Animal Rights and Capitalism

[OneBrickOneVoice]

So I cut school today to get a ride 2 hours to Philly and be there outside of the court in solidarity for Mumia Abu-Jamal&#39;s freedom. This was his last court date, some 600 or so people showed up at the peak which was pretty good considering there was no major bussing effort from other cities, only 2 buses from NYC. A very politically advanced crowd showed up. The Revolution Contingent got out a sizable amount of its revolutionary communist paper: Revolution which focused on the brutal attacks on workers and immigrants marching for their rights in Los Angles, and recieved many small donations to keep us running. I ran into alot of other comrades there, lots of Sparticist Leaguers (who claimed we are democrat supporters and a front for the Nazi Party among other things <_<) who came out en masse in solidarity with Mumia, some PSLers, some WWPers, and various other comrades.

One person however, was handing out PETA leaflets and I took one and then realized what it was and said something along the lines of sorry I can&#39;t get down with this when millions are starving.

She made two points, 1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals. 2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals. 3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians

I was just wondering what people think about these points. I personally see human liberation as the firm priority, but she made it seem like Animal liberation is interwined. What do you think?

[Brekisonphilous]

I believe she is absolutely right and I agree with all of her points.
Food for domesticated cattle in the states is grown in foreign lands like Africa and South America, and then it is exported here just to fatten them up for slaughter. that food could be going to support the millions starving in each nation had it stayed in the country.

[Fawkes]

1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals
They profit off of nearly everything; that point makes little sense.


2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals.
So what? So, by eliminating the oppression of animals, we eliminate capital?


3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians
Well, obviously the food isn&#39;t wasted if it is used to generate another source of food essential to a balanced diet. Also, it&#39;s not so much a problem about lack of food, but about food distribution.


She made two points
That was three.... :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

She made two points, 1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals.

You can&#39;t "oppress" an animal - they don&#39;t even understand the concept of oppression.

And if animal testing (Emotionally rendered into "torture" by PETA) is necessary to enhance our understanding of medical science, then so be it.


2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals.

Bullshit. Property =/= Capital. Also, "cavemen" were hunter-gatherers, not primitive agrarians or nomadic herders. They arose considerably later.


3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians

And if the inherent inequality that is brought about by capitalism was got rid of, then the subsequent abundance of food would mean none of us would have to submit to the whims of evangelical vegetarians.

And no, becoming a vegetarian under capitalist society serves no purpose other than to salve the guilty consciousnesses of those who watched too much Bambi while growing up.

[Question everything]

There is no need to eat meat... But it isn&#39;t one of my main goals in life to give animals rights.

[Lynx]

1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals.
If it is wrong to exploit humans in the name of profit, then it stands to reason that it is wrong to exploit animals for more of the same. In a communist society, profit would be removed as a motive. (Given the opinions displayed here, the profit-motive would probably be replaced with expediency).

2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals.
Land and livestock may have been the basis for wealth in early agriculture, I believe there is evidence for this. The concept of cattle as capital exists today in parts of Africa.

3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians
This is basically stating that the production of meat is inefficient when compared to producing equivalent proteins through crops.


I was just wondering what people think about these points. I personally see human liberation as the firm priority, but she made it seem like Animal liberation is interwined. What do you think?
That building a society that will be better for humans will eventually lead to one that is better for animals? The idealist in me can go along with that.

The main opposition against animal liberation is the view that animal life is less important than human life. This is not a rationale I expect a majority of people will ever abandon, but I do think it should never be used to justify what is unnecessary.

As for what is "necessary" - well, humans have had little problem slaughtering each other on that basis, it certainly won&#39;t change with respect to non-human life.

I don&#39;t agree with PETA, however:
- If there is a food shortage, the production of meat should be replaced with protein equivalents.
- If meat were to be synthesized, then meat production should be abolished.

[Ultra-Violence]

with the whole animals shit it all sounds good but people take its to fucking far man
GO VEGAN&#33; VEGAN OR DIE&#33; shit like that pisses me off srry i cant go to fucking whole foods to buy organic vegies and shit cuase i cant affored it&#33; also i was a staunch supporter of alf but over the years i think its a joke really why dont they fucking liberate people in prison or some thing more usefull not saying that cruelty to animals is justified but what about us people :blink:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Down&#045;For&#045;People&#39;s&#045;War&#33;@May 17, 2007 10:35 pm
She made two points, 1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals. 2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals. 3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians
I guess she made three points, not two. :D

1. Capitalist companies profit of exploiting human labour. The "torturing" or the "oppressing" of animals does not create value, except when such "torturing" or "oppressing" constitutes human labour.

2. Nonsense. Cattle was (one of) the first form(s) of money - but money, in and of itself, is not capital. She is messing her history.

3. So free animals do not consume water and food? She is unconsciously admitting what should be obvious: "freeing" domestic animals would led to their massive death.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 18, 2007 02:57 pm
with the whole animals shit it all sounds good but people take its to fucking far man
GO VEGAN&#33; VEGAN OR DIE&#33; shit like that pisses me off srry i cant go to fucking whole foods to buy organic vegies and shit cuase i cant affored it&#33; also i was a staunch supporter of alf but over the years i think its a joke really why dont they fucking liberate people in prison or some thing more usefull not saying that cruelty to animals is justified but what about us people :blink:
Why are you bigotted against commas?

Luís Henrique

[FatJack4391]

While I do believe some of the horrible things done to animals can be really extreme, I don&#39;t believe in vegetarianism at all. It makes no sense, and it goes against our basic animal instinct. We have teeth to tear with for a reason, and it&#39;s not cause celery is hard to bite through. It&#39;s to eat MEAT. If it weren&#39;t for meat we wouldn&#39;t have survived as a species. And how many other onmivores do you see not eating meat?

