Who Takes Animal Rights Seriously? [Archive]

13th July 2007, 16:14

I don't think there can be any materialist account of human rights that would not extend certain rights to animals. The most useful and consistently applicable account of rights, i think, is that rights derive from legitimate exclusive interests. Humans above the age where they attain fluent language and long term memory, have interests which animals don't, including social interests, interests in their future development, in their ability to express themselves, and workers have additional interests in the product of their labour...but all organisms with a central nervous system and vivid awareness of the external world and the ability to meaningfully respond to it (dogs and cows but not worms or fetuses or vegetative patients) have certain more limited interests such as an interest in avoiding unnecessary pain, stress, and disability (interests which persons obviously also have).

In this sense animals (or, at least some animals) must have some rights in order for any discussion of 'rights' to make sense (without appealing to some non-materialist construct). The concept of rights is related to the notion of being wronged and it is obvious that animals are wronged if they're tortured as humans are wronged if they're tortured, and likewise obvious that animals are not wronged if they aren't issued with a voter registration card the way that a human would be wronged by it (since the former can't use it).

There are only two ways to deny animal rights. Either you can say that, by some magical, mystical reason (say, levels of divine creation) only humans have rights, and all humans by similar mysticism have rights. This would obviously be idealist and therefore incompatible with a materialist political ideology like Marxism. Alternatively, no one has rights except defacto 'rights' derived from power and people merely defend others out of some type of common interests or identification, and this would justify chauvinism of every type and allow any type of abuses.
(there is also a third possibility which someone here argued which is that social interaction is the source of rights; this is clearly inconsistent since babies level of social interaction is about the same as some pets, so either babies don't have rights or toy breed dogs do, or you appeal to a mystical rather than materialist concept of society)

My position is that animals do have rights and they are being systematically violated, but i choose out of personal preference to prioritize people, purely arbitrarily. I'm willing to admit this because I think its better to recognize hypocritical behavior in yourself and your politics than to deny it at the expense of logic and political honesty. Ultimately the way people behave with regard to how well they defend each others rights has more to do with the degree to which they identify with them, and i simply have greater sympathetic identification with the people in Guantanamo Bay than with chickens in factory farms even though the later are objectively worse off.

Deciding that you're not going to stop eating meat doesn't require denying animal rights in the abstract, something that i think is philosophically unsound, it simply requires the maturity to tolerate a level of cognitive dissonance without allowing it to corrupt your logic (which, sadly people find very hard to do which is why you get a lot of terribly inconsistent or unsound arguments, not just about this but about every political issue).

listener

13th July 2007, 16:16

I take animal rights seriously. I am against animal testing, animal farming etc. How we as a society treat animals is nontheless a mirror of our society: exploitation, no sense for nature and no respect for life and living beings. If we really want a better future and society, also this has to change

But I wouldn't call myself animal rights activist

Dr Mindbender

13th July 2007, 16:50

there is an argument that an omnivourous diet is decadent, in the sense that the grain used to fatten cows that are then slaughtered for beef products could be used to feed those who are most vulnerable as a result of capitalism. I dont agree with animal testing in the sense that it is largely unnecessary but i think theres more important reasons to pick up a placard.
Although that said, I still choose to eat meat for health, and cultural reasons.

Vanguard1917

13th July 2007, 16:53

'Animal liberation' and human liberation are contradictory concepts - they are not complementary. This is in the sense that, the more liberated we are as humans, the less freedom the animal has to act as it please.

For example, in order to be liberated from hunger, humans have relied on the development of agriculture and animal husbandry.

In order liberate themselves from certain diseases, humans have subjugated animals to scientific experimentation.

In order to increase standards of public hygiene, human society has forced its animal vermin underground.

Human liberation entails greater control and domination over nature - subjecting nature to the will of humanity. Animals are included under nature.

It's also worth emphasising that there is nothing progressive about animal rights at all. Indeed, the first state in modern times to enact the kind of policies demanded by today's animal rights movement - was the Nazi government of Germany.

This backs up the contradiction between 'animal liberation' and human liberation. The Nazi degradation of humanity went hand in hand with the elavation of animals and nature. This is extremely important to understand.

Marx mentioned this kind of degradation when he refered to the caste system in India, saying that it gave way to a 'brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of hanuman, the monkey, and sabala, the cow.'

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

Lab animals saluting Hermann Goering for his order banning vivisection:
http://www.armyths.org/goer2.jpg

Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's duty toward the animal . Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed!

The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfils the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!

R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.

link (http://www.armyths.org/)

Vargha Poralli

13th July 2007, 16:55

As I have said in another thread we have to treat animals kindly and not explot thme for our own means and ends. So I don't eat meat, don't use cosmetics,don't watch animal shows which abuses animals etc.

But at the same time I also consume milk,use leather products and allopathic medicine when I need to take. That is mainly because I don't have any alternatives to them.

And I also think animal liberation is some what too much given the conditions of today. Many people need liberation - I will give priority to it. Let the liberated people shall decide whether they would liberate animals or not.

Dr Mindbender

13th July 2007, 16:56

I once got into a drunken discussion in a Manchester pub with some Anarchist vegan militants who argued that the animal rights movement was 'revolutionary' in the sense that animals that are tested and killed are victims of the class system, in much a similar way to working class people!

Vanguard1917

13th July 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 13, 2007 03:56 pm
I once got into a drunken discussion in a Manchester pub with some Anarchist vegan militants who argued that the animal rights movement was 'revolutionary' in the sense that animals that are tested and killed are victims of the class system, in much a similar way to working class people!
God give me strength.

13th July 2007, 17:43

Vanguard1917

13th July 2007, 18:02

You're being ridiculous and deviating totally from any Marxist conception of human liberation.

Marx and Engels said that human liberation comes about through human mastery over nature, the environment, man's material surroundings. In fact, that was the basis of their materialism.

From the perspective of Marxism, then, human liberation and the 'liberation' of trees, cows or monkeys, do not complement one another, but contradict one another.

From the German Ideology:

'...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food, drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. 'Liberation' is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...'

SocialistMilitant

13th July 2007, 19:07

Anyone who takes animal rights seriously is a raging liberal. It's pure adventurism.

How can one focus on animal rights instead of human rights? Doesn't make any sense to me.

listener

13th July 2007, 19:07

and finally, when men killed the last animal and cut the last tree, we will all be free.

I never heard such a ridiculous argumentation against protecting animal rights. As long as we live AGAINST nature, we will never be able to find something like peace. As long as we think we have the right to destroy, we will also believe that we have the right to destroy human life.

listener

13th July 2007, 19:10

How can one focus on animal rights instead of human rights?

Because it is INCLUSIVE. But as long as humans believe that they are something like gods, we will have discussions like this. And while we have discussions like this, humans are continuing to destroy planet earth. Some day even the most stupid person will realize that there is only one planet earth. But then it is too late.

Vanguard1917

13th July 2007, 19:13

and finally, when men killed the last animal and cut the last tree, we will all be free.

Who said anything about that? Human mastery over nature is not about destroying nature; it's about bringing nature under the control of humanity in order to make it serve human ends.

SocialistMilitant

13th July 2007, 19:13

Has anyone seen this?

http://www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/display.asp

How can they even compare a cow being killed to a lynching? These people are seriously fucked in the head.

Vanguard1917

13th July 2007, 19:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:13 pm
Has anyone seen this?

http://www.peta.org/AnimalLiberation/display.asp

How can they even compare a cow being killed to a lynching?
Good question. I think it's because PETA's elavated view of animals is based on its degraded view of people.

listener

13th July 2007, 19:29

Who said anything about that? Human mastery over nature is not about destroying nature; it's about bringing nature under the control of humanity in order to make it serve human ends.

nature can't be mastered and can't be controlled. Look around, all these tries to 'master' nature leads to destruction of nature

listener

13th July 2007, 19:35

Factory farming led to BSE, it leads to exaggerated use of antibiotics and other drugs.
The production of meat produces hunger. Crop, fed to animals, could be eaten by people. You need via the "bridge" meat much more corn to get the same number people fed then without meat.
Forests are destroyed to feed the cows we in rich countries eat. Etc.

R_P_A_S

13th July 2007, 20:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:53 pm
'Animal liberation' and human liberation are contradictory concepts - they are not complementary. This is in the sense that, the more liberated we are as humans, the less freedom the animal has to act as it please.

For example, in order to be liberated from hunger, humans have relied on the development of agriculture and animal husbandry.

In order liberate themselves from certain diseases, humans have subjugated animals to scientific experimentation.

In order to increase standards of public hygiene, human society has forced its animal vermin underground.

Human liberation entails greater control and domination over nature - subjecting nature to the will of humanity. Animals are included under nature.

It's also worth emphasising that there is nothing progressive about animal rights at all. Indeed, the first state in modern times to enact the kind of policies demanded by today's animal rights movement - was the Nazi government of Germany.

This backs up the contradiction between 'animal liberation' and human liberation. The Nazi degradation of humanity went hand in hand with the elavation of animals and nature. This is extremely important to understand.

Marx mentioned this kind of degradation when he refered to the caste system in India, saying that it gave way to a 'brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of hanuman, the monkey, and sabala, the cow.'

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

Lab animals saluting Hermann Goering for his order banning vivisection:
http://www.armyths.org/goer2.jpg

Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's duty toward the animal . Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed!

The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:

"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfils the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!

R.O.Schmidt

*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.

link (http://www.armyths.org/)
i guess you don't need to test on animals. if you can test on lower human life forms. like um Jews, Gypsies and the mentally ill! :angry:

Black Cross

13th July 2007, 22:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:10 pm

How can one focus on animal rights instead of human rights?

Because it is INCLUSIVE. But as long as humans believe that they are something like gods, we will have discussions like this. And while we have discussions like this, humans are continuing to destroy planet earth. Some day even the most stupid person will realize that there is only one planet earth. But then it is too late.
I think he was just saying that you should protect your fellow man, first and foremost.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that earth is going to die off if we don't embrace animals; the way capitalist societies eat away natural recources will kill the planet off way before that could ever happen.

midnight marauder

14th July 2007, 01:42

Marx and Engels said that human liberation comes about through human mastery over nature, the environment, man's material surroundings. In fact, that was the basis of their materialism.

From the perspective of Marxism, then, human liberation and the 'liberation' of trees, cows or monkeys, do not complement one another, but contradict one another.

From the German Ideology:

'...it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food, drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. 'Liberation' is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture...'

Your argument and your reasoning do not follow eachother. In fact, I'm not even sure they have any relationship at all.

You cannot will a moral code into being based on a shoddy (and outdated) interpretation of a few key terms being forced onto a quote that I'm guessing had nothing to do initially with the subject of animal rights. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Even if we are to take the incredibly ill advised venture into the issue of rights based on the elevation of Marx and Engels to that of biblical code, you're a) reading too much into this and b) using that cloudy judgement of its meaning to support a conclusion that has nothing to do with the "evidence".

Before you even begin, you need to have a clear understanding of what "liberate" and "liberation" mean in this context. TC showed you exactlty what these terms mean, and how they apply to the context of animals versus us, but I guess if the right definition doesn't fit your agenda, then there's no point in using it, huh? No, contrary to the rabid and unexcusable opposition to vegan and vegetarian comrades deeply involved in the class struggle, we don't "focus on animal rights instead of human rights" as SocialistMilitant put it, nor do we possess a "degraded view of people" as you'd like to paint us.

