supports the dissolution of it.

Argue with me, and nitpick if you will but my major points are conclusive.
I'll leave you with that.

-Brett

[BreadBros]

No. Animals do not have rights. And it's nothing to do with capacity, despite the fact that animals have never made a solid case for themselves. They're to stupid to understand their own conditions, and so until they say otherwise, we should assume that they don't want rights.

Umm...I'm not sure if you are just ignorant of reality to a mind-boggling degree or so caught up in your own argument you don't have time to think, but this is one of the most stupidest arguments I've read on RevLeft. It seems in the discussion of animal rights the main concern is over 1. killing animals 2. removing their free will and using them towards some ends of our own. If we take these to be the main things we're talking about then you're argument makes absolutely zero sense. If you'd like, you can test out this proposition in real life. I would highly suggest that you try the following experiment: arm yourself with a knife, go to your local zoo, jump in the lion's pen, and stab the first lion you see. If you really expect that they will be "to stupid to understand their own conditions" and voluntarily give up it's right to life, well then....you will pleasantly surprised. :D In fact, with the exception of several smaller species that are easy to kill, I think you will find that when we are speaking of mammals, birds, reptiles, most amphibians, and some fish, your proposition is completely wrong as animals will express their desire to escape, fight back or prevent you from taking their "rights".


They're not humans, and shouldn't be treated humanely.

What aspect of "humanity" makes humans so special? What conveys upon us the necessity to be treated differently? What of higher primates who may share large segments of these features with us? What of humans who are born deformed or retarded and do not share them? It seems to me that you're definition of humaness and humanity is based on metaphysical conceptions, and not anything even remotely rooted in material reality.


Animals eat and kill other animals all the time, it's a matter of survival, each species acts in its own interests - at the expence of other species.

Actually most animals live in a balanced relationship with the species around them. Destroying their environment or annihilating a fellow species that an animal depends on usually means extinction.

More importantly, you are setting up some sort of species-based differentiation. If you took a second to think about what you are saying, you would realize that you refute this possibility above when you refer to the differences between humans and animals. The majority of species aren't capable of a conception of "species" or the differentiation between them, so saying that one species exploits another and that this is the natural course of events is factually incorrect. Not only is this seen in humans, whereby some individuals of the species exploit others, but the same is true of other species. Several "species" of animals also co-exist in non-violent relationships with individuals of other species. Boiling it down to this "every species acts in its interest" stuff has no basis in reality.


Humans are no different.

Actually, despite your attempt to apply some sort of non-existant universal law here, humans are radically different in that we have self-awareness. We are able to reflect upon our thoughts and actions in a way most other species can not. Saying that we are just another species and should just act accordingly is immaterial as it denies a vital part of the reality of human beings.


Not in principal anyway, we are of course at the top of the food chain, the most advanced species in history and can despose of natural resources as we wish (I know im taking a neutral-technological perspective, this is for serenity's sake). Like all other mammals, we kill other animals for survival. However, to make our lives easier, we pen them, rear them, and mass-slaughter them. Because they're too stupid to escape

Its not because "they're too stupid". This is as stupid as saying that animals should be killed "until they say otherwise". Both of these things are materially, physically impossible for these species. Your caveat is a false one because it is materially imposible to fulfill and justifies an action already in existence. This is the equivalent of saying "Im going to tie you up and shoot you in the face multiple times, but if you die its your own fault for not having super healing powers" or something. What you are really saying is "Im doing this because I can" and covering it up with a bullshit excuse. Of course if we're boiling down human existence to brute force and what is possible, then where are we left?


We kill them, because it's better for us a species, in turn, animals like lions for example would kill us, for their survival.

I think I've already pointed out that nowhere is it proven that species act together in their collective interest or that they should, you made up this falsity. However, if we boil down our actions to what is simply in the interest of the species as a whole then we get to some rather interesting viewpoints. For one thing, stopping any and all food aid to Africa, and nuking the shit out of every city in China would be the first things to do as overpopulation threatens the stability of species survival and would free up large quantities of food. Furthermore, unemployment and idlesness would be punished with death, to free up food for productive individuals. Forced sterilization would become a widespread practice to control population growth. All leftists would have to be done away with and rigid social order would be imposed, and etc. etc. I think I've shown how taking a species versus species viewpoint is complete bullshit. The historical and important relationships between animals and humans are far too complex to be described so.