And that&#39;s just vegetarianism in general. Don&#39;t get me started on PETA

[sexyguy]

More diversion. We will never resolve any of this or anything else in ‘capitalist society’.
Move on to revolutionary defeat of imperialism. ONLY THEN will we be in a position to resolve this and all other problems. All ‘solutions’, ‘remedies’, ‘improvements’ etc can at best only be inadequate and pathetically temporary.

[Brekisonphilous]

I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
We are, what does this have to do with animal rights?

(Genuinely confused.)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 18, 2007 11:15 pm--> (NoXion @ May 18, 2007 11:15 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them? [/b]
Do the mentally ill have rights?

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 19, 2007 05:15 am--> (NoXion @ May 19, 2007 05:15 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them? [/b]
Yea I had a similar question. Not even necessarily mentally handicapped but what about the uneducated in general? If someone doesn&#39;t have an understanding of what the notion of oppression is should they not be freed from it? Throughout history slaves didn&#39;t realize what is being done to them is wrong let alone some notion of being oppressed; does that mean they shouldn&#39;t have been freed?

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by NoXion+May 19, 2007 05:15 am--> (NoXion @ May 19, 2007 05:15 am)
[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them? [/b]
Is the right to a life free of exploitation and domination too much to ask for? Animals are not ours to buy for food, use for clothing, or provide us with entertainment, they are entitled to their own autonomy just as anything else living.
If people can oppress animals then they get the sense that they can extend that oppression to animals of their own species. It does nothing but spread that sort of mentality.

My main issue with meat is how animals are commodized and bought and sold. If you support the meat and dairy industry you are only continuing to support capitalism and nothing has changed.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You can&#39;t "oppress" an animal - they don&#39;t even understand the concept of oppression.

I disagree.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:34 pm

You can&#39;t "oppress" an animal - they don&#39;t even understand the concept of oppression.

I disagree.
Well, you should explain.

Do you disagree that animals can&#39;t be "oppressed" or that animals don&#39;t understand the "concept of oppressiopn."

Does understanding the "concept of oppression" have anything to do with oppression?

[*PRC*Kensei]

Humans over animals.

However there are ways to improve life of cows, pigs, chicken & sheep when beeing held for meat.

Anyway, there is one thing i tell you:

Any ultra-veratarian group, will - in the end - have to give in to communism if he REALLY wants to reach his goal.
Cause as long as there is a free market, there will be animals getting killed for meat. why ? cause animals are property. and under capitalism property has the freedom to be traded.


However i dont like the animals rights idea..

*Grim images of USA invading cuba because they broke a animal right come up in my mind*

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+May 19, 2007 04:11 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ May 19, 2007 04:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:15 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them?
Do the mentally ill have rights? [/b]
Your on dangerous ground there.

Comparing weak humans with animals. dont go to far on that idea.. has a nazi smell to it. (not accusing you off anything comrade :) just warning)

Anyway i think that a "rational way of dealing with animals" (Not beating them...fast dead.. not pumping them full of trash.. large cages.. outdoor rungrounds.. ) is a good thing to work on. However... nothing stops those tree-hugging activists from declaring their own animal rights.. the humans rights are a paper tiger to u know atm... (mainly they are now used as reasons to declare war)

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by *PRC*Kensei+May 19, 2007 09:48 pm--> (*PRC*Kensei @ May 19, 2007 09:48 pm)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 19, 2007 04:11 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:15 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them?
Do the mentally ill have rights?
Your on dangerous ground there.

Comparing weak humans with animals. dont go to far on that idea.. has a nazi smell to it. (not accusing you off anything comrade :) just warning)

Anyway i think that a "rational way of dealing with animals" (Not beating them...fast dead.. not pumping them full of trash.. large cages.. outdoor rungrounds.. ) is a good thing to work on. However... nothing stops those tree-hugging activists from declaring their own animal rights.. the humans rights are a paper tiger to u know atm... (mainly they are now used as reasons to declare war) [/b]
He makes a good point that mentally handicapped too have no concept of oppression. Saying " lol the nazis said the menatally ill were animals" proves nothing.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 19, 2007 03:48 pm
Your on dangerous ground there.

Comparing weak humans with animals. dont go to far on that idea.. has a nazi smell to it. (not accusing you off anything comrade :) just warning)
I didn&#39;t compare the mentally ill to animals. I asked about another group that lacks the ability to understand the concept of "rights," and how that particular line-of-thinking would apply to them.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:11 pm
Is the right to a life free of exploitation and domination too much to ask for?
See I&#39;m with you right up to hear, and then you just seem to go insane.


Animals are not ours to buy for food, use for clothing, or provide us with entertainment, they are entitled to their own autonomy just as anything else living.
Uhm...no. This is complete nutfuckery, there is no reason for us not to use animals in this way. Hell, there are plenty of reasons for us using animals like this - nutrition, warmth or fun for example.

If people can oppress animals then they get the sense that they can extend that oppression to animals of their own species.
What? On what grounds do you think this? I recognise that humans should, in fact MUST be free, but animals are entirely at our mercy and we can do whatever the fuck we want to/with them. Personally I find unnecessary cruelty to animals repugnant but I won&#39;t necessarily fight it when there are bigger fish to fry.


My main issue with meat is how animals are commodized and bought and sold. If you support the meat and dairy industry you are only continuing to support capitalism and nothing has changed.
This is utter fallacious bollocks. Everything in capitalism is bought and sold, does that mean that whenever I buy anything I&#39;m lending implicit support to neo-liberal capitalism? Fuck no. In a post capitalist society animals will be just like any other resource, there is nothing intrinsically capitalist about making good use of their corpses. Oh and "commodized" isn&#39;t a word.