But I think you already know that. Afterall, it's a lot easier to paint your enemies into something they aren't, and twist their arguements into issues that they originally had nothing to do with than actually refuting or acknowledging them. Especially when they're your enemies based on emotion and without real, concrete reasons. That's real cognitive dissonance, the kind ruling class elites have been espousing for years.

TC already showed you how they aren't contradictory in your first post. Your response was to throw up a Marx quote (like any true revolutionary should when backed into a corner!) that doesn't talk about animal liberation at all. Yes, we all agree with the quote. The interesting thing about this quote, though, is that it makes an excellent point with regards to real liberation only being possible through the evolution and changing of material conditions. Perhaps in the 1840s, animal liberation (the kind that we've already described) wouldn't have been possible, but it's long been known that in present day, we have the capabilities to vastly reduce the intake of meat and other animal products. And we have the capabilities to do it without negatively impacting human "liberation", but I'm not sure where you got that inane idea from anyway. Not only that, but "liberation from hunger" insofar as you can be "liberated from hunger" has very little at all to do with what you eat in the first place, but rather with the methods of food distribution and holding that prevent people in need of food from getting it. Which means that at the very best, if you were to interpret this quote as meaning exactly what you say it means (i.e. pretending that "mastery over nature" = factory farming), it would have stopped being applicable almost two hundred years ago. So much for analyzing material conditions.

Anyone who takes animal rights seriously is a raging liberal. It's pure adventurism.

Oh, okay. Guess I'll trade in my years of activism and political action and join the dems! :rolleyes:

Yardstick

14th July 2007, 02:07

I take animal rights very seriously. I can't exactly talk about peace while munching on a sentient being. But since no one responded to my post in the last AR thread I'm going to repost it because I feel it covers many of the reasons a leftist in particular should be a vegetarian.

1)Vegetarianism is a healty choice:
a)The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer” and that vegetarians are less likely than meat-eaters to be obese

b)vegetarians are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters

c)vegetarian kids grow taller and have higher IQs than their classmates, and they are at a reduced risk for heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases in the long run

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Citation

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/43/1671_50411

Even then you could argue that it's still okay to eat a little meat, fair enough but health isnt my only reason.

2)Meat is bad for the environment:
a)"nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food"
You have to understand that while it seems like we have a ton of water on the earth a very small percentage is usable by humans.
b)"about one-third of the raw materials used in America each year is consumed by the farmed animal industry"
ONE THIRD! Thats a shitload.
c) Farmed animals produce 86,000 pounds of waste a second(thats shit fyi) which pollutes our water, errodes topsoil, and contaminates air.

You really can't call yourself a environmentalist while contributing this much to damaging the environment. "Many leading environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the WorldWatch Institute, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have recognized that raising animals for food damages the environment more than just about anything else that we do"
http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/health/meat_mag.html
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/ke...ad/A0701E00.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb973/sb973.pdf
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?142

However one of the real bigger kickers for me is number 3

3)All those acres going to feed livestock, could be feeding the hungry:
"According to a recent report by Compassion in World Farming, "[c]rops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food." It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3559542.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...,864995,00.html

4)Workers Rights:
"statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly one in three slaughterhouse workers suffers from illness or injury every year, compared to one in 10 workers in other manufacturing jobs.1 The rate of repetitive stress injury for slaughterhouse employees is 35 times higher than it is for those with other manufacturing jobs.2"

Employees who are injured at work—and most will be—are often fired if they take time off or try to file a health insurance or workers’ compensation claim

In addition to exploiting poor people, immigrants, and children and doing little to protect workers from workplace hazards, the farmed-animal industry has also been charged with union busting. When workers try to unionize, the industry uses illegal intimidation and harassment tactics to ensure that pro-union employees are silenced. According to Human Rights Watch, “Many workers who try to form trade unions and bargain collectively are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized for their exercise of the right to freedom of association.”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/usa0105/usa0105.pdf
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/20...arms/index.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/slaughterworkers.cfm
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm1999...2.05.html#tyson

5)This, isn't fair:

http://goveg.com/photos_chicken10.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_chicken21.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow14.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow23.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_cow20.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_pig07.asp

http://goveg.com/photos_pig16.asp

These points of course don't even take into account the intelligence or feelings of these animals. So if you want to ignore this stuff then great for you, I hope the cheeseburger is worth all the damage your causing.

Oh and you can find most of this info and alot of my sources through goveg.org

Genosse Kotze

14th July 2007, 03:01

C'mon, animal rights activists have a lot of spirit and have good hearts, I don't see why you guys think they're stupid. To their detractors, have you ever watched any of the videos PETA puts out, or even read the socialist novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair about working conditions and the revolting work of Chicago's old meat packing industry? These haven't made me stop eating meat yet, but they've made me reevaluate what I'm doing there, in the same when I see a "made in Myanmar (or any 3rd world nation)" label on something I cannot help but wonder what kinds of hell the children who made said product in a sweatshop go through daily on the job. At the very least they're exposing things to us which we really are better off knowing, although it certainly fucks up with the whole hamburger experience.

And I mean, c'mon! Who among you would feel 100% guilt free eating a little cuttie like Babe, the sheep hurding piglet? I know quite a few people I'd rather sink my teeth into, who are far more deserving of some factory farming torture than any cow. Strictly speaking it wouldn't be "cannibalism" to eat Bush, seeing as he's a capitalist pig... although food poisioning would be almost certain. Mmmm, now I've got a hankerin' for some bourgeois bacon! Better fry me up some of Dick Cheney's back fat.

Vanguard1917

14th July 2007, 03:41

I don't know what your point is, Juice. You need to be clearer.

Never Give In

14th July 2007, 03:52

I believe in Animal Rights, but I'm not an Activist or anything.
I personally think there are much bigger issues to be resolved. As the Patent Pending album/song states "Save Each Other, the Whales are Fine!"

midnight marauder

14th July 2007, 05:25

Oh? I thought my point was pretty clear: you have an irrational opposition to animal rights activists and the movement in general which is based on flawed interpretations of outdated material that has little to nothing to do with the subject at hand. That opposition is wasted energy, and creates unecessary complications with anyone in that movement that you try to persuade toward revolutionary leftism, as well as those who believe in AR who are communists.

Axel1917

14th July 2007, 06:14

The issue of animal rights is a flaming heap of nonsense. It is not a class issue at all, and I for one refuse to live on a diet consisting primarily of lawn clippings.

socialistfuture

14th July 2007, 07:19

and i one of decaying flesh.

its not all about humans eating meat. its also about factory farming - animal welfare, animal torture (of bears, and in some zoo's, and thing like dragging living dogs behind cars). and of course vivisection - experimentation on live animals - like putting liquids in animals eyes to see what the reaction is.

vivisection must be one of the most hated professions there is.
most animal rights activists i know are liberals or anarchists - most being anarchists, with marxists being the most anti animal rights along with capitalists.

anyone seen EARTHLINGS?

The-Spark

14th July 2007, 07:24

I am totally behind socialistfuture, and no animal rights is not a class issue yet it is an issue which effects our future, why should we not take action against it? I believe factory farming in every way barbaric and ignorant.

Tommy-K

14th July 2007, 09:15

An English teacher of mine once said, when asked about animal rights: "Animals do not have 'rights' as such, as with rights come responsoibilities, which animals do not have, whereas human beings do."

I can sympathise with this to a certain extent. But the vast majority of animals serve a purpose, otherwise they would have become extinct during the proccess of evolution. Whether these purposes can be called a 'responsibility' I don't know. Eating animals is ok, as is animal testing to a certain extent. A lot of animal testing can actually be done on unwanted human organs, such as umbilical cords. I do, however, strictly oppose things like battery farms for hens. And I refuse to eat fois gras as the geese are deliberately overfed and fed badly in order to swell their livers so there is more of it, which causes them great pain. I also won't eat veal as the calfs are deliberately made anaemic to make the meat softer. Eating animals is ok as long as they are treated and slaughtered humanely. The same goes for animal testing, although how 'humane' animal testing can be I don't know. We have to remember that animals are living creatures too and should be treated accordingly. It just so happens that we are further evolved.

EDIT: Something which has just come to mind. What is your stance on eating lobster? I have never eaten it and don't know if I will, as they are killed inhumanely (i.e. boiled alive). A sociology teacher of mine likened this to humans being given the electric chair.

Vanguard1917

14th July 2007, 13:14

I believe factory farming in every way barbaric and ignorant.

But it is due to the intensive farming of animals that many people can now afford to eat meat on a regular basis. If intensive farming was to be outlawed tomorrow, output would be reduced, the price of meat would go up considerably, and meat would once again be something people can only afford to consume on special occasions.

In Britain, for example, we now eat 5 times as much chicken as we did 20 years ago. Most of this chicken is produced in factory farms, which can kill up to 9,000 chicken an hour. This kind of output would be impossible using backward farming methods. (excellent article on factory farming (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3517/))

and of course vivisection - experimentation on live animals - like putting liquids in animals eyes to see what the reaction is.

Without testing on animals, medicine as we know it simply would not exist.

As this website (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_PageID=94&i_ToolbarID=8) points out:

'Antibiotics, anaesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukaemia and high blood pressure... these are just some of the major medical advances that have depended on the use of animals in medical research and testing.'

To sum up: if we want humanity to be able to better feed itself and to have greater freedom from illness, factory farming and vivisection are things which we need to defend from those who wish to attack human progress.

Animal rights activists can never be comrades of mine.

socialistfuture

15th July 2007, 03:24

Animal rights activists can never be comrades of mine.

do u support animal cruelty and torture - yes or no,
and do you not like animals - yes or no?

midnight marauder

15th July 2007, 10:52

Animal rights activists can never be comrades of mine.

Fortunately, despite our dietary habits, most of us aren't that picky. I believe in the struggle, and that certainly takes precedence over petty arguments and splitting over something ultimately inconsequential.

AR and revolution are not synonyms. They overlap a great deal because with a change in economic base would necessarily come a great deal consciousness about the practices that we hold for granted, like meat, but they are in no way shape or form mutually exclusive. This is because unlike an anarchist or socialist revolution, substantial and widespread change in eating, production, farming, and anything else that animals are tortured and killed for, has to come with time and with change in the culture. It cannot be dictated, it cannot be overthrown, but has to be completely organic. That's how most of us became vegans or vegetarians in the first place, and that's how we'll continue to grow.

(and believe me -- we are growing!)

Bilan

15th July 2007, 11:17

I take animal liberation seriously. I don't, however, put it above the struggle against capitalism or government.
It's not "bourgeois", that's just rubbish, and way over used.
I disagree strongly with animal testing - or vivisection as a whole. And as for eating meat, I think it comes down to a personal level.
The two - human and animal liberation - are not contradictory at all. I've seen no real logical basis for that.
And Vanguard1917, stop posting bullshit about Nazism and Germany under Nazism. Just because they, the Nazi's might have been against vivisection doesn't mean it, animal rights, was born, or has fascist roots. That's just idiotic.

listener

15th July 2007, 11:55

Animal rights activists can never be comrades of mine.

oh yes, let us never unite because oh how can people dare have an oppinion on their own :blink: No, it's better to support capitalism and the results of greedy capitalism like animal factory and animal torture.
It's easier to find people to blame and to exclose, this is, what we are educated to do.

Vanguard1917

15th July 2007, 14:35

Fortunately, despite our dietary habits, most of us aren't that picky. I believe in the struggle, and that certainly takes precedence over petty arguments and splitting over something ultimately inconsequential.

I don't care what you eat, but if you're trying to get governments to ban vivisection and intensive farming, then you are against medical and economic progress, and you are an enemy of the working class.