The 'torture' of animals often brings us cures to some horrific diseases. Giving them rights will seriously harm humanity.

Can you give an example? I hear this a lot but so far have not heard of any positive benefit of animal testing, unless you consider the development of new lines of cosmetics to be progressive.

Furthermore, if this is a necessary thing, then why not do these tests on retarded people who share much more physiologicaly with human beings, if what you are really after is efficiency and what is best for human beings?


They're not part of our society, and shouldn't be treated as such.

History is most definitely not your strong suit since this is the most patently stupid thing I have ever read.

#1. The rise of technologically advanced human societies can roughly be said to arise with the rise of agriculture, which not only allowed larger human populations to exist in one concentrated location, but it allowed for a stratified society which gave forth to an explosion of scientific inquiry and technological development. This development can nearly entirely be attributed to the role of animals. I strongly suggest you read the chapters on early agricultural development in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". Whether or not societies developed agriculture, what types, and how fast it developed is heavily based on the species of animals present in that area. In short, human society as we know it would not exist if animals had not been an integral part of it.

#2. The domestication and spread of animals such as horses has been among the most integral developments in human society and the biggest shapers of human history.

So I think the point is, not only are they a part of our society, they are among the totally most important and shaping factors of our society.


To say otherwise is anti-human.

:rolleyes: Great little slogan, but theres almost nothing backing up your arguments.


Dogs and cats in the US are fed better than children in Africa, are these children really less than animals?
I think not
Ppl have no problem when they see a starving child on the TV, yet they can't stand to see an anemic looking cat or dog

I think most people are troubled by seeing starving children on television. However, for the average person there is nearly nothing you can do about it, at least no action that can have an immediate effect. With an anemic dog or cat, one minute of action of setting out a bowl can change things. Its mere practicality, I can't beleive you can see that.


You know therez a problem in society when stray dogs/cats are taken in, fed, and made comfortable all while therez thousands of ppl eating out of the garbage and sleeping on the cold and dirty sidewalk

Once again, you look past the practicality. Setting out a bowl of food for dogs/cats poses no real problem. Taking someone homeless into your own home brings about a slew of problems. Besides the immediate concerns of whether or not they have mental illnesses, a history of criminality or even want to be in your home, most people are reticient to bring ANY stranger into their home for obvious reasons.


But anti-vivisectionism is reactionary to the core.

Right, opposing capitalist pharmaceutical companies from brutally torturing animals so that they can develop a consumer drug to treat some minor ailment is "reactionary"? :rolleyes:

[Red Menace]

completly agree comrade :)

[chimx]

i propose we stop testing on live animals, and instead do as much brutal and inhumane test as possible on transhumanists and leninists.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 12:10 pm
i propose we stop testing on live animals, and instead do as much brutal and inhumane test as possible on transhumanists and leninists.
i am against cruelty to animals !!!! :angry:

but unfortunately i am a leninst !! so wats my case ? :unsure:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 10:19 am
So do humans have rights? (if so on what grounds etc).

No, as has been stated before, rights are some altruistic gift, handed down to us. We don't deserve rights, we deserve autonomy, and liberation.


You say that it is nothing to do with capacity, yet you justify human dominance by stating that animals have never "made a solid case for themselves". A mentally retarded chap may not be able to make a solid case for him/herself; same with an infant.

But we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about species. As humans, taking a humanist approach, we must do what's best for our own kind. We (should) grant each individual autonomy to decide what's best for them, and to make their own mistakes. Some individuals are born handicapped, mentally or physically. They are still human and have human needs.


Also, you shall find, animals can and do communicate. It is perhaps rather snobish to only recognise human languages as the main means of communication.

Correct me if im wrong, but aside from Dolphins, we are the only species with a language? Other animals may communicate, but it is simplistic and primitive, they don't have the capacity to formulate ideas, let alone express them.