[Mezeker Selam]

Humans are Vegans by design. But if animal cruelty is the main argument in this debate, they are sadly mistaken.

Capitalism has grown vast on the exploitation of... everything. It is not only the animals, but the grain, the crop, and the fruit. It&#39;s all a matter of what seems to be more evident.

Yes, hunger could be alleviated in many countries by the switch to Vegan-ism, but that would only mean you&#39;re cutting down one major source. Though it would shut down many - Corporations would just take a stronger hold on plant growth.

As for the animal cruelty part, studies have shown that plants do feel pain. They are genetically manipulated for mass consumption, and are just as jam packed with hormones as anything else.

In order to cease all domination and cruelty to plants and animals, we would have to go back to raising our own crops and hunting our own food. So that we may take what we need, and quite frankly-what we deserve.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+--> (black coffee black metal)Do the mentally ill have rights?[/b]

Yes they do. The mentally ill are a "special case", as opposed to most animals being inherently unable to comprehend oppression.


Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;+--> (Jesus Christ&#33;)Yea I had a similar question. Not even necessarily mentally handicapped but what about the uneducated in general? If someone doesn&#39;t have an understanding of what the notion of oppression is should they not be freed from it?[/b]

You can educate a human being about oppression. You can&#39;t say the same thing for animals. The fact that you can compare the uneducated to animals disturbs me.


Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;
Throughout history slaves didn&#39;t realize what is being done to them is wrong let alone some notion of being oppressed; does that mean they shouldn&#39;t have been freed?

Spartacus had a pretty damn good idea of oppression. When was the last time you saw oxen rebel against their herders?


Originally posted by Brekisonphilous

Is the right to a life free of exploitation and domination too much to ask for?

It is if you can&#39;t, as a species, demand those things in the first place.


Originally posted by Mezeker Selam
Humans are Vegans by design.

Bzzzzt&#33; Wrong&#33; The fact that our appendix is vestigial debunks that notion straight away.


Mezeker [email protected]
As for the animal cruelty part, studies have shown that plants do feel pain. They are genetically manipulated for mass consumption, and are just as jam packed with hormones as anything else.

All living things react to stimuli. Living things that don&#39;t try to avoid negative stimuli get removed by evolutionary pressures in short order. You have even less of a case to make RE the oppression of plants.


Mezeker Selam
In order to cease all domination and cruelty to plants and animals, we would have to go back to raising our own crops and hunting our own food. So that we may take what we need, and quite frankly-what we deserve.

Not possible with current population densities, not only that but you cannot sustain an industrial civilisation with hunter gathering, which is in itself subject to the vagaries of nature to a much greater degree than any form of agrarian production.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ&#33;+May 19, 2007 09:57 pm--> (Jesus Christ&#33; &#064; May 19, 2007 09:57 pm)
Originally posted by *PRC*[email protected] 19, 2007 09:48 pm

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 19, 2007 04:11 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:15 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 05:11 am
I thought the left was so supposed to be progressive?
How is it progressive to grant rights to beings which can&#39;t even comprehend them?
Do the mentally ill have rights?
Your on dangerous ground there.

Comparing weak humans with animals. dont go to far on that idea.. has a nazi smell to it. (not accusing you off anything comrade :) just warning)

Anyway i think that a "rational way of dealing with animals" (Not beating them...fast dead.. not pumping them full of trash.. large cages.. outdoor rungrounds.. ) is a good thing to work on. However... nothing stops those tree-hugging activists from declaring their own animal rights.. the humans rights are a paper tiger to u know atm... (mainly they are now used as reasons to declare war)
He makes a good point that mentally handicapped too have no concept of oppression. Saying " lol the nazis said the menatally ill were animals" proves nothing. [/b]
BTW It&#39;s pretty vulgar to state that all metally handicapped have no idea of opprecion..
there are 1001 degree&#39;s & sort of mental handicaps.

/

[J/K] hey, we can still drink water, water doesnt feel &#33;
(woe the one who proves it does <_< ) [J/K]

i&#39;m still in for a rational way of dealing with animals, meaning TRYING to avoid their suffer. however i&#39;m still not in for animal rights.

[KC]

Animals are not ours to buy for food, use for clothing, or provide us with entertainment

Uh, yes they are. It happens all the time.


they are entitled to their own autonomy just as anything else living.

Obviously not.


If people can oppress animals

Impossible. Animals can&#39;t be "oppressed"; they&#39;re killed, owned, contained, trained, etc... but not oppressed.



If people can oppress animals then they get the sense that they can extend that oppression to animals of their own species. It does nothing but spread that sort of mentality.

This is probably the dumbest thing I&#39;ve ever heard of. "Oppression of animals" leads to "oppression of humans"? That&#39;s some ridiculous fucking logic you&#39;ve got there.


My main issue with meat is how animals are commodized and bought and sold.

Obviously you&#39;d care more about the commodification of animals more than the commodification of people and their lives. You have just shown your true colors; you are reactionary through and through.


If you support the meat and dairy industry you are only continuing to support capitalism and nothing has changed.

Get this individualist shit out of here. By simply living you&#39;re "supporting capitalism". Not buying meat or dairy products isn&#39;t going to bring down capitalism; you&#39;re an idiot&#33;


Humans are Vegans by design.

This is obviously false. People can eat meat; therefore, they&#39;re not "Vegans by design".


Yes, hunger could be alleviated in many countries by the switch to Vegan-ism

No it couldn&#39;t. The problem with "hunger" in the world isn&#39;t that we aren&#39;t producing enough food; the problem is that the food produced doesn&#39;t get distributed to those that need it. Right now we could feed every person on earth, but we don&#39;t. Switching to veganism isn&#39;t going to change that and is a ridiculous thing to say.



As for the animal cruelty part, studies have shown that plants do feel pain.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

So why don&#39;t you start arguing against eating in general then?