And i find it interesting that no one has anything to say about the actual substance of my previous post. Without vivisection, medicine as we know would not exist. Without intensive farming, meat would again be a rarity for the millions of working class people who can now afford to eat meat on a daily basis partly due to advances in meat production.

Bilan

15th July 2007, 14:52

Vanguard1917

I don't care what you eat, but if you're trying to get governments to ban vivisection and intensive farming, then you are against medical and economic progress, and you are an enemy of the working class.

That's total bullshit. If vivisection is doing us harm by it's inaccuracy, it's idiotic to continue to do it because you drape it under the coat of "progress".
Intensive farming lowers meat quality and is bad for us. Pumping that much fat - and other rubbish - into your body is bad for you. America, with the most intense factory farming doesn't have the largest amount of obese people on the planet for no reason (and don't assume I'm not aware of other factors, because I am).

Vivisection and factory farming is bad for humans, and factory farming is bad for the planet.

Humans don't control the environment. Deal with it.

And i find it interesting that no one has anything to say about the actual substance of my previous post. Without vivisection, medicine as we know would not exist. Without intensive farming, meat would again be a rarity for the millions of working class people who can now afford to eat meat on a daily basis partly due to advances in meat production.

It is true that vivisection has brought medical progress, that is true. That does not mean however, that is not an out dated form of science, which can be dangerous, and has been an inch away from stalling medical progress (note the penicillin case).
There are better forms of medical science available, and more should be found.
I've already addressed what's wrong with intensive meat production.
But it should also be worth noting how much land has been destroyed - land that could be used to grow vegetables, etc - has been destroyed by such intensive farming.
And it's again worth noting that, if you replaced many meat farms with ones which grew vegetables, you'd be able to feed much more people.
But I suppose you'll over look that.

Vanguard1917

15th July 2007, 15:09

OK so we need to find ways to improve the quality (as well as the quantity) of the meat that we produce and we need to find better ways to make vivisection work for us. That is beyond doubt; in fact it's a trivial point to make.

But i thought we were talking about animal rights? These are not questions of animal welfare; they are questions of human progress.

Humans don't control the environment. Deal with it.

We obviously do control aspects of the environment. This has come about through historical, economic and technological progress. The point is to take this progress even further.

Led Zeppelin

15th July 2007, 15:14

I don't really give a shit about animal rights, though I do believe it's a shame if they become extinct, so that should be prevented. Also, I believe that we should only breed animals that are of use to us (cows, pigs, chickens etc.) and leave all other animals alone, this includes those animals which are killed for their fur, fuck that shit.

Libber

15th July 2007, 16:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 08:14 am
Animal rights activists can never be comrades of mine.
It's practically the definition of bourgeois to think your exploitation of other creatures is justified by your power to do it.

Tens of millions of people lead long, healthy lives even though they never eat the flesh of any organism of a higher order than plants. That should tell any real revolutionary where his or her food ethics should be centered.

Axel1917

15th July 2007, 23:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:35 pm

Fortunately, despite our dietary habits, most of us aren't that picky. I believe in the struggle, and that certainly takes precedence over petty arguments and splitting over something ultimately inconsequential.

I don't care what you eat, but if you're trying to get governments to ban vivisection and intensive farming, then you are against medical and economic progress, and you are an enemy of the working class.

And i find it interesting that no one has anything to say about the actual substance of my previous post. Without vivisection, medicine as we know would not exist. Without intensive farming, meat would again be a rarity for the millions of working class people who can now afford to eat meat on a daily basis partly due to advances in meat production.
Based on this, is it just me, or are some punkie-hippie animal rights types primitivists?

listener

15th July 2007, 23:19

some alleged revolutionary lefts don't want a real change in society, they only want to continue the same old-ancient ways of *hating*, degrading and supremacy, the only difference then is, that they are in power.
Animal Farm, the most important read, why revolutions alone are worth nothing and true up to today

Noah

16th July 2007, 00:28

If vivisection is doing us harm by it's inaccuracy, it's idiotic to continue to do it because you drape it under the coat of "progress".

Evolutionary changes have caused differences between all things on Earth...Some Animals are really similar to humans though and although vivisection is not a perfect method of research - it has allowed humans to progress in the field of science...That in itself should be a reason for supporting vivisection! Medicine, for example, is one of the greatest benefits to mankind.

Alternative methods are still not accurate enough - if they were then scientists would use them more! Trust me, a computer that tries to emulate the way an animal reacts to a certain substance is way more fucking expensive then a few thousand lab rats...At the end of the day, scientists in this particular time need to use affordable ways of researching and the alternative ways are inaccurate and expensive. It's not worth risking their whole project, at the end of the day the product will be for the 'greater good'. As for testing make-up...fuck that.

I think JUICE raised some good points though...Meat is costly in terms of energy and it could help stop starvation across the globe. Although the capitalists wouldn't let that happen anyway! Exploiting hungry people is the best type of exploitation there is...Do you think the Imperialist Countries will sell vats to grow mycoprotein to Ethiopia? Don't think so, or else they would have already done it!

WE DON'T need to stop eating meat, for third-world countries to harvest mycoprotein. They can do it themselves in vats because mycoprotein are not affected by the climate...Any serious 'rich' government who wanted to stop world hunger would have already been trying to help third world countries use this form of biotechnology...But they're not are they? What makes you think that if people in the western world stopped eating meat, this form of biotechnology will magically be given to the third world countries? A capitalist looking to make money doesn't won't plump strong workers.

Animal rights is largely bullshit. Sure kill an animal humanely and for the right reasons (like meat or warmth ((Not FASHION FUR))...But anything beyond that is stupid.

dannthraxxx

16th July 2007, 01:46

i normally stay out of these arguments because they can go either way. neither is really right. but i dont understand how people can argue for animal testing and other bullshit like vivisection. most animals they test on are not compatible to human beings at all.

for that matter, please proceed to name me a few cures they have come up with through animal testing? our modern medicine has yet to show me anything. we cant cure cancer, we cant stop aids, we cant even cure the fucking common cold. yet, animal testing helps science progress.

i am in no way a primitivist. nor am i one of these insane people who argue that animal rights are synonymous with human rights. however, i dont see how pouring chemicals on chimpanzees in a laboratory in order to make sure shitty make-up doesnt break out some uppity human who wants to enhance their looks?

it's like testing cigarettes on dogs, i'm sure hooking a mask up to a dogs mouth/nose and forcing it to suck smoke is the same as a human smoking cigarettes.

but whatever man, i'm retarded.

Bilan

16th July 2007, 02:35

Vanguard1917

OK so we need to find ways to improve the quality (as well as the quantity) of the meat that we produce and we need to find better ways to make vivisection work for us. That is beyond doubt; in fact it's a trivial point to make.

Or perhaps we should put our energy into using products that are not only easier to distribute, grow quicker, and are better for us?!!? Perhaps we should use scientific methods that are more reliable?
It's not beyond doubt. Vivisection is out dated crap.

But i thought we were talking about animal rights? These are not questions of animal welfare; they are questions of human progress.

we are talking about animal rights and it's relation with human progress, because you're making it out as if the two have to clash, when in reality, they don't.

Yardstick

16th July 2007, 05:40

So, besides the numerous negatives that eating meat entails many of which I have posted about, what allows something to have rights? This conversation wont get anywhere untill it is established what gives one thing rights, and something else, nothing?

midnight marauder

16th July 2007, 06:03

I wasn't planning on posting in this thread again (it seems very few people are interested in having a real discussion about AR -- bashers will bash, supporters will support, even when they do so through inaccuracies, straw men, and generally bad logic) but I noticed something about a few posts that I thought was rather interesting.

Several posters said that they don't believe in animal rights or welfare, but still opposed the fur industry.

Why?

If animals don't have rights, why does it matter?

Recognizing that vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are easily attainable (and usually cheaper to sustain), how is the necessity of fur any different than the necessity of meat?

My suspicion is that you all aren't cold hearted bastards who love hurting animals, but that you recognize the "inhumanity" of torturing and systematically killing beings which feel physical pain. This is really the only answer I could think of that would remedy the contradictions of this interesting position, or honestly, any position which afforded animals any righs in any circumstance, but not when it comes to food.

How do you justify these contradictions?

xskater11x

16th July 2007, 07:15

Sadly, I have to admit my rationalizing goes no further then I am not on top of the food chain to limit my selection of what I can eat. Though that may sound rash, there are a great deal of animals who would kill humans for food if they had the chance, though we eat very few of them, it is natural animal instinct to eat what is "below" you on the food chain.

As for animals rights, I believe, we as animals ourselves, have the right to eat other animals, but on a more generally accepted definition of animals being all things not human, animals should not be used for anything besides what slaughtering for food can produce as a bi-product. Animal testing and other practices like vivisection, are extremely unnecessary and extremely cruel.

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 07:49

My suspicion is that you all aren't cold hearted bastards who love hurting animals, but that you recognize the "inhumanity" of torturing and systematically killing beings which feel physical pain.

Does it matter to you if animals are killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull?

midnight marauder

16th July 2007, 07:58

Though that may sound rash, there are a great deal of animals who would kill humans for food if they had the chance, though we eat very few of them, it is natural animal instinct to eat what is "below" you on the food chain.

Is it still natural instict if you have the choice whether or not to follow it?

Are you really instinctually inclined to eat meat? Do you hunt with crude weapons rabbits in your backyard? Do you swerve on the road to hit squirrels? Do you pick mice from traps and save them for sustenance? Or do you buy your food from a grocery store or resteraunt?

As the Woody Allen quote goes, "I'm not afraid of death...I just don't want to be there when it happens!" People who have the privelege of an access to animal products like this are so incredibly divorced from the actual process of eating meat that it's hard for me to believe at all that anyone would have the "natural instinct" to consume processed animal products.

What it really comes down to is this: 1) unlike other animals, "natural instinct" is an almost meaningless term when applied to humans because we have the choice of whether or not to follow it, and 2) even assuming it exists, it is in no way "natural" to use animals in the ways that we do in the first place.

Does it matter to you if animals are killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull?

I would say that it definitely does matter to me, just as it would matter to me if an innocent person were to be killed painlessly.

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 08:10

People who have the privelege of an access to animal products like this are so incredibly divorced from the actual process of eating meat that it's hard for me to believe at all that anyone would have the "natural instinct" to consume processed animal products.

First off, I don't know if it is that great of a privelege to eat animal prodects in today's world. Certainly in the US the working poor have access to nearly unlimited caloires, though most of those calories are in an unhealthy form- trans fats and the like. Some of those calories come from meat. I would guess they eat healther, meat and otherwise, if they had the access, time, and money.

Indeed, in the rest of the world some people get much less or maybe no meat at all, but I would think that they would want to consume those products if they could. In much poorer populations and meat scarce areas, meat is considerereda culutral delicacy and desired by the poor which they gladly consume in ritual events and other special occasions. Though that is not to say that it is a "natural instinct." It could be for taste, cultural preference, and certainly the protein that it provides.

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 08:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:58 am

Does it matter to you if animals are killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull?

I would say that it definitely does matter to me, just as it would matter to me if an innocent person were to be killed painlessly.
Clearly.

Sorry for being unclear. I was intending something else.

More specifically, would you eat meat if or use animal products if they were killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?

midnight marauder

16th July 2007, 09:01

First off, I don't know if it is that great of a privelege to eat animal prodects in today's world. Certainly in the US the working poor have access to nearly unlimited caloires, though most of those calories are in an unhealthy form- trans fats and the like. Some of those calories come from meat. I would guess they eat healther, meat and otherwise, if they had the access, time, and money.