Supporting animal rights is contradictory to the goals of a Communist revolution. We want to overthrow the current order, because it is adverse to the interests of most humans. Not most animals. We want to establish an order that benefits humans, and meets the needs to all people. Animals don't enter into it, or perhaps they do, in the capacity that their slaughter benefits humans in some way, and so we should keep doing it. Meat tastes good, and is a useful source of iron.

Sure, it's not efficient to rear animals, but then if efficiency was all I cared about I'd work nearly 24/7 with minimum break, have no holidays, eat hardly anything, not bother with decorating, live in a concrete square, never drink or have fun. Because funs not efficient. Fuck Efficiency.


And to use the cliché - humans are the only animals that kill for fun

Yes, in some cases we do kill for fun, but if it doesn't have an overall effect on the environment, then I don't care. In other cases we kill because we need to. In hunter-gatherer societies hunting and killing an animal, is easier than working a farm. It's a quick source of food, and you often get a lot of it - to feed others.


As you will probably agree, humans are more aware of their situation and can make "rational choice". It is rather easy to avoid eating meat.

But why should I avoid meat? when Im going shopping, I will buy fruit and veg if I can, because I like the taste, and its good for me, (and if you buy from the local market, it's often very cheap) but Equally so, eating meat is incredibly useful. It cointains all sorts of neutrients. I know many vegans who actually have to take medicine to make up for the lack of stuff in their diets. Also, as I have said before, it tastes great, It makes food more interesesting, and ethically speaking, I see no need to feel bad about that.


Or on perhaps a more broader level; to eat more humanely raised animals

The purpose of these industries should be to supply human society with food (meat) as long as it does that with no side-effects, I don't care how they are raised.

[Bretty123]

Your friends who take supplements are not eating properly. I'm vegan and I never take supplements. If your a healthy eater (which takes next to no effort if you are smart) then you'll be able to run circles around your meat eating friends.

I know this one rastafari who hasn't taken supplements most of his life and he is vegan. He doesn't have any grey hair and he looks to be about 20-30 years younger then he is.

You've all ignored the points I made in my earlier post. I suggest you go back and read it before talking about side effects, problems regarding the meat industry, etc.

[Bretty123]

Also the amount of food used to feed the animals makes the food levels on a global scale incomparable to the growing population. for every one pound of meat it takes about 10 pounds of grain. So if there was no meat industry, there would be 10 times the amount of a vegan diet. Which would help solve one of the conditions of the exploited across the world.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:39 pm
Your friends who take supplements are not eating properly. I'm vegan and I never take supplements. If your a healthy eater (which takes next to no effort if you are smart) then you'll be able to run circles around your meat eating friends.
been vegan for 6 years, veg before that, and i never take supplements and am quite healthy. however, you are NOT getting vitamin b12 unless you eat food fortified with it. b12 comes from microorganisms that naturally occur in meat. you should make sure to get it artificially though if you like your nervous system.

[KC]

i propose we stop testing on live animals, and instead do as much brutal and inhumane test as possible on transhumanists and leninists.

I propose that we continue testing on live animals, and not put them to waste by eating them afterwards.


No, as has been stated before, rights are some altruistic gift, handed down to us. We don't deserve rights, we deserve autonomy, and liberation.

The only time we will "deserve" it is when we achieve it.


Yes, in some cases we do kill for fun, but if it doesn't have an overall effect on the environment, then I don't care. In other cases we kill because we need to. In hunter-gatherer societies hunting and killing an animal, is easier than working a farm. It's a quick source of food, and you often get a lot of it - to feed others.

Can't disagree with you there. Killing stuff is fun, so why not do it? Plus, it's free food. Great way to get around giving capitalists money for it, right? :ph34r:

[Clarksist]

Dogs and cats in the US are fed better than children in Africa, are these children really less than animals?

No. It means dogs and cats in the US are fed better than children in Africa. I don't think there is any reason to pick animals over humans, or humans over animals. It isn't about being an animal lover, its about thinking beyond yourself as a human.

Why do humans all of a sudden deserve better treatment than animals? After all, the only distinction between us is... wait.... uhh... oh yeah, nothing.