In order to cease all domination and cruelty to plants and animals, we would have to go back to raising our own crops and hunting our own food. So that we may take what we need, and quite frankly-what we deserve.

You can go for it; myself and the rest of the sane human population will keep doing what we&#39;re doing.

Fucking nut.

[Mezeker Selam]

Hahaha, cute.


Bzzzzt&#33; Wrong&#33; The fact that our appendix is vestigial debunks that notion straight away.

I can&#39;t agree. Even if that statement made much sense to me, there is plenty of evidence leading to the fact that humans are vegan by design. Not only are most heart, blood pressure, and cholesterol issues linked to the fat in meats, but it is proven that dairy is not meant for consumption after the young have grown.

Incredibly enough, such dairy products contain chemicals that activate pleasure in the brain. That&#39;s why many people turn to chocolate as a comfort food. Also, it is found that these can become addicting. It is used so that the young will devour the substance and come back to the mother for more until they are ready to fend for themselves.

These are only a few of the many arguments.



his is obviously false. People can eat meat; therefore, they&#39;re not "Vegans by design".

Not necessarily, see this is where the choice comes in. Humans chose to eat meat. It was not their only source of food. Though meat brings serious side effects to the human body, it is not serious enough for us to cease eating it. Just because someone can, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re supposed to.

~ ~ ~


No it couldn&#39;t. The problem with "hunger" in the world isn&#39;t that we aren&#39;t producing enough food; the problem is that the food produced doesn&#39;t get distributed to those that need it. Right now we could feed every person on earth, but we don&#39;t. Switching to veganism isn&#39;t going to change that and is a ridiculous thing to say.


Well think of it this way, you&#39;re spending money on keeping animals locked up and raising grains in order to keep them alive and fat. Livestock is fed enough to feed 250,000,000 people every year in the UK. While in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation.


~ ~ ~



So why don&#39;t you start arguing against eating in general then?

My point exactly. If animal cruelty is the main argument against the meat industries, you&#39;re sadly mistaken. As bizarre as it may seem to me and you, there are people that are living on water and vitamins because they just found out that plants can feel pain.
It&#39;s not a very solid function... in order to survive you have to hurt some thing else. It just so happens that plants don&#39;t have faces, and it makes it easier for the conscience to digest.

~ ~ ~



You can go for it; myself and the rest of the sane human population will keep doing what we&#39;re doing.

Yes... because what the sane majority is doing is working out great&#33; [/sarcasm]
.... Enough said.


Not possible with current population densities, not only that but you cannot sustain an industrial civilisation with hunter gathering, which is in itself subject to the vagaries of nature to a much greater degree than any form of agrarian production.

Well, just in case you haven&#39;t figured it out... I&#39;m vegetarian, so the whole hunting thing isn&#39;t really my style. That statement however, was a framed caption of my pessimism, not a preach for human wealth in civic duties.


~ ~ ~


Do not take me as a hippie "Save the Planet" type... I&#39;m not going to preach that everyone should go vegetarian and POOF all of the world&#39;s problems and evils will stop&#33;
But it would help out the course a little.

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 20, 2007 03:10 pm

This is probably the dumbest thing I&#39;ve ever heard of. "Oppression of animals" leads to "oppression of humans"? That&#39;s some ridiculous fucking logic you&#39;ve got there.

If i remember well kundura wrote this in the unbarable lightnes of beeing.

They he compared people who kept animals with communists, and said they both had the need to opress & kill.

Ow i hate him. :angry:

[*PRC*Kensei]

Originally posted by Mezeker [email protected] 20, 2007 04:20 pm
there are people that are living on water and vitamins.
Call names :P

and where do they get the vetamins from ?

You must agree this doesnt sound health... and if it was.. there would be no starvation. (if people could survive on water & non-biologic tissue..they would be plants.)

btw there are ways of animal food without killing ;) like any stuff made off milk & eggs. (i said killing, not keeping, before u get me on that)

[KC]

Not necessarily, see this is where the choice comes in. Humans chose to eat meat. It was not their only source of food. Though meat brings serious side effects to the human body, it is not serious enough for us to cease eating it. Just because someone can, doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;re supposed to.

If we were "designed to be vegan" then we would be designed to eat only vegan. There would be no choice.


Well think of it this way, you&#39;re spending money on keeping animals locked up and raising grains in order to keep them alive and fat. Livestock is fed enough to feed 250,000,000 people every year in the UK. While in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation.

What&#39;s your point? You didn&#39;t even respond to my point; you just basically repeated your original argument. Therefore, I will repeat myself as well. People don&#39;t die of starvation because there isn&#39;t enough food; they die of starvation because food isn&#39;t distributed adequately. Therefore, what you have said is completely irrelevant. Unless, of course, you were trying to appeal to emotion by saying that animals get more adequately fed than people, which is again irrelevant.


Yes... because what the sane majority is doing is working out great&#33;

Yep.


Do not take me as a hippie "Save the Planet" type... I&#39;m not going to preach that everyone should go vegetarian and POOF all of the world&#39;s problems and evils will stop&#33;
But it would help out the course a little.

Voting democrap "helps out a little" too, right? :rolleyes:

[Ultra-Violence]

Why are you bigotted against commas?

Luís Henrique

i dont know.......FUCK U PUBLIC EDUCATION&#33;
,,,,,,

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I can&#39;t agree. Even if that statement made much sense to me, there is plenty of evidence leading to the fact that humans are vegan by design.

Clearly if we were still geared toward the consumption of plants only, then we would have retained functionality of our appendix, which in other animals serves to break down cellulose. Since humans cannot break down cellulose, and therefore cannot digest plants properly, humans have to supplement their diet with meats and dairy.

Honestly, have you ever compared the human digestive system with that of any herbivore or carnivore?