You're absolutely right about this, most of the world has readily available access to meant and other animal products. In the United States people of almost all income levels (except for the very lowest income families and individuals, or those living in very remote areas) have access to a wide variety of food, meat or otherwise. I was referring more in specific to factory farmed meat. If you live in the US, more than likely you have the ability to easily eliminate meat and other animal products for your diet with very little effort, cost, or time. In fact, not only has my health improved, but I save a quite a bit of money being vegan! :lol:

Indeed, in the rest of the world some people get much less or maybe no meat at all, but I would think that they would want to consume those products if they could. In much poorer populations and meat scarce areas, meat is considerereda culutral delicacy and desired by the poor which they gladly consume in ritual events and other special occasions. Though that is not to say that it is a "natural instinct." It could be for taste, cultural preference, and certainly the protein that it provides.

I don't know what cultures you're talking about, but even assuming this to be just a hypothetical, yes, they probably would want to eat meat. Far from being restricted to "poor cultures" or cultures with historically little access to meat, eating flesh is a part of many different customs from around the world. I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this, but I certainly would be opposed to accepting cultural tradtions as justifying an action morally.

Sorry for being unclear. I was intending something else.

More specifically, would you eat meat if or use animal products if they were killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?

To be honest, I'm still not really understanding the distinction between animals being "killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull" and animals "killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?" But I'd be happy to answer your question if you were looking for something different than my response before, of course.

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 09:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:01 am

Sorry for being unclear. I was intending something else.

More specifically, would you eat meat if or use animal products if they were killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?

To be honest, I'm still not really understanding the distinction between animals being "killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull" and animals "killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?" But I'd be happy to answer your question if you were looking for something different than my response before, of course.
lol, again, confusion from a would-be strait foward question.

The later half of the sentance was not important; non-painful manner or in a way that is not painfull has the same meaning. I don't care if you care (or at least I knew you would care), which was the first question you answered. The second rewording was; would actually you eat the meat in question

So the question is: would you eat meat farmed and killed in that manner?

Vargha Poralli

16th July 2007, 09:55

Originally posted by Pawn Power+July 16, 2007 01:48 pm--> (Pawn Power @ July 16, 2007 01:48 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 03:01 am

Sorry for being unclear. I was intending something else.

More specifically, would you eat meat if or use animal products if they were killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?

To be honest, I'm still not really understanding the distinction between animals being "killed and farmed in a way that is not painfull" and animals "killed and farmed in a non-painfull manner?" But I'd be happy to answer your question if you were looking for something different than my response before, of course.
lol, again, confusion from a would-be strait foward question.

The later half of the sentance was not important; non-painful manner or in a way that is not painfull has the same meaning. I don't care if you care (or at least I knew you would care), which was the first question you answered. The second rewording was; would actually you eat the meat in question

So the question is: would you eat meat farmed and killed in that manner? [/b]
Your question is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

How can an animal be killed without causing pain to it ? Pain is an natural impulse to most of the animals to defend itself. We get pain if we get hurt because it indicates us there is something wrong in the part of our body. The same holds true for animals. So for animals to be killed in an unpainfull manner some sort of surgery should be done in them for their body not send those signals to its brain.

Or some other scenario if the animal is administered chloroform or some type of anaesthesia to lose its consciousness before being killed.

I specifically stopped eating meat once I have witnessed the way a Goat and a Chicken is butchered.

And vegetarianism should be treated like a religion IMO.It is best to keep it ourself and do not force others to see our ways. When no people eat meat then we can stop killing animals.

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 10:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:55 am

Your question is simply ridiculous in my opinion.

How can an animal be killed without causing pain to it ? Pain is an natural impulse to most of the animals to defend itself. We get pain if we get hurt because it indicates us there is something wrong in the part of our body. The same holds true for animals. So for animals to be killed in an unpainfull manner some sort of surgery should be done in them for their body not send those signals to its brain.

Or some other scenario if the animal is administered chloroform or some type of anaesthesia to lose its consciousness before being killed.

I specifically stopped eating meat once I have witnessed the way a Goat and a Chicken is butchered.

And vegetarianism should be treated like a religion IMO.It is best to keep it ourself and do not force others to see our ways. When no people eat meat then we can stop killing animals.
Well I can't speak from experience because I never have died but I would guess that a nearly instantaneous death, say from a bullet to the brain, etc., would be rather painless in that one would be dead before any of those pain receptors would take action.

However, the means by which this would occure is not important to my question which is more conditonal and ethical in nature. If one does not eat meat merely becuase in causes pain and that pain causing pain is morally wronge, it is quite different from one eating meat on the grounds that it is immoral in and of itself.

Libber

16th July 2007, 12:06

A recent experiment (reported in Science, iirc) has demonstrated self-awareness in rats.

One of the more sophisticated bourgeois arguments for exploiting non-humans is/was that they are not self-aware, not "people", and are thus so far from humankind in their nature that we need accord them no rights. That, of course, is nothing but an updated version of the "they don't feel x" excuse previously used, and not only about non-humans.

Are we really revolutionaries at all, if we willingly remain mired in false consciousness, happy to exploit members of other species for no better reason than the fact that we have the power to do it? How are we different to the ruling class, who exploit us because they can?

listener

16th July 2007, 12:14

Libber, you are really refreshing :-)

RevMARKSman

16th July 2007, 15:18

Are we really revolutionaries at all, if we willingly remain mired in false consciousness, happy to exploit members of other species for no better reason than the fact that we have the power to do it? How are we different to the ruling class, who exploit us because they can?
We're not different. We're just on the other side of the picket lines, and it's in our material interest to not only overthrow the bourgeoisie, but use animals for our own benefit, because we can. The animals will not "rise up and overthrow us" so we have nothing to worry about. It's quite simple if you don't resort to moralizing.

There is no need to grant any rights, to anyone. Society only makes extant rights that people deem are useful to their material interests. Since it isn't in our material interest to grant animals rights, we don't. End of story.

Vanguard1917

16th July 2007, 15:32

Or perhaps we should put our energy into using products that are not only easier to distribute, grow quicker, and are better for us?!!? Perhaps we should use scientific methods that are more reliable?
It's not beyond doubt. Vivisection is out dated crap.

This is all obvious bullshit, as medical scientists and researchers will tell you.

Here is the RDS website's page covering the myths (and deliberate lies) circulated about animal testing by the animal rights lobby:
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.as...D=2&i_PageID=48 (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=2&i_PageID=48)

Here is another website covering many frequently asked questions about animal testing:
http://www.armyths.org/

A recent experiment (reported in Science, iirc) has demonstrated self-awareness in rats.

One of the more sophisticated bourgeois arguments for exploiting non-humans is/was that they are not self-aware, not "people", and are thus so far from humankind in their nature that we need accord them no rights. That, of course, is nothing but an updated version of the "they don't feel x" excuse previously used, and not only about non-humans.

Are we really revolutionaries at all, if we willingly remain mired in false consciousness, happy to exploit members of other species for no better reason than the fact that we have the power to do it? How are we different to the ruling class, who exploit us because they can?

Jesus Christ. Do you really hate human beings that much?

To answer your idiotic question: we are human beings. Rats are animals. Take your misanthropic nonsense elsewhere.

apathy maybe

16th July 2007, 15:42

Just to jump in to respond to that last stupid ignorant comment by Vanguard1917

We are all animals. Rats are animals, human beings are animals. Denial doesn't get you anywhere.

Vanguard1917

16th July 2007, 15:44

And what conclusions do you draw from equating human beings with rodents?

apathy maybe

16th July 2007, 15:54

One, I didn't equate "human beings with rodents", except to state that they are all animals. If you think I am doing so, then you are equating lions with rodents, dolphins with rodents, elephants with rodents and so on.

Two, some rodents are indeed more intelligent then some humans, more capable of moving etc.

And finally, do you dispute that humans are animals too? If so, what basis do you have for such a claim.

Vanguard1917

16th July 2007, 16:04

The point is that we are different from all other animals in the fundamental sense that only human beings can consciously master their natural enviromment. This means bringing nature (including animals) under the conscious control of humanity. This is how human beings have progressed - by mastering their material surroundings in order to make it serve human ends.

No other animal is capable of this - neither rat nor chimpanzee. That's what makes human beings so special and unique in comparison with other animal beings.

----

Also, i thought humans and animals were so different that it's pointless to experiment on animals in order to further human medicine? Now we seem to be saying that human beings and animals are too similar for us to exploit them for human ends. Where's the consistency here?

joser03

16th July 2007, 16:05

I just watched the movie, Fast Food Nation and I'm one step away from being a vegetarian. And for the record, I love to eat steaks, ribs, burgers, etc.

We are animals. We are part of the Animal Kingdom. Our ancestors, from the beginning to now, have hunted and ate meat. It is part of our diet. What I am against are the farms in which animals are grown in mass numbers in filthy and horrible conditions. In the past, our ancestors respected the animals they killed and ate. These animals gave them life. I will not stop eating meat but there needs some type of respect for nature and for the animals. It's truly sickening how these animals live and die. And because of their horrible conditions, we put our own health at risk. As for animal rights in general, we are all part of nature and I believe that we need to respect ourselves as well as everything around us, from other people, to the animals, to the oceans, to the trees. Is this some hippie-shit? No. It's a matter of taking care of our home and everything that lives within it.

Vanguard1917

16th July 2007, 16:15

I love to eat steaks, ribs, burgers, etc.

One of the reasons that millions of working class people in the West can now afford to eat meat on a daily basis is because of the advance of intensive farming methods.

If we were to outlaw intensive farming, meat would once again be a rarity - something that only the rich can enjoy.

Of course intensive farming can be improved and needs to be improved in order improve the quality (and the quantity) of the produce. But this will not happen by going back to the ways of our 'ancestors', as you put it.

We need a rational approach to farming animals - not the sentimental disneyland approach that the animal rights lobby seems to have. (Beatle Paul McCartney said that he became a supporter of animal rights after watching Bambi, for instance.)

joser03

16th July 2007, 16:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:15 pm

I love to eat steaks, ribs, burgers, etc.

One of the reasons that millions of working class people in the West can now afford to eat meat on a daily basis is because of the advance of intensive farming methods.

If we were to outlaw intensive farming, meat would once again be a rarity - something that only the rich can enjoy.

Of course intensive farming can be improved and needs to be improved in order improve the quality (and the quantity) of the produce. But this will not happen by going back to the ways of our 'ancestors', as you put it.

We need a rational approach to farming animals - not the sentimental disneyland approach that the animal rights lobby seems to have. (Beatle Paul McCartney said that he became a supporter of animal rights after watching Bambi, for instance.)
I don't know what you read. I never implied that we need to go back to hiding in the bushes and killing cows with bows and arrows. I stated that our ancestors respected the animals that gave them life. I also implied that there needs to be a more humane and respectful way for harvesting and slaughtering animals. Not just throwing them in shitholes, packed like sardines. Foll of diseases. It's disgusting and cruel.

Vanguard1917

16th July 2007, 16:37

I stated that our ancestors respected the animals that gave them life. I also implied that there needs to be a more humane and respectful way for harvesting and slaughtering animals. Not just throwing them in shitholes, packed like sardines. Foll of diseases. It's disgusting and cruel.

Full of diseases? Shitholes? I think you're being a touch dramatic.

The point is, yes of course there is room for improvement. The bottom line is that we need to strive to improve meat production - quality as well as quantity - in order to provide for people.