We don't deserve rights, we deserve autonomy, and liberation.

We deserve them? We don't deserve anything. That would mean there is a holy code of right and wrong, well there isn't. We don't "deserve" autonomy and liberation. However, we can obtain autonomy and liberation, and that would make us happier, so its an inherently better system than otherwise.


As humans, taking a humanist approach, we must do what's best for our own kind. We (should) grant each individual autonomy to decide what's best for them, and to make their own mistakes. Some individuals are born handicapped, mentally or physically. They are still human and have human needs.

Animals are still animals and have animal needs. Your making an appeal to emotion and humanist tendencies. But that doesn't answer anything. Humans having human needs doesn't mean we can't be equally as nice to animals.


Other animals may communicate, but it is simplistic and primitive, they don't have the capacity to formulate ideas, let alone express them.

That means they aren't equal? As was said earlier, retarded people may not be smart but they are still equal. And don't give us this "species" bullshit, your qualities you've associated with "humanness" (or at least why humans are better) don't apply to all humans. Moreover, these qualities don't necessarily prove superiority... in fact they only show superiority in certain capacities, but does that equal ultimate superiority based on who your born as (regarding human or otherwise)?


Supporting animal rights is contradictory to the goals of a Communist revolution. We want to overthrow the current order, because it is adverse to the interests of most humans. Not most animals. We want to establish an order that benefits humans, and meets the needs to all people.

That's like saying watching television is contradictory to smoking a cigarette. They have nothing to do with one another. In other words it isn't a contradiction, it just doesn't relate. In other words, you've made no point whatsoever to say communist revolution goes against animal liberation. It doesn't, because they don't intermingle, both could easily happen at the same time.


Animals don't enter into it, or perhaps they do, in the capacity that their slaughter benefits humans in some way, and so we should keep doing it. Meat tastes good, and is a useful source of iron.

As in my earlier post, I will reiterate that slaughtering animals is actually detrimental to the feeding of humans.


Sure, it's not efficient to rear animals, but then if efficiency was all I cared about I'd work nearly 24/7 with minimum break, have no holidays, eat hardly anything, not bother with decorating, live in a concrete square, never drink or have fun. Because funs not efficient. Fuck Efficiency.

It's not as much about efficiency as it is about feeding starving people.


You've all ignored the points I made in my earlier post. I suggest you go back and read it before talking about side effects, problems regarding the meat industry, etc.

I didn't. ;)

[BreadBros]

No, as has been stated before, rights are some altruistic gift, handed down to us. We don't deserve rights, we deserve autonomy, and liberation.

A conflictive statement. If rights are handed downt o us, what makes us deserving of autonomy or liberation? All of these are metaphysical concepts. There is absolutely no material basis for the assertion that humans "deserve" autonomy or liberation. The fact is that all that exist is material reality and individuals within that reality who can act upon their free will and effect change.


But we're not talking about individuals, we're talking about species. As humans, taking a humanist approach, we must do what's best for our own kind. We (should) grant each individual autonomy to decide what's best for them, and to make their own mistakes. Some individuals are born handicapped, mentally or physically. They are still human and have human needs.

OK, thank you for not reading my previous post. Once again you assert a species based differentiation as being primary. My question to you is simple: can you provide ANY biological or scientific backing to this claim? Can you provide one ounce of scientific or historical basis for the idea that species act as collective collaborative entities? I think in fact you will find this is complete pseudo-science and has absolutely zero backing in reality. Any look at either human history or the animal world will quickly reveal that individuals in the world act as either individuals or as a social group. Because it is a biological fact that all species depend on inter-related links with each other to survive, your proposal would have disastrous effects for any species.


Correct me if im wrong, but aside from Dolphins, we are the only species with a language? Other animals may communicate, but it is simplistic and primitive, they don't have the capacity to formulate ideas, let alone express them.