Not only are most heart, blood pressure, and cholesterol issues linked to the fat in meats, but it is proven that dairy is not meant for consumption after the young have grown.

Proven how? I can incorporate cheese, eggs and milk into my diet without adverse effects.
And the fact that people get clogged arteries from eating piles of burgers every day does not mean we did not evolve to eat meat. All it proves is that daily consumption of crap is bad for you.

Meat can and does form part of a healthy diet.


Incredibly enough, such dairy products contain chemicals that activate pleasure in the brain. That&#39;s why many people turn to chocolate as a comfort food. Also, it is found that these can become addicting. It is used so that the young will devour the substance and come back to the mother for more until they are ready to fend for themselves.

Or it could be that diary is a good source of fat and sugar, nutrients that are considerably harder to come by in nature than in our rich 21st century kitchens, and we evolved to seek out diary for it&#39;s high fat and sugar content.


Not necessarily, see this is where the choice comes in. Humans chose to eat meat. It was not their only source of food. Though meat brings serious side effects to the human body, it is not serious enough for us to cease eating it.

Don&#39;t confuse the health effects brought on by overmuch consumption of meat at the expense of all the other food groups with meat eating forming part of a balanced diet.


Livestock is fed enough to feed 250,000,000 people every year in the UK. While in the world 30,000,000 people die of starvation.

Those figures stink - I have a suspicion that you just extracted them from your rectal cavity.


As bizarre as it may seem to me and you, there are people that are living on water and vitamins because they just found out that plants can feel pain.

We have a name for those people: "idiots".


Well, just in case you haven&#39;t figured it out... I&#39;m vegetarian, so the whole hunting thing isn&#39;t really my style.

I would love to know how one would find a good source of protein in the wild without hunting. :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 20, 2007 05:27 pm
If we were "designed to be vegan"
then we should worship our designer, infidels. :lol:

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 20, 2007 05:41 pm
,,,,,,
Commas of the world... unite&#33;

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 20, 2007 05:27 pm
People don&#39;t die of starvation because there isn&#39;t enough food; they die of starvation because food isn&#39;t distributed adequately.
And food isn&#39;t distributed adequately because our actual distributive system - the market - is remarkably inefficient.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:02 pm
Yes they do. The mentally ill are a "special case", as opposed to most animals being inherently unable to comprehend oppression.
Why?

[midnight marauder]

Because they&#39;re human, and being human magically means that your pain and suffering suddenly become worth our time, despite the fact that sentient animals experience the same pain and the same suffering that we do.

Or...something.

Trying to find consistency in this thread is a bit like trying to squeeze orange juice out of an apple, and for proof of this, one needs not look any farther then all the people who oppose "animal cruetly" or "extreme treatment", but still rally against treating animals like they should be able to live a life free from unecessary pain.

And that&#39;s all animal rights means: recognizing that one&#39;s rights aren&#39;t contingent on their understanding of the world, that "the question isn&#39;t whether they can talk, or whether they can think, but whether they can suffer."

Reconciling the contradiction between supporting the well being of the severely mentally ill and opposing that same well being of animals is at best idealistic theoretical posturing on the metaphysical importance of being human (in the biological sense, not the social), and at it&#39;s lowest, a blatant assault on logic, both of which create a common theme throughout all of these discussions on animal welfare issues.

For anyone who isn&#39;t interested in that, meat-eater or not, I reccomend reading this leaflet:

http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/lobby...asts/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/lobby/3909/beasts/index.html)

[Chicano Shamrock]

I really have never understood animal rights and animal liberation. Sure that is sad but lets fuck up the system before we save the bunnies. The whole vegetarian thing about feeling bad for animals is fucking stupid. I have to live so sorry if I kill the animals but shit that&#39;s what humans do. That&#39;s how we subsist.

I have thought about being vegetarian at times. Not because I feel bad for animals but mostly because I don&#39;t like my food to bleed or have a head. But you know what fish is good. Chicken tacos are bomb and pork shank when cooked right is fucking bliss. So some animals taste good I don&#39;t care if it was sad or not. People are sad when they don&#39;t eat.

This is class war who&#39;s side are you on? The Proles or the Moles? :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That&#39;s because me and the animal rights nuts have differing definitions of "unnecessary" when it comes to inflicting pain on animals. I for example have no problem with medical (as opposed to cosmetic) testing on animals because of the potential benefits reaped.


Reconciling the contradiction between supporting the well being of the severely mentally ill and opposing that same well being of animals is at best idealistic theoretical posturing on the metaphysical importance of being human (in the biological sense, not the social), and at it&#39;s lowest, a blatant assault on logic, both of which create a common theme throughout all of these discussions on animal welfare issues.

There is only a contradiction if you fail to understand positions like mine. I&#39;m opposed to cruelty to animals for it&#39;s own sake, but if it further human development or benefits humans in some way then I am all for it.

[Sickle of Justice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:53 pm

She made two points, 1) capitalist-imperialist companies profit off of torturing and oppressing these animals.

You can&#39;t "oppress" an animal - they don&#39;t even understand the concept of oppression.

And if animal testing (Emotionally rendered into "torture" by PETA) is necessary to enhance our understanding of medical science, then so be it.


2) the first form of capital was cattle and so basic caveman capitalist ideas came from the oppression of animals.

Bullshit. Property =/= Capital. Also, "cavemen" were hunter-gatherers, not primitive agrarians or nomadic herders. They arose considerably later.


3) while capitalism does create a massive inequality in distribution of wealth often causing starvation, food and water is wasted en masse to feed domesticated animals which wouldn&#39;t be necessary if we were vegetarians

And if the inherent inequality that is brought about by capitalism was got rid of, then the subsequent abundance of food would mean none of us would have to submit to the whims of evangelical vegetarians.