This has little to do with sentimental concepts like 'respecting animals'. We need a human-centred, rational approach.

bloody_capitalist_sham

16th July 2007, 16:53

What about the animals rights when a lion kills a zebra? Maybe we should isolate all predator animals away from all pray animals so they dont violate one anothers rights. Because since they deserve to be protected and not eaten by humans (the top predator) all animals should be afforded the same right to not being eaten by other predators?

Or would that be interfering? Do the rights not apply if the lion needs to eat the zebra?

Why all this mystical thinking on humans, we are just another part of the food chain. A lion would eat me if he could you know. :o

xskater11x

16th July 2007, 17:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:58 am
Are you really instinctually inclined to eat meat? Do you hunt with crude weapons rabbits in your backyard? Do you swerve on the road to hit squirrels? Do you pick mice from traps and save them for sustenance? Or do you buy your food from a grocery store or resteraunt?
To say the least, I theoretically would hunt if meat were not available in such an easier manner. No solid evidence has ever proved a vegan lifestyle to be better then a lifestyle of meat eating, though some suggest a 5-7 year increase on lifespan.

Or would that be interfering? Do the rights not apply if the lion needs to eat the zebra?

That was where I was heading in my post as well, attempting to justify it through natural instinct and if they can we can reasoning. I see no reason we should not be allowed to kill animals, though be it vastly more, if other animals can.

Libber

16th July 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:14 am
Libber, you are really refreshing :-)
Thank you. If I may, I'll return the compliment :)

Back in the '70s, when we were fighting sexism every day, there was a half-joke floating around that testosterone is a poison. Gradually, though, the women in the group I belonged to started to take it more seriously, possibly because we were mostly biologists, psychologists, anthros, physicians, and similar, with a smattering of other fields. The more we looked at it, the less like a joke it seemed.

We eventually concluded, quite seriously, that it probably is a kind of poison to certain men, and even a few women, because their brains can't handle it. It makes them behave with stupidity, aggression, lack of empathy, and other regressive characteristics.

We agreed that such men should be castrated, for their own benefit and that of society in general. Nothing I've seen over the past ca. 35 years since then has made me doubt our conclusion.

I think we're seeing some such men in this thread. What do you think?

Libber

16th July 2007, 19:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:53 am
What about the animals rights when a lion kills a zebra? Maybe we should isolate all predator animals away from all pray animals so they dont violate one anothers rights. Because since they deserve to be protected and not eaten by humans (the top predator) all animals should be afforded the same right to not being eaten by other predators?

Or would that be interfering? Do the rights not apply if the lion needs to eat the zebra?

Why all this mystical thinking on humans, we are just another part of the food chain. A lion would eat me if he could you know. :o
In general. predator species have no choice. They're not omnivorous, as humans and simians are. They're carnivores. If forced to by humans, they can survive on a carefully constructed vegetable diet. But it's not in any way natural.

Humans have choices.

listener

16th July 2007, 19:33

I think we're seeing some such men in this thread. What do you think?

Yes, when I read some posts of this thread, it is stunning, it is disappointing. And I agree: We had evolution, our brain could work brilliantly, but many, predominantly men, let solely their basic instincts work: Dominance, aggression and destruction. I thought about one thing: Has there ever been a female dictator?
Perhaps castration would be an option? I don't know, but I think it works with horses etc;-)

Pawn Power

16th July 2007, 22:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:11 pm

We agreed that such men should be castrated, for their own benefit and that of society in general. Nothing I've seen over the past ca. 35 years since then has made me doubt our conclusion.

I think we're seeing some such men in this thread. What do you think?
Why does your testosterone, though I would characterize it as dementia, cause you to want to mutilate anothers body against their will?

listener

16th July 2007, 22:40

yes, it would be Eugenics. An idea of men.
So we have to live with power-obsessed, aggressive men until the final day X.
What will come sooner: Collapse of planet earth because of destruction or the botton pressed of some nuclear weapons?

Dr Mindbender

17th July 2007, 00:27

Originally posted by Libber+July 16, 2007 06:26 pm--> (Libber @ July 16, 2007 06:26 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:53 am
What about the animals rights when a lion kills a zebra? Maybe we should isolate all predator animals away from all pray animals so they dont violate one anothers rights. Because since they deserve to be protected and not eaten by humans (the top predator) all animals should be afforded the same right to not being eaten by other predators?

Or would that be interfering? Do the rights not apply if the lion needs to eat the zebra?

Why all this mystical thinking on humans, we are just another part of the food chain. A lion would eat me if he could you know. :o
In general. predator species have no choice. They're not omnivorous, as humans and simians are. They're carnivores. If forced to by humans, they can survive on a carefully constructed vegetable diet. But it's not in any way natural.

Humans have choices. [/b]
Mankind has existed predominately on meat since homo sapiens evolved. We have evolved to eat meat, and its what our anatomy is used to. The evidence shows that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy, which is why veggies tend to be physically weaker than omnivores and have to take vitamin supplements.

listener

17th July 2007, 00:30

I have been a vegetarian since 26 years. I am very healthy and I don't take any artificial vitamins

Dr Mindbender

17th July 2007, 00:33

im not sure which but theres a mineral your body needs which is only available naturally in red meats. I think its Vitamin D.

Jazzratt

17th July 2007, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:40 pm
yes, it would be Eugenics. An idea of men.
That doesn't sound like the eugenics I know that sounds like insane bullshit. Just thought you needed a heads up.

So we have to live with power-obsessed, aggressive men until the final day X.

Afraid so. At the same time we have to live with psychotic little fucks like yourself that wish to dominate society with the threat of emasculation for their male opponents? What of women that speak out against your "human equal with animals" society? You going to fill their vaginas with polyfilla or something equally batshit?

What will come sooner: Collapse of planet earth because of destruction or the botton pressed of some nuclear weapons?

The mass exodus of humanity beyond the confines of this little corner of the solar system and into the big wide galaxy beyond.

joser03

17th July 2007, 02:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:37 pm

I stated that our ancestors respected the animals that gave them life. I also implied that there needs to be a more humane and respectful way for harvesting and slaughtering animals. Not just throwing them in shitholes, packed like sardines. Foll of diseases. It's disgusting and cruel.

Full of diseases? Shitholes? I think you're being a touch dramatic.

The point is, yes of course there is room for improvement. The bottom line is that we need to strive to improve meat production - quality as well as quantity - in order to provide for people.

This has little to do with sentimental concepts like 'respecting animals'. We need a human-centred, rational approach.
No, I am not being a little bit dramatic. There are numerous farms which the term SHITHOLE would and does apply oh-so-nicely. And we are eating this meat. And additionally, little of the meat is properly inspected. Perhaps that is why many countries refuse to buy our meat.

I am looking at this through various angles. One, it's not healthy for us. We're eating this stuff. Wouldn't it be nice to know that the burger you're eating doesn't have actual shit in it? Two, there needs to some type of respect for the animals. I'm not saying give them a little massage, a bath, paint their hooves, and sing a little song to them. What I am saying is that there is no reason to treat animals in the way that many of these farms do. A dog owner would not dare treat their family pet in inhumane ways (though many do.) Not because it's a "pet" but because it's a living animal. I guess it's just my way of seeing the world. I try to have a respect for the living world and appreciate it, and I do understand nature. Animals eat animals. But there's nothing natural about the way business is conducted.

Alright, talk amongst yourselves. I'm done.

apathy maybe

17th July 2007, 09:17

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 17, 2007 01:33 am
im not sure which but theres a mineral your body needs which is only available naturally in red meats. I think its Vitamin D.
Nope. Vitamin D is produced in the body using sunlight.

Various vitamin B's are found in leafy green vegetables, mushrooms, legumes (beans...), onions etc.

Iron is found in various vegetables, including mushrooms, leafy green vegetables etc.

As well, various vitamins are found in milk, milk products and eggs if you aren't a vegan.

Basically, it is perfectly possible to have a healthy protein full diet eating only vegetable products (i.e. vegan). It is possible to do so with out resorting to supplements, pills or "artificial" food (e.g. soy milk with extra vitamins).

Just make sure to eat a varied diet with lots of legumes, nuts, vegetables and fruit. You'll get everything you need.

Libber

17th July 2007, 10:26

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 16, 2007 05:32 pm
Why does your testosterone, though I would characterize it as dementia, cause you to want to mutilate anothers body against their will?
I thought I said. We'll do it, if we get the chance, for their own good and the good of society. It will relieve them of being poisoned, and if we catch them early enough, relieve society of their aggressions.

Libber

17th July 2007, 10:32

Originally posted by Jazzratt+July 16, 2007 08:42 pm--> (Jazzratt @ July 16, 2007 08:42 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 09:40 pm
yes, it would be Eugenics. An idea of men.
That doesn't sound like the eugenics I know that sounds like insane bullshit. Just thought you needed a heads up.

So we have to live with power-obsessed, aggressive men until the final day X.

Afraid so. At the same time we have to live with psychotic little fucks like yourself that wish to dominate society with the threat of emasculation for their male opponents? What of women that speak out against your "human equal with animals" society? You going to fill their vaginas with polyfilla or something equally batshit?

What will come sooner: Collapse of planet earth because of destruction or the botton pressed of some nuclear weapons?

The mass exodus of humanity beyond the confines of this little corner of the solar system and into the big wide galaxy beyond. [/b]
If you're intentionally simulating t-poisoning, you should probably flag it as a parody somewhere down near the bottom so that we know you're not serious.

listener

17th July 2007, 10:35

Afraid so. At the same time we have to live with psychotic little fucks like yourself that wish to dominate society with the threat of emasculation for their male opponents?

White supremacy created a language which you display. Name calling, aggression. I didn't threat anybody, it's your interpretation, because many with ingrained supremacy feel immediately threatend and want immediately degrade others.
This board is a perfect example of human's hypocrisy.
The 'revolution' starts within oneself and to find peace and confidence and honesty within oneself.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 10:49

Okay two things.

Libber, your extreme authoritarianism is simply disgusting. castrating people is what Hitler and the Nazi's do!!

You even call yourself a 'libertarian socialist'. Its completely disgusting and you show an obvious lack of any real social understanding of crime. For you, you have used biology to demonize an enemy. Again much like the Nazi's. :angry: Be ashamed.

listener

You are a mysandristic mystic. And, they are not often found on a website for the REVOLUTIONARY LEFT.

You are advocating a line that totally rejects reality. You simply need to read some Marx because frankly, your 'hating' and advocacy of social engineering through eugenics and castration in Nazi style authoritarianism.

Why don't the both of you leave Revleft and go post at storm front. They will love you there.

listener

17th July 2007, 10:56

First: mysandristic: what's that? I couldn't find this word in my dictionary.
Second: I didn't promote forced sterilization.
Third: Why should I leave this board? As long as "revolutionary lefts" use the same language and tactics like their counterparts, they are not better. You want to put me into box while you have really no idea who I am and what I do to combat white supremacy.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 11:07

First: mysandristic: what's that? I couldn't find this word in my dictionary

I made it up. It means you hate guys. as you have shown in this thread.

I didn't promote forced sterilization.

Urm, castration would be what? voluntary? gimme a break.

Third: Why should I leave this board? As long as "revolutionary lefts" use the same language and tactics like their counterparts, they are not better. You want to put me into box while you have really no idea who I am and what I do to combat white supremacy.

Who is the 'revolutionary lefts' counter parts? what language/tactics do we use that is the same?

I can see that you are totally disillusional, and thats the box your a stuck in.

listener

17th July 2007, 11:12

I hate men? rofl, such a bullshit.
And for your information: Eugenics wasn't only a German thing, also America has a long history of forced sterilization

what language/tactics do we use that is the same?