But language is only a social survival tool. It is particularly adapted to a species like humans that relies heavily on communication of complex concepts. All species have differentiated biological adaptations to suit their survival. Humans dont have extremely powerful hearing or vision like other species do. Basing your claim of superiority on one particular trait has no biological backing. Furthermore, you're basing the superiority of one species over the other on the advanced development of a survival tool. Weaponry and other forms of high technology are also advanced developments of survival tools and of course there are vast gaps between the level of technological development of different human groups. According to your logic, if the US or other technologically advanced social group were to go into a lesser developed one like Africa and slaughter everyone, not only would it be justified, it would be biologically necessary.


Supporting animal rights is contradictory to the goals of a Communist revolution. We want to overthrow the current order, because it is adverse to the interests of most humans. Not most animals. We want to establish an order that benefits humans, and meets the needs to all people.

I can't speak to anarchist theory, however if your statements are any indication the claims of anarchism as being idealist are somewhat justified. From a Marxist and materialist standpoint, you are wrong. Capitalism is extremely adverse to the interests of many individuals, however its establishment and the destruction of feudalism was a hugely progressive act for human society. Thats why both the bourgeoisie and proletariat rose up to establish it and why even today multitudes of individuals are dying in a fight for it's establishment. The establishment of communism is (according to an analysis of history) the next possible progressive change for human society. As I think a cursory glance at human history will show, animals have been hugely influential in human society. In fact technological development would not exist at all if it were not for animals. Agriculture would not be possible at all if not for the presence of domesticatable draft animals, this is why it started in the fertile crescent (a location with an abundance of such animals) whereas it never developed independently in say, Australia.

Your entire analysis lacks ANY grounding in reality. You are attempting to apply mechanical laws that don't exist. Any observation of human actions would reveal that in nature animals act in inter-related economic relationships. Yes, they kill each other to eat each other, because they have to in order for survival. They do not go around needlessly killing each other for fun or sport. Human beings are in many ways similar, although our self-awareness, knowledge of self-mortality and consciousness mean we have extremely developed emotions and senses of compassion. This is evident wherever you see emotional bonds between people and animals. Furthermore, humans are also capable of technological development that other animals are not. This means we are not entirely dependent on the death of animals at all stages of our societal development. When we needed animals for labor, we used them. When we developed industrial machinery that was more efficient, we stopped using them. The idea of replacing our tractors with oxens and yokes at this point is a joke and would highly regressive. Yet you are suggesting the same exact thing. We relied on animal meat for survival in most early human societies because it was a potent nutrient. However, advanced agricultural methods have made it so that that isn't necessary nor efficient anymore. But yet you're suggesting we not only stick with regressive economic methods, but you're also justifying it with a plethora of bullshit excuses about the fundamental differences between humans and animals when any glimpse at human civilization shows deep reverance for animal life.


Animals don't enter into it, or perhaps they do, in the capacity that their slaughter benefits humans in some way, and so we should keep doing it. Meat tastes good, and is a useful source of iron.

Meat flavor can be reproduced and iron can be added to foodstuffs. Doing so would also deeply help the environment (in the US, gas emissions from bovine factory farms are a huge environmental problem) and free up VAST surpluses of food to feed the rest of the world. But its obvious that that isn't what you are interested in.


Sure, it's not efficient to rear animals, but then if efficiency was all I cared about I'd work nearly 24/7 with minimum break, have no holidays, eat hardly anything, not bother with decorating, live in a concrete square, never drink or have fun. Because funs not efficient. Fuck Efficiency.


:lol:

Umm, okay, at first I thought you were somewhat attempting to express a thought-out opinion, but now I am convinced that you are doing nothing more than speaking out of your ass. Rearing animals isn't efficient? So humans just decided to do so for fun? If you were to actually read on the role of animals in human society instead of just spouting bullshit you would know rearing animals is a highly efficient method garnering good, especially surpluses of it. The development of rearing animals(and thereby domesticating them over time) was among the most crucial developments in human history. Not only did it make agriculture possible, but it meant large populations could be sustained over time as it meant a continued source of food (unlike hunting which is unpredictable) as well as surpluses (which are incredibly hard to garner from hunting), less labor time used per unit of food garnered. It also meant less people per social group had to be utilized to garner food which freed up the possibility of individuals who could devote themselves to scientific inquiry, administration and other tasks, unlike before in hunting and gathering societies where all individuals had to work evenly to garner food.