And no, becoming a vegetarian under capitalist society serves no purpose other than to salve the guilty consciousnesses of those who watched too much Bambi while growing up.
why the hell can&#39;t you oppress an animal? several breeds have more understanding than an infant, or a person with downs syndrome&#33; would you say that they can be slaughtered for profit?

i&#39;m not opposed to the general practice of eating meat. thats natural. many species do it. but the meat industry is a load of corrupt, cruel, and primarily for profit bullshit. if you raise your own animals/hunt your own food, thats fine. otherwise, fuck off.


I have thought about being vegetarian at times. Not because I feel bad for animals but mostly because I don&#39;t like my food to bleed or have a head. But you know what fish is good. Chicken tacos are bomb and pork shank when cooked right is fucking bliss. So some animals taste good I don&#39;t care if it was sad or not. People are sad when they don&#39;t eat.
ok, so basically you&#39;re saying that its more convenient to ignore it. i suppose, by the same logicic, that if you were rich you would be an imperialist corperatist, seeing as that makes you happy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

why the hell can&#39;t you oppress an animal?

Read the fucking thread&#33;


several breeds have more understanding than an infant, or a person with downs syndrome&#33; would you say that they can be slaughtered for profit?

Infants and mentally incapable humans are special cases, while not being able to understand social concepts is the default state for animals. That this is not obvious to you is a sad reflection on your intelligence.


i&#39;m not opposed to the general practice of eating meat. thats natural. many species do it. but the meat industry is a load of corrupt, cruel, and primarily for profit bullshit. if you raise your own animals/hunt your own food, thats fine. otherwise, fuck off.

What makes the meat industry any more exploitative than any other industry in capitalism? Every other industry is also "for profit". If you make your own clothes, grow your own food, and have done everything else that you can possibly think of without paying for it, that&#39;s fine. Otherwise, fuck off&#33;

Honestly, to single out meat is simply hypocritical.

[midnight marauder]

I really have never understood animal rights and animal liberation. Sure that is sad but lets fuck up the system before we save the bunnies. The whole vegetarian thing about feeling bad for animals is fucking stupid.

"Fucking up the system" and "saving the bunnies" are in no way, shape, or form mutually exclusive.

But it&#39;s nice that you think it&#39;s sad. And then call people who try alleviate that sadness "fucking stupid." If animals don&#39;t have the right to live without unecessary oppression, how can it be sad?

This is a pretty black and white issue, which is a strange sight indeed for politics. Animals either have that right or they don&#39;t. There is no inbetween. If animals don&#39;t have rights, there is no such thing as animal cruelty, and no reason to feel sad over their treatment.

Unless of course you have any semblance of humanity (which, thankfully, you do, as most meat eaters do) and recognize that suffering, to put it bluntly, isn&#39;t the best thing to go through.

Go figure&#33;


I have to live so sorry if I kill the animals but shit that&#39;s what humans do. That&#39;s how we subsist

What humans?

I don&#39;t.

The question of meat-eating being natural is dubious at best. Certainly we have the capacity and ability to, but it&#39;s depressing how much emphasis people put on this psuedo-supernatural importance of "nature", because if we know what that nature is, and we have the ability to change it, there&#39;s no reason to continually define our actions by it&#33;

Least of all when they lead to things that would be considered torture and murder should these animals have been born human.

In any event, if humans have the choice to do otherwise, as I do, being a lower middle class American with access to readily available vegetarian food choices (four out of six blocks on the food pyramid, mind you&#33; :lol: ), than that isn&#39;t the only way we can subsist.

And it might not even be the best way, in terms of health and environmental reasons.


But you know what fish is good. Chicken tacos are bomb and pork shank when cooked right is fucking bliss. So some animals taste good I don&#39;t care if it was sad or not.

This is a brilliant arguement here: "who cares if how I treat them is wrong [or as you put it, sad], it benefits me superficially&#33;"

You sound like my boss. :lol:


People are sad when they don&#39;t eat.

This is a strawman and an appeal to emotion, it has nothing to with what we&#39;re talking about.



This is class war who&#39;s side are you on? The Proles or the Moles?

And this is a false dichotomy.


That&#39;s because me and the animal rights nuts have differing definitions of "unnecessary" when it comes to inflicting pain on animals. I for example have no problem with medical (as opposed to cosmetic) testing on animals because of the potential benefits reaped.

And what is this defintion?

For the record, I&#39;d probably agree with you on this, but it&#39;s troubling that you&#39;d limit it away from cosmetic issues if animals do not have rights, and if humans would somehow gain from that type of testing.

But that really isn&#39;t the question either. The situation is whether if you have the choice to live your life reasonably without eating meat, is it still necessary?

I can&#39;t imagine even the most carnivorous anthropocentrist would answer yes to that question.

At least not with any actual dictionary&#39;s conception of what something means to be necessary.


There is only a contradiction if you fail to understand positions like mine. I&#39;m opposed to cruelty to animals for it&#39;s own sake, but if it further human development or benefits humans in some way then I am all for it.

I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re trying to insult me here, but I&#39;ll be the first to admit I don&#39;t have the slightest clue how to even begin to understand your position, and I don&#39;t think asking for a rational logical paradigm that&#39;s consistent and justifiable (even if debatable) is too much to ask for.

It&#39;s too bad we haven&#39;t got to that point yet, and you still haven&#39;t clarified your position past a few hollow statements without logical backing.

After all, if pleasure is a benefit to humans, than what&#39;s wrong with beating the shit out of a cow, or a sheep, or even a dog?


Read the fucking thread&#33;

And this is exactly what I&#39;m talking about. Discussions just don&#39;t work like that. You can&#39;t just say something, ignore it&#39;s critical responses, and then when put on the defensive repeat the same empty phrases that you&#39;ve already made.