I see, you have to learn a lot to really understand the system you allegedly want to fight

Libber

17th July 2007, 11:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 05:49 am
Okay two things.

Libber, your extreme authoritarianism is simply disgusting. castrating people is what Hitler and the Nazi's do!!

You even call yourself a 'libertarian socialist'. Its completely disgusting and you show an obvious lack of any real social understanding of crime. For you, you have used biology to demonize an enemy. Again much like the Nazi's. :angry: Be ashamed.

listener

You are a mysandristic mystic. And, they are not often found on a website for the REVOLUTIONARY LEFT.

You are advocating a line that totally rejects reality. You simply need to read some Marx because frankly, your 'hating' and advocacy of social engineering through eugenics and castration in Nazi style authoritarianism.

Why don't the both of you leave Revleft and go post at storm front. They will love you there.
You sound like another case of t-poisoning. Several people in this thread have said that the only justification needed for some action is the ability to do it. I didn't notice you getting all huffy at them. That kind of blurry, aggressive, self-centeredness is rather characteristic of what my group identified as t-poisoning. (It shows up in alcoholism, too. Alc is another substance that attacks high-order brain processes. The AA literature calls it "stinking thinking")

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 11:21

Well since T-poisoning is a myth, your argument is bunk. :rolleyes:

You sound like a liberal who has come to some very stupid conclusions. biological mysticism.

listener

17th July 2007, 11:30

Everybody who promotes animal factories, promotes capitalism.
Animal factoring is the result of GREED, the need for CHEAP products and the DISRESPECT for all forms of life humans regard as LESS WORTH than themselves.

You are even not willing to really understand what I am saying in this thread. No, it is the typical white supremacy tactic to pic one sentence out, to interpret it that way you need it to bash, to excluse, to personally attack.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 11:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:12 am
I hate men? rofl, such a bullshit.
And for your information: Eugenics wasn't only a German thing, also America has a long history of forced sterilization

what language/tactics do we use that is the same?

I see, you have to learn a lot to really understand the system you allegedly want to fight
I see, you are unable to answer. I was right about you.

Libber

17th July 2007, 11:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:21 am
Well since T-poisoning is a myth, your argument is bunk. :rolleyes:

You sound like a liberal who has come to some very stupid conclusions. biological mysticism.
No, t-poisoning is a hypothesis, not a myth. You should learn the difference.

We saw certain behaviors and hypothesised a cause. The data we saw then and see today is consistent with the hypothesis. You're welcome to offer a different hypothesis, if you think you have one that explains the data better.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 11:44

Well, it is not a scientific hypothesis. It's totally rejected by the scientific world, all studies have shown it to be false.

apathy maybe

17th July 2007, 11:44

The testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/testosterone) bullshit should be split out. Testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone) is not a poison any more then vitamin C is. Testosterone poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone+poisoning) is made up bullshit.

If you can provide an actual scientific study (I don't care who it is from, so long as the method is repeatable, and the methodology isn't flawed) that shows that testosterone is a problem, then please link to it.

Libber

17th July 2007, 12:02

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 17, 2007 06:44 am
The testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/testosterone) bullshit should be split out. Testosterone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone) is not a poison any more then vitamin C is. Testosterone poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone+poisoning) is made up bullshit.

If you can provide an actual scientific study (I don't care who it is from, so long as the method is repeatable, and the methodology isn't flawed) that shows that testosterone is a problem, then please link to it.
No, it's not "made-up bullshit", it's a hypothesis derived from observed data. We stalled out at that point because we couldn't think of a way to test it that would pass ethics screening. So unless someone else came up with a way that we couldn't think of, then it's never been tested.

Please note, before you take it personally, that none of us thought that all men suffer from it. As far as we could tell, it results in specific behaviors and attitudes (arrogance, aggression, certain kinds of stupidity, lack of empathy, etc. What might be called a "Masters of the Universe" syndrome) only displayed by some men and a tiny number of women. It shows up in affected males when they're young, and in women as they age, which is why we zeroed in on T.

Note that steroids are known to cause aggression and other anti-social behaviors. T is a steroid.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th July 2007, 12:21

I believe in animal welfare, but not animal rights. I don't think it's right to kill and maim animals purely for amusement, but at the same time I think that equating animal and human lives by granting animals "rights" (which most if not all species cannot even grasp as a concept) will lead to crimes against humanity - one example being the retardation of the field of medicine's development, which has relied greatly on animal testing.

As for diet, each to their own. As long as you aren't eating endangered species why should it matter?

LuÃs Henrique

17th July 2007, 12:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 06:33 pm
Has there ever been a female dictator?
Ersebet Bathory.

Luís Henrique

listener

17th July 2007, 12:45

I see, you are unable to answer. I was right about you.

some of this tactics you display on this very thread: Putting somebody into a box immediately, not interested if this is right or wrong and then treating somebody based on this assumption. No longer adressing the topic, but attacking the poster.
Learn about the term *othering* and try to understand, that you just do this.

And thinking about possible reasons, why white history and present is the way it is, shouldn't be a taboo. That somebody thinks about possible reasons doesn't mean that somebody promotes probable solutions.
I also did a research about empathy, the lack of empathy and reasons for the lack of it. There a diseases causing the inability to feel empathy. To understand a system and why it can work troughout history you have to dig deeper. In a free society it should be allowed to think about all possibilities.
It is much more than 'smashing' right-wingers and all other people you don't like.
The *fight* is way to much emotionally driven and this is the reason why it doesn't work and why there is no real change within society.

Again, the first step to end white supremacy is to be honest to oneself and to realize how ingrained it is in us. Only then you can start to free yourself and only then you can perhaps make a difference.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 13:22

some of this tactics you display on this very thread: Putting somebody into a box immediately, not interested if this is right or wrong and then treating somebody based on this assumption. No longer adressing the topic, but attacking the poster.
Learn about the term *othering* and try to understand, that you just do this.

You are right i do. I see a petty bourgeois individualist ideology, and i oppose it from a working class Marxist materialist position.

Marxism (and collectivist forms of anarchism) are hostile to individualist ideologies. An individualist ideology that says it bad for humans to mistreat animals, but ok to castrate the "socially regressive".

I don't however, attack you personally, it is you who attacks people hostile to your mystical ideology.

listener

17th July 2007, 13:24

and I want to continue with animal factoring, please answer my questions:
Where do anti-capitalists get the food to feed the masses of animals
who will take care for the animals?
Who will do the mass-killing of the animals?
How would you distribute the produced meat?

A reminder: Animal factoring only takes place because of the capitalistic need to produce products as cheap as possible.
In a society which is about liberation of the people/workers, animal factoring just doesn't make any sense. It only demonstrates the convenience you are used to, to go to a super market and to buy the food you need.

listener

17th July 2007, 13:28

but ok to castrate the "socially regressive".

I didn't promote castration. Most of all not forced sterilization. I am not 'mystic', but I think outside the box, in general.

You are not able or not willing to understand what I am saying, but I don't care

listener

17th July 2007, 13:32

Marxism (and collectivist forms of anarchism) are hostile to individualist ideologies

I will NEVER stop thinking on my own

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 13:34

Where do anti-capitalists get the food to feed the masses of animals

State farms will grow it.

who will take care for the animals?

Workers....who else?

Who will do the mass-killing of the animals?

Some more workers, who are skilled in their trade. I think they are called industrial butchers or something.

How would you distribute the produced meat?

We would sell it in shops, in a socialist society.

You seem to be thinking production of meat food stuffs can only occur under capitalism.

The more automated the process is, the less human labor involved in the process, the cheaper the meat will be.

Libber

17th July 2007, 13:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:28 am

but ok to castrate the "socially regressive".

I didn't promote castration. Most of all not forced sterilization.
Don't bother trying to explain anything to him. He's already revealed the basic dullness, aggression, and lack of empathy (especially the lack of empathy!) characteristic of what I'm calling t-poisoning. As you already noted, he's really not able to listen to either of us or understand what we're saying.

listener

17th July 2007, 13:58

bcs: with your answer: Where is the real difference to capitalism?

listener

17th July 2007, 14:00

Libber, yes, I realized it. But you know, it is easy to call oneself revolutionary and to BE revolutionary = thinking outside the comfortable, well-known box.
And regardless which propaganda, it is always effective as long as people reject to really think on their own.

Do you have deeper knowledge about empathy etc.?

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 14:03

bcs: with your answer: Where is the real difference to capitalism?

The workers get to run everything democratically, they get to plan everything on a rational basis.

Just look at Cuba, its a third world country with the healthcare and education levels above those of first world nations.

And, it has achieved all this, when constrained by a international capitalist system, and a USSR that liked to use it for political reasons.

changes in who runs society, means changes in how society runs. Workers in political power will plan a better system than capitalism, not a worse one!

midnight marauder

17th July 2007, 14:05

No, it's not "made-up bullshit", it's a hypothesis derived from observed data. We stalled out at that point because we couldn't think of a way to test it that would pass ethics screening. So unless someone else came up with a way that we couldn't think of, then it's never been tested.

Scientific Method 101: A hypothesis isn't regarded as true until it's evaluated and proven correct. Correlation between someone being agressive and someone being male does NOT imply any relationship between the two other than coincidence.

To pretend that such a sentiment is true is to create more arbitrary dividing lines across the sex/gender spectrum. How can you seriously be a feminist and support this brand of stereotyping? It's a short step from misandrony, and does nothing to help the cause, and everything to hinder it.

That's essentially the same arguement white supremacists use on Stormfront. That there's some type of scientific basis behind percieved racial differences, and that that justifies all types of oppression against them. Be it psychological (stereotyping and prejudice) or physical (castration, sterilization), you're argueing the same thing.

Fortunately no one in the scientific community takes this arguement seriously, and all available evidence shows very little, if any, corellation between testosterone and aggression.

(not only is this incredibly harmful to gender equality, but it certainly doesn't help us convince anyone on the issue of AR -- it has nothing to do with the topic and makes us look like the type of idealistic hippy BSers the op portrays us as)

Vanguard1917

17th July 2007, 14:05

In a society which is about liberation of the people/workers, animal factoring just doesn't make any sense.

Why? I think it makes perfect sense. Intensive farming methods increase food output and reduce the labour time needed to produce that output. Can't you see the liberating effect that this can have for human beings?

It only demonstrates the convenience you are used to, to go to a super market and to buy the food you need.

You're complaining that supermarkets are too convenient?! Surely convenience is a good thing? What is it that you want as an alternative?

Animal factoring only takes place because of the capitalistic need to produce products as cheap as possible.

And?

What motivates the fashionable organic farmer? Altruism?

Jazzratt

17th July 2007, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:32 am
If you're intentionally simulating t-poisoning, you should probably flag it as a parody somewhere down near the bottom so that we know you're not serious.
:lol: T-poisoning? Where is all this non-scientific bullshit coming from? Are you going to be talking phrenology next.

The other one

White supremacy created a language which you display.

Interesting theory but I always thought that English was borne of a series of different languages and influences including, but not limited to, Latin, Greek, Arabic and the like. But your theory that white supremacy created it is certainly an interesting one, given that the English language pre-dates the concept of white supremacy.

Name calling, aggression.

Nah the name calling and aggression is a feature of nearly every language and generally comes when someone is pissed off.

I didn't threat anybody, it's your interpretation, because many with ingrained supremacy feel immediately threatend and want immediately degrade others.