Yes, in some cases we do kill for fun, but if it doesn't have an overall effect on the environment, then I don't care.

Yes, but this is entirely based on some arbitrary species-based differentiation of social groups you completely made up. The history of humans and other animals hasn't been one of acting on a species-based grouping. So whats the difference between this and killing a large population of humans for fun if that doesn't have any effect on the environment? I'm guessing you don't care?


In other cases we kill because we need to. In hunter-gatherer societies hunting and killing an animal, is easier than working a farm. It's a quick source of food, and you often get a lot of it - to feed others.

That statement makes no sense, hunter-gatherer societies by definition didn't have farms. Regardless, your statement is completely false. Please do some elementary reading before typing BS. Farming yields far more food per hour of labor than hunting does. Farming also feeds far more many people. This is an extremely basic fact. Read about the spread of agriculture through the world from the main sites where it arose. Whenever societies learned about farming, the vast majority quickly adopted it. The ones who didnt were likely overrun by those that did or just exterminated. The only hunter-gatherer tribes that survived were those that lived in extremely inhospitable terrain not suitable for farming at all, such as certain African and New Guinean tribes. However, industrial development and the Green Revolution means that more and more of those areas can be farmed, and industrial society is far more appealing than hunter-gatherer lifestyle for most of those people causing them to abandoned their traditions and join modernity. This is why in 20 years there will likely only be a handful of hunter gatherers left in the world.

The fact that farming feeds far more people is evident in the fact that hunter-gatherer groups could usually only sustain small populations, had to practice infanticide and could only sustain a population of a few million (if that) in the entire world. Agriculture at this moment is able to sustain ~6 billion people and in extremely concentrated groupings.


But why should I avoid meat? when Im going shopping, I will buy fruit and veg if I can, because I like the taste, and its good for me, (and if you buy from the local market, it's often very cheap) but Equally so, eating meat is incredibly useful. It cointains all sorts of neutrients. I know many vegans who actually have to take medicine to make up for the lack of stuff in their diets. Also, as I have said before, it tastes great, It makes food more interesesting, and ethically speaking, I see no need to feel bad about that.

Bretty123 addressed this point and you ignored him.


Can't disagree with you there. Killing stuff is fun, so why not do it? Plus, it's free food. Great way to get around giving capitalists money for it, right? ph34r.gif

If you find killing animals to be fun then I would highly suggest you seek some sort of mental health help as this is usually indicative of developing psychopathy and functional impairment.

[Bretty123]

Chimx, I get alot of b12.

Actually I've read about B12 and its not naturally occuring in meat. It is bacteria synthesized which means it only comes from bacteria. Animals eat the plants with bacteria on it and they get stores of B12 in their body and then we eat them. However its healthier for us to receive the B12 like them, or through fortified foods. We dont get it from plants usually because its all washed at the grocer.

[chimx]

the good thing about b12 is, that like other animals you mentioned, we develop stores of b12 in our body as well, so you don't need to take daily b12 supplements, just occasionally eat food that is fortified with it and your body will naturally store it for you.

[Clarksist]

So humans just decided to do so for fun? If you were to actually read on the role of animals in human society instead of just spouting bullshit you would know rearing animals is a highly efficient method garnering good, especially surpluses of it. The development of rearing animals(and thereby domesticating them over time) was among the most crucial developments in human history.

Through domestication of animals, we've actually turned the tide on the efficiency on eating them. Through the steroids, purified grain, fossil fuel waste, concentrated animal waste, and the fact that the sheer amount of environmental destruction caused through the clearing of forest land for grazing purposes has devastated countless ecosystems... it really isn't in anyone's "benefit" to keep mass raising and mass slaughtering livestock.

The domestication of animals has also become increasingly unneeded as industrialization has phased out the utility of domesticated animals. Upon that, we've also mainly made species weaker by selective breeding which has snowballed to the point where most livestock are basically helpless. I don't see how the further domestication and exploitation of animals is doing us any good, other than the fact that some gluttons get their steak once in a while.