When you can prove that being oppressed is only possible if you understand oppression, than maybe you&#39;ll have some ground to go on.


Infants and mentally incapable humans are special cases, while not being able to understand social concepts is the default state for animals. That this is not obvious to you is a sad reflection on your intelligence.

Why are the special? Because everyone else in the species understands social concepts, that legitmizes their claim to the simple negative right of living free from unwarranted pain?

Do you seriously not see the problem with this?


What makes the meat industry any more exploitative than any other industry in capitalism?

Well I&#39;m not sure about you but I would take my job of stuffing evelopes over &#39;living&#39; in a factory farm any day of the week.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by Mezeker [email protected] 20, 2007 11:06 am
Humans are Vegans by design. But if animal cruelty is the main argument in this debate, they are sadly mistaken.

Capitalism has grown vast on the exploitation of... everything. It is not only the animals, but the grain, the crop, and the fruit. It&#39;s all a matter of what seems to be more evident.

Yes, hunger could be alleviated in many countries by the switch to Vegan-ism, but that would only mean you&#39;re cutting down one major source. Though it would shut down many - Corporations would just take a stronger hold on plant growth.

As for the animal cruelty part, studies have shown that plants do feel pain. They are genetically manipulated for mass consumption, and are just as jam packed with hormones as anything else.

In order to cease all domination and cruelty to plants and animals, we would have to go back to raising our own crops and hunting our own food. So that we may take what we need, and quite frankly-what we deserve.
Yes I think the main concern here is major corporations in regards to the meat industry. However, even if everyone suddenly became vegan (as has been pointed out) they would control the plant industry. This isn&#39;t really a case of animal rights. Although our capitalist society doesn&#39;t give a crap about animals. Which is quite depressing. I find it really sad. How do we know animals can&#39;t comprehend their oppression? They feel pain. We know that.

[socialistfuture]

dead prez are vegan, thats good enuff for me (same with a lot of the black panthers).

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:43 pm

I really have never understood animal rights and animal liberation. Sure that is sad but lets fuck up the system before we save the bunnies. The whole vegetarian thing about feeling bad for animals is fucking stupid.

"Fucking up the system" and "saving the bunnies" are in no way, shape, or form mutually exclusive.

But it&#39;s nice that you think it&#39;s sad. And then call people who try alleviate that sadness "fucking stupid." If animals don&#39;t have the right to live without unecessary oppression, how can it be sad?

This is a pretty black and white issue, which is a strange sight indeed for politics. Animals either have that right or they don&#39;t. There is no inbetween. If animals don&#39;t have rights, there is no such thing as animal cruelty, and no reason to feel sad over their treatment.

Unless of course you have any semblance of humanity (which, thankfully, you do, as most meat eaters do) and recognize that suffering, to put it bluntly, isn&#39;t the best thing to go through.

Go figure&#33;


I have to live so sorry if I kill the animals but shit that&#39;s what humans do. That&#39;s how we subsist

What humans?

I don&#39;t.

The question of meat-eating being natural is dubious at best. Certainly we have the capacity and ability to, but it&#39;s depressing how much emphasis people put on this psuedo-supernatural importance of "nature", because if we know what that nature is, and we have the ability to change it, there&#39;s no reason to continually define our actions by it&#33;

Least of all when they lead to things that would be considered torture and murder should these animals have been born human.

In any event, if humans have the choice to do otherwise, as I do, being a lower middle class American with access to readily available vegetarian food choices (four out of six blocks on the food pyramid, mind you&#33; :lol: ), than that isn&#39;t the only way we can subsist.

And it might not even be the best way, in terms of health and environmental reasons.


But you know what fish is good. Chicken tacos are bomb and pork shank when cooked right is fucking bliss. So some animals taste good I don&#39;t care if it was sad or not.

This is a brilliant arguement here: "who cares if how I treat them is wrong [or as you put it, sad], it benefits me superficially&#33;"

You sound like my boss. :lol:


People are sad when they don&#39;t eat.

This is a strawman and an appeal to emotion, it has nothing to with what we&#39;re talking about.



This is class war who&#39;s side are you on? The Proles or the Moles?

And this is a false dichotomy.

Sorry but I really don&#39;t see smashing the state through violent revolution and freeing bunnies as equal priorities.

I meant that some kinds of testing on animals is sad. Not killing them for nutrition.

There is no such thing as a black and white issue. Some people have different opinions. In your situation that either they have rights or they don&#39;t I will say they don&#39;t. They don&#39;t because they taste good and I am higher on the food chain. Fuck it and I don&#39;t care.

No suffering isn&#39;t the best thing to go through but it is necessary for me to eat meat.... so fuck it I don&#39;t care.

I really don&#39;t understand why you care. I don&#39;t mind if you want to eat vegetables all day. I love vegetables. Spinach is my favorite food. But meat is convenient and I think cheaper for getting a balanced diet filled with a lot of protein. Are you trying to tell me my opinion of what I like is wrong?

[apathy maybe]

Not what you like, but if you want cheaper you would be better of with beans and rice...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what is this defintion?

I&#39;ve just given it to you, you stupid fucking spack. If you are too fucking thick to read my posts then don&#39;t bother.


But that really isn&#39;t the question either. The situation is whether if you have the choice to live your life reasonably without eating meat, is it still necessary?

Yes, animal testing is necessary. Most biological scientists will tell you that. Whether or not one chooses to eat meat is a personal choice, and claiming that one is a "more moral" person simply by virtue of their diet is fallacious.


I&#39;m assuming you&#39;re trying to insult me here, but I&#39;ll be the first to admit I don&#39;t have the slightest clue how to even begin to understand your position, and I don&#39;t think asking for a rational logical paradigm that&#39;s consistent and justifiable (even if debatable) is too much to ask for.