I disagree - "Act as we want you to act or we'll cut your bollocks off" seems a pretty clear threat to me. I don't know what planet you live on byt the way but here on earth my "supremacy" amounts to fuck all.

This board is a perfect example of human's hypocrisy.
The 'revolution' starts within oneself and to find peace and confidence and honesty within oneself.

1) How?

2)Interesting proposal on revolution but I find it much more likely that a revolution will start when the working class begin to seize the means of production for themselves.

listener

17th July 2007, 14:06

they get to plan everything on a rational basis.
:mellow:

what are your thoughts about the former DDR (GDR)?

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 14:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:06 pm

they get to plan everything on a rational basis.
:mellow:

what are your thoughts about the former DDR (GDR)?
Basically a police state. Unfortunately for it's people. But thats because a bureaucratic elite was in control not the workers.

midnight marauder

17th July 2007, 14:14

I was planning on just editing my post but considering the massive wave of posts that sprouted up while my page was loading...

Nah the name calling and aggression is a feature of nearly every language and generally comes when someone is pissed off.

It's true!

To quote Wiki's list of things that should be taken into consideration when forming a scientific hypothesis:

Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's Razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognised knowledge-systems
-Schick and Vaughn (2002)

Your "theory" fails just about every criterion on here.

listener

17th July 2007, 14:14

Act as we want you to act or we'll cut your bollocks off" seems a pretty clear threat to me.

reading is fundamental and as long as people are only able to interpret the way they want it to read its just boring

but I find it much more likely that a revolution will start when the working class begin to seize the means of production for themselves.

yes, true, and exactly because of this it won't work. It will just replace this system of exploitation with another system of exploitation. Because we will take our mind-set with us

listener

17th July 2007, 14:23

Why? I think it makes perfect sense. Intensive farming methods increase food output and reduce the labour time needed to produce that output. Can't you see the liberating effect that this can have for human beings?

No, how is this real liberation? How can I be liberated when there are still living beings exploited?

You're complaining that supermarkets are too convenient?! Surely convenience is a good thing? What is it that you want as an alternative?

No I don't complain in general, but convenience leads to consumerism. You want to have all, you want to have it cheap. Where do you draw the line?

What motivates the fashionable organic farmer? Altruism?

I don't know the individual motives of organic farmers, but I know my motives as a customer: I want to eat food which production doesn't destroy planet earth. Because I believe, it is fundamental for real change, that we learn to live in harmony with nature.
The most powerful power is still nature.
There are peaceful societies on this planet, still today, they should be a role model for all who really want a change. Many of them reject competition and all are living in harmony with nature.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 14:30

Listener

I don't know the individual motives of organic farmers, but I know my motives as a customer: I want to eat food which production doesn't destroy planet earth. Because I believe, it is fundamental for real change, that we learn to live in harmony with nature.
The most powerful power is still nature.
There are peaceful societies on this planet, still today, they should be a role model for all who really want a change. Many of them reject competition and all are living in harmony with nature.

Oh you mean like a primitivist type society? Yeah they are cool, im thinking of moving into a cave next year sometime. are you a primitivist?

Vanguard1917

17th July 2007, 14:40

No, how is this real liberation? How can I be liberated when there are still living beings exploited?

Why are chicken in factory farms 'exploited' while those on organic farms aren't?

No I don't complain in general, but convenience leads to consumerism. You want to have all, you want to have it cheap.

Well, yes! People generally want to eat inexpensively. You are complaining because supermarkets are too convenient and that their products are too cheap. You want food prices to be increased and you want to reduce the convenience of food consumption. Do you feel that these are progressive demands?

Who do you think you are to tell working class people that they're consuming too much?

I don't know the individual motives of organic farmers, but I know my motives as a customer: I want to eat food which production doesn't destroy planet earth.

Intensive farming methods do not 'destroy the planet'. In fact, it is due to advances in such farming methods that more land is released every year from agriculture.

There are peaceful societies on this planet, still today, they should be a role model for all who really want a change. Many of them reject competition and all are living in harmony with nature.

Name them.

listener

17th July 2007, 14:40

No, I am not a primitivist

listener

17th July 2007, 14:46

Why are chicken in factory farms 'exploited' while those on organic farms aren't?

They are also, that's the reason I don't eat meat. Nonetheless, it is a difference, how an animal can live until it is killed. Animals have feelings

Well, yes! People generally want to eat inexpensively. You are complaining because supermarkets are too convenient and that their products are too cheap. You want food prices to be increased and you want to reduce the convenience of food consumption. Do you feel that these are progressive demands?

They want to eat cheap because we live in a capitalistic society. At the moment, yes, I prefer products made by FairTrade and I reject consumerism. With that I don't say that I live perfect.
Progressiv is only an entire change of the system.

And google for 'peaceful societies', there are infos on the net about them.

listener

17th July 2007, 14:57

and did you ever see documentaries about animal factories etc, animal testing?
Anybody with at least a rudiment of feelings and empathy should be able to say, that this is such a very wrong way to treat living beings.

I don't know, Karremann is probably not known in America? He made the most informative documentaries about such things and he didn't hide the even most cruel pictures, how people can act towards animals.

No, if this should be the result of a so-called revolution, I just say: NO. THIS can't be the answer of a better society

Libber

17th July 2007, 14:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:00 am
Libber, yes, I realized it. But you know, it is easy to call oneself revolutionary and to BE revolutionary = thinking outside the comfortable, well-known box.
And regardless which propaganda, it is always effective as long as people reject to really think on their own.

Do you have deeper knowledge about empathy etc.?
Yes, so many people think they're "revolutionaries" because they've memorised marxleninstalinmaoist dogma and can regurgitate slogans. But they've never had a thought in their lives that wasn't pre-packaged. They don't even understand what it means to "think outside the box". To them, the only box is capitalism.

Like the Capitalist Sham here - he can't imagine anything more "revolutionary" than the current system with someone else (him, probably) in charge. So instead of life on Earth ending under the flag of capitalism, it'd end under the flag of communism. And he thinks that's revolutionary.

Speaking of shams, have you encountered yet the sites that have a socialist or anarchist veneer but are really run by groups like Stormfront and the Church of the Sheet? I saw a reference to one the other day, but didn't go visit because I'd just eaten lunch. The existence of such sites makes me wonder about some of the dogmatists here.

I'm not sure I understand your question about empathy.

listener

17th July 2007, 15:45

no, up to now I didn't encounter such sites.
With the empathy I meant: What are the reasons to lose empathy? That people can act in the cruel way they do? Do you know that? I know, this is a question without a real answer, because nobody knows.
But nonetheless, I would like to know more about empathy

Vanguard1917

17th July 2007, 17:44

With the empathy I meant: What are the reasons to lose empathy? That people can act in the cruel way they do?

What about empathising with people? I've already stressed the extremely anti-human implications of opposing animal testing and advanced farming methods.

They are also, that's the reason I don't eat meat. Nonetheless, it is a difference, how an animal can live until it is killed. Animals have feelings

Well you have obviously lost the plot and i do feel for you.

However, the rest of us want to eat inexpensive and good quality meat on a regular basis, and you have no right to impose your lifestyle choice onto the rest of us.

Seriously, who do you think you are?

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th July 2007, 18:02

Libber

Yes, so many people think they're "revolutionaries" because they've memorised marxleninstalinmaoist dogma and can regurgitate slogans.

Well, if you knew anything about Marxism, its that, it is always being updated to reflect current reality. But while we still live in a capitalist system, Marxism is still the foremost tool to understand and confronting capitalism.

They don't even understand what it means to "think outside the box".

Of course we do! But, we are critical of everything, until it has proof. Liberalism, applies and fails at every point. Thinking "outside the box" as you put it, is different from asking a radical analysis from us, it is suggesting that we accept notions that have no justification. Asking us to accept that killing animals is wrong, without providing us with a good argument, is not going to go down well with that. I'm sure you understand our position here.

Like the Capitalist Sham here - he can't imagine anything more "revolutionary" than the current system with someone else (him, probably) in charge.

Well, I am not a fortune teller and i am not a social engineer. I don't want to impose things on people that they would want to happen to them. But i do want to end capitalism, and all the suffering oppression and exploitation that goes with it.

Like, Marxism is kinda like a romanticism ideology. Kinda. In that, we think people have huge amounts of talent, creativity etc that is in effect nullified by the capitalist system.

So instead of life on Earth ending under the flag of capitalism, it'd end under the flag of communism. And he thinks that's revolutionary.

So, can i ask. Are you a communist, socialist, anarchist? I'm confused by what position you hold.

listener

17th July 2007, 18:29

What about empathising with people? I've already stressed the extremely anti-human implications of opposing animal testing and advanced farming methods.

I feel with you that you are unable to understand anything, just looking for somebody you can look down.
Empathy was already mentioned in general term and empathy INCLUDES ALL LIVING BEINGS, and not only animals.

Seriously, who do you think you are?

and who do you think who you are? God?

listener

17th July 2007, 19:01

Asking us to accept that killing animals is wrong, without providing us with a good argument, is not going to go down well with that. I'm sure you understand our position here

First: I never said, that killing animals in general is 100% wrong.
But, I said: Animal factoring is 100% wrong.
Reasons:
- It is unnecessarily cruel
- you need a lot of artifical vitamins etc.
- you need a lot of medicine, because animals in stress and in over-crowded stables tend to get ill very soon. Medicine, which remains in the body, so in the meat you eat
- BSE is a result of animal factoring

etc. but I already know: The arrogance of humans is more important than respect toward life. So there will be no argument which could convince anybody of you. Right?
But again, don't read only Marx and Co, but Animal Farm by George Orwell. And think about it.

Vanguard1917

17th July 2007, 20:05

And as i said, improving meat production is a matter of human progress; it has nothing to do with 'animal rights'.

and who do you think who you are? God?

I'm not the one trying to force everyone to be vegetarians/vegans.

listener

17th July 2007, 20:23

Stop putting things into my posts I never said.
I am against animal factoring. This has nothing to do with forcing people to become vegetarian.
There are more members on this thread who are against animal factoring, if you even realized this.

But I realize one thing: I am no longer sure what kind of message board this is. In a survey the majority is also pro nuclear power. On one thread I read about the advice to get a gun, legal or illegal to protect oneself, without having any further background.

I didn't expect such things on a msb like this. I thought, people here would be more informed, more willing to embrace their own humanity. This isn't the case.
I won't waste my time any longer with people like you.

listener

17th July 2007, 21:18

entire article: http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives...ase_agains.html (http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/03/the_case_agains.html)

quotations:

Evidence of the environmental impacts of a meat-based diet is piling up at the same time its health effects are becoming better known. Meanwhile, full-scale industrialized factory farming—which allows diseases to spread quickly as animals are raised in close confinement—has given rise to recent, highly publicized epidemics of meat-borne illnesses. At presstime, the first discovery of mad cow disease in a Tokyo suburb caused beef prices to plummet in Japan and many people to stop eating meat.

Strong growth in meat production and consumption continues despite mounting evidence that meat-based diets are unhealthy, and that just about every aspect of meat production—from grazing-related loss of cropland and open space, to the inefficiencies of feeding vast quantities of water and grain to cattle in a hungry world, to pollution from “factory farms”—is an environmental disaster with wide and sometimes catastrophic consequences. Oregon State University agriculture professor Peter Cheeke calls factory farming “a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems.”

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain—with 56 million people—could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.

More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation’s entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.” Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.

LuÃs Henrique

17th July 2007, 21:32

And, of course, who says stop eating animals will stop us killing them?

Or are we also going to allows all kinds of herbivores to feed on our plantations?