Use your fucking brain, then, if you have one.


After all, if pleasure is a benefit to humans, than what&#39;s wrong with beating the shit out of a cow, or a sheep, or even a dog?

Because that&#39;s inflicting pain for it&#39;s own sake, and happens to be one of the major signifiers of psychopathy.

I don&#39;t want to live in a society that values pleasure derived from the pain of others.

Are you that fucking dense?


Originally posted by apathy maybe
Not what you like, but if you want cheaper you would be better of with beans and rice...

beans may appear cheaper on the face of it, but since meat has more protein in it, it in fact works out cheaper - you just buy less meat for the same amount of protein one gets in more beans. Also, the larger the amount of beans/meat one buys, the greater the difference becomes.


Baked Beans in tomato sauce&#58; £0.40/Kg = 45g protein/Kg

Nutritional information per 100g&#58;

Energy-----------------302 k J.
Protein-----------------4.5g
Carbohydrate---------12.6g
of which sugars-------3.2g
of which starch--------9.4g
Fat----------------------0.3g
of which saturates-----Trace
Fibre--------------------3.2g
Salt---------------------0.5g
of which sodium-------0.2g

Frozen Mince&#58; £1.45/Kg = 169g protein/Kg

Nutritional infomration per 100g&#58;

Energy-----------------------------1166 kJ
Protein-----------------------------16.9g
Carbohydrate---------------------less than 0.1g
of which sugars-------------------less than 0.1g
Fat----------------------------------23.2g
of which saturates-----------------9.3g
of which mono-unsaturates-------10.9g
of which polyunsaturates---------1.7g
Fibre--------------------------------less than 0.1g
Salt---------------------------------less than 0.1g
of which sodium-------------------less than 0.1g

Prices and nutritional information are courtesy of sainsburystoyou.com

As you can see, meat has more protein in it. It also has more fat, but that shouldn&#39;t matter if one has a balanced diet since you shouldn&#39;t be eating that much in the first place. Personally I&#39;d rather eat beans as a source of carbohydrates.

Stick THAT in yer pipe and smoke it&#33;

[apathy maybe]

I did say beans AND rice... And if you want fat, that is what nuts (also rich in protein) and oils are for (or eggs and milk products if you aren&#39;t a vegan). Besides which, you chose to compare mince with canned baked beans, hardly a fair comparison when I was meant about dried beans. Of course Sainsbury&#39;s don&#39;t provide nutritional information for their own products (at least, I can&#39;t find it...), but here is one for some rice (more expensive then the "home brand" product, but surely similar nutritional content).

Nutrition
100g Uncooked:
Energy 1470 Kj / 347 kcal
Protein 9.2g
Carbohydrate 71.4g
Of Which Sugars 1.2g
Fat 2.7g
Of Which Saturates 0.7g
Fibre 1.9g
Sodium TraceWhich when added to the beans (at half and half) leads to 13.7 grams of protein (per 200g), just under the mince (which is per 100g). But then if you include the additional protein "created" (they obviously aren&#39;t really created) by the two products "complementing" each other, you no doubt get more then 16.9 g cited for the mince. The cheapest price I found for rice was £0.89/kg. For two kilos (1/2 and half), the price is thus, £1.29/kg, which is cheaper then mince, and you get twice the amount of food. For a single kilo (1/2 and 1/2) the price is just under £.65/kg, in other words 68.5g of protein per kg. Mince is £1.45/Kg = 169g protein/Kg. Price for only protein is, £1.3 per 137grams for the rice and beans. My maths isn&#39;t that good to due a pure comparison, but it seems that the prices are about the same (the protein from the mince being cheaper I think, but in total, the beans and rice being cheaper). Of course, these prices are from a single source, and you would get cheaper prices if you shop around (I know that when I was eating meat, beans and rice was cheaper then the mince I was eating).

And as I said, baked beans in a can isn&#39;t really a fair comparison, a better comparison would be dried beans from a health food shop, lentils, or split peas. But there you go.

In addition, here are some websites and information.

This website (http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2467.html) gives the protein of corpses at 21 grams per 3 oz. serving (what they fuck they mixed up the two I don&#39;t know... Perhaps because they got the protein level from the US govt. which often uses metric, and has to when communicating solely with itself.) and for tofu at 13 grams for the same 3 oz serving. (Admittedly the tofu from Sainsbury&#39;s is the expensive sort, aimed for the "green conscious" high end consumer. Not the sort of stuff that I eat...)

This website (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0229.htm) argues for beans as a food for athletes.

beans are high in carbohydrate, fairly rich in protein, and low in fat- or in other words, absolutely perfect for individuals who want to ingest high-performance food
They also explain a variety of other benefits (specifically health benefits) for eating beans.

This website (http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/nutrition/food/protein.html)talks about complementary protein a bit as well.

For instance, you can&#39;t get all the amino acids you need from peanuts alone, but if you have peanuts or peanut butter on whole-grain bread you&#39;re set. Likewise, red beans won&#39;t give you everything you need, but red beans and rice will do the trick. The good news is that you don&#39;t have to eat all the essential amino acids in every meal. As long as you have a variety of protein sources throughout the day, your body will grab what it needs from each meal.

(And of course, this has nothing to do with what you should or shouldn&#39;t eat, simply that beans and rice provide a better and cheaper source of protein, with less fat, then meat. You can do what you want with these facts.)

[apathy maybe]

If you take split peas (either green or yellow) (compared with the baked beans), protein values rise to 8.3%, with a cost of £0.78/kg. Added to the rice I mentioned early... bang, you just got more for your buck (doing similar calculations to what I did above).

[socialistfuture]

must admit animal rights activists are sumtimes sum of the most hardcore and determined.

SHAC has used some pretty heavy tactics.