Luís Henrique

listener

17th July 2007, 21:39

one good had this thread for me. Because of searching the web for an article and because of the website I found, I also found out something about Neohumanism.
Yes, this is a way of life and change which seems to be honest and is at least this I want to live and practice.
Bye bye guys, I have to educate myself about Neohumanism.

Vanguard1917

17th July 2007, 22:53

Stop putting things into my posts I never said.
I am against animal factoring. This has nothing to do with forcing people to become vegetarian.
There are more members on this thread who are against animal factoring, if you even realized this.

And i'm telling you that without intensive farming methods meat output would go down, prices would go up, meat would once again be a rarity, and most people would not be able to afford to eat meat regularly.

Furthermore, you explicitly said you regret the fact that meat consumption has become more and more inexpensive and convenient for people:

It only demonstrates the convenience you are used to, to go to a super market and to buy the food you need.

No I don't complain in general, but convenience leads to consumerism. You want to have all, you want to have it cheap. Where do you draw the line?

Pawn Power

17th July 2007, 23:03

This question has still not been answered: Would you eat meat farmed and killed in that manner that does not cause pain to the animal?

Juice, g.gram, listener, libber?

midnight marauder

18th July 2007, 05:32

No.

1) This question isn't real: meat is not and has not ever been in the history of animal products a result of a process that caused no pain to an animal. It's possible, but grossly impractical, horribly un-economic, and a waste of time and energy from the point of view of the farmer.

2) On an ethical level, eating meat "farmed and killed in a manner that does not cause pain to the animal" if such a situation did exist would be no different than consenting that it would be moral to kill an innocent human if you did it quickly and painlessly. Whether it's a cow, a chicken, a pig, or a human, all of these different animals are sentient beings, and killing them for completely unnecessary reasons, even if it caused no pain, would still be wrong. Your first question was whether or not I would cared if an animal was killed painlessly. Considering I do care, I don't know why you'd think I'd be willing to eat its flesh.

Let me ask you: if a human was raised with no social ties so that no one else would feel pain from its death, and it was killed painlessly and instantly, would you care? Would you consume its corpse?

This question is equally hypothetical (it has about the likelyhood of happening as your scenario of a farm painlessly killing its animals*) and would imply the same moral considerations as yours. They're both sentient. They both experience pain and happiness. How is this scenario any different than yours?

And, to follow your example of reposting unanswered questions, here's one that hasn't been answered in any of vegan/vegetarian threads to my recollection. It's an important one. I'll even rephrase it to make it a bit more emotional. How can you afford rights to animals in some instances, such as opposing someone beating the shit out of a puppy, but deny them in others, such as the systematic slaughter and torture of millions of animals (puppies included!) for the needless luxury of meat and other animal products?

*If you want to know how animals are killed in farming practices today, I'm sure there are hundreds of videos on the internet you can find. Here, I'll get you started: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=fa...farming&search= (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=factory+farming&search=)

Pawn Power

18th July 2007, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:32 pm
No.

Okay. The question was hypothetical to a degree, though there are many cases, hunting perhaps, in which the animal's death is virtually painless. The animal is simply alive and then dead.

Nevertheless, what I was looking for was conformation of your regard for human and non-human life- that they are of equal value.

1) This question isn't real: meat is not and has not ever been in the history of animal products a result of a process that caused no pain to an animal. It's possible, but grossly impractical, horribly un-economic, and a waste of time and energy from the point of view of the farmer.

Well, the question is real because I asked it. And furthermore, there does exist modern and historic examples of animal consumption derived from a practically painless process for the animal. Indeed, some animals do not even have a central nervous system (like lobsters and other crustaceans) so it is difficult if not impossible for them to feel physical pain. Though I agree that farming larger animals today in such a way would be less profitable.

However, we have already established that, for you, it is not the capicity to experience pain but the value of the life creature. What about worms? I am sure many of them die and even "suffer" (emotionally?) when one farms.

2) On an ethical level, eating meat "farmed and killed in a manner that does not cause pain to the animal" if such a situation did exist would be no different than consenting that it would be moral to kill an innocent human if you did it quickly and painlessly. Whether it's a cow, a chicken, a pig, or a human, all of these different animals are sentient beings, and killing them for completely unnecessary reasons, even if it caused no pain, would still be wrong. Your first question was whether or not I would cared if an animal was killed painlessly. Considering I do care, I don't know why you'd think I'd be willing to eat its flesh.

The difference is that homo sapiens within human society value the life of their brothers and sisters more then they do then of their cat or dog. People care if another human dies, even painlessly, becuase they care for the other's life.

Let me ask you: if a human was raised with no social ties so that no one else would feel pain from its death, and it was killed painlessly and instantly, would you care? Would you consume its corpse?

I think some people would care because they don't want to live in a sociey where other people are killed... becuase they value human life in and of itself. Also, we are humans and don't want to be killed in a similar manner.

On the question of cannibalism- I don't know how human flesh taste and it's probably tough, so no. I really don't have any deap seated moral objection to cannibalism. It has been more prominante in human history then most think and I believe is still ritually practiced in parts of New Guinea.

Pawn Power

18th July 2007, 06:27

How can you afford rights to animals in some instances, such as opposing someone beating the shit out of a puppy, but deny them in others, such as the systematic slaughter and torture of millions of animals (puppies included!) for the needless luxury of meat and other animal products?

I guess could be some sort of contridictions there. The difference is, I think, that someone owns that puppy and doesn't want it to be beaten and perhaps more importantly the beating of a puppy could indicate psychological problems of the beater which could be dangerous to other humans as well.

To simply beat a puppy randomly, on top of showing emotional uncertainty, is useless. While the "systematice slaughter and torture of millions of animals" is done for a reason, and while it can be seen as disturbing, it is not doen simply to torture the animals (like the case of the random puppy beating) but to feed people and of course to make profite.

Does that answer the question at all?

socialistfuture

18th July 2007, 07:40

And i'm telling you that without intensive farming methods meat output would go down, prices would go up, meat would once again be a rarity, and most people would not be able to afford to eat meat regularly.

awesome :lol:

maybe then obesity levels would go down, and they would stop clearfelling the amazon.

Bilan

18th July 2007, 08:50

This is all obvious bullshit, as medical scientists and researchers will tell you.

Here is the RDS website's page covering the myths (and deliberate lies) circulated about animal testing by the animal rights lobby:
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.as...D=2&i_PageID=48 (http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=2&i_PageID=48)

Here is another website covering many frequently asked questions about animal testing:
http://www.armyths.org/

Yes, and if you'd like, I'd be happy to get you sevra links proving the lies deliberatively spread by various scientists in favour of vivisection, but I wont bother (unless you really want me too).

You didn't, however, disprove the fact that, not only are vegetables better for you, but are easier to grow and distribute than meat.

Nor did you disprove that there are better alternatives.

Libber

18th July 2007, 12:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:02 pm
So, can i ask. Are you a communist, socialist, anarchist? I'm confused by what position you hold.
I call myself a libertarian socialist for convenience. If you take Chomsky's pro-social anarchism, Alinsky's pragmatism, Fuller's vision, Deming's and Lovelock's systems awareness, and a little Buddhism, then you probably have something not too far off my politics.

I believe that the evidence for impending worldwide disaster is so strong that nothing less than a real revolution can save us. But the kind of "revolutionary" thinking I see from most people around here is conventional, pedestrian, and self-satisfied. It falls so far short of what's needed that it would more accurately be called "counter-revolutionary".

Libber

18th July 2007, 12:35

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 17, 2007 06:03 pm
This question has still not been answered: Would you eat meat farmed and killed in that manner that does not cause pain to the animal?

Juice, g.gram, listener, libber?
No, I wouldn't, any more than I would be willing to eat your body if you were killed painlessly. You have a right to your life, if you live it harmlessly. You don't exist for my convenience, and for me to claim that you do, and that I therefore have the ethical right to use you for my purposes as though you were a lump of rock, would be the height (or pit, I'm not sure which) of lunatic arrogance.

Pawn Power

18th July 2007, 15:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:35 am

No, I wouldn't, any more than I would be willing to eat your body if you were killed painlessly.

So, for you the value of human life is equal to that of another animal. Is that only other mammals? What about invertebrates, which include 97% of all animal species? That incluedes shrimp to sponges and parisitic flat worms.

Is anything that is alive constitute a life and is that "life" of equal importance to you as that of a homo sapien?

You have a right to your life, if you live it harmlessly.
We have the "right" to our lives because we live in aa human society which we created and in which we formulated the notion of "rights."

You don't exist for my convenience, and for me to claim that you do, and that I therefore have the ethical right to use you for my purposes as though you were a lump of rock, would be the height (or pit, I'm not sure which) of lunatic arrogance.

Perhaps you are confused about existance, though I suppose we all are.

We don't exist for a convenience or any purpose. Mice do not exist for the convenience of owls and rocks do not exist for humans to build roads. Any sort of ethical rights we have are by our own creation through culutre and society and do not signify a purpose of the universe. Humans have rights becuase they live in human society which created those rights. If other animals have rights it is becuase they are granted to them by society. We can grant rights to plants but that does not mean they exist for our convenience, though they are very useful to use.

listener

18th July 2007, 15:23

I don't see any revolutionary thought, only consumerism and destruction
Let's summarize:
Producing products as cheap as possible
Producing goods by destroying nature
Believe in neverending natural ressources
Classification of life
Money is of more value than life
Ignoring all facts why vivisection and animal farming is negative in many aspects

Sounds familiar and such talks I connect with capitalistic, power obsessed conservatives

Pawn Power

18th July 2007, 15:33

Originally posted by Libber+July 17, 2007 04:26 am--> (Libber @ July 17, 2007 04:26 am)
Pawn [email protected] 16, 2007 05:32 pm
Why does your testosterone, though I would characterize it as dementia, cause you to want to mutilate anothers body against their will?
I thought I said. We'll do it, if we get the chance, for their own good and the good of society. It will relieve them of being poisoned, and if we catch them early enough, relieve society of their aggressions. [/b]
Of course most people wouldn't agree to such an act against themself so this would be carried out against their will and would certainly be an authortarian and imaginably a violent act.

Would promote the castration of other male aniamls as well. Or is that animal cruelty!?

Libber

18th July 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 18, 2007 10:23 am
So, for you the value of human life is equal to that of another animal. Is that only other mammals? What about invertebrates, which include 97% of all animal species? That incluedes shrimp to sponges and parisitic flat worms.

No, it's the other way around: in my system of ethics, the value of any life is measured by its complexity and its impact on other lives. So e.g. if faced with the choice of saving the lives of certain politicians whom I'm sure I needn't name and extending the life of my ancient moggie, the politicians wouldn't even get to draw another breath. They are more complex than she (on some level) but their vile choices make them infinitely less worthy of life, in my book. I'd probably have some trouble deciding between them and a parasitic flatworm, but that's about it.

We have the "right" to our lives because we live in aa human society which we created and in which we formulated the notion of "rights."

Good that you put the word in sneer-quotes. Because of course we have no rights at all. We live at the suffrance of the powerful.

We don't exist for a convenience or any purpose. Mice do not exist for the convenience of owls and rocks do not exist for humans to build roads. Any sort of ethical rights we have are by our own creation through culutre and society and do not signify a purpose of the universe. Humans have rights becuase they live in human society which created those rights. If other animals have rights it is becuase they are granted to them by society. We can grant rights to plants but that does not mean they exist for our convenience, though they are very useful to use.

You seem to be divided in your mind. We can't "grant rights" to anyone or anything because we don't have it in our power. Someone else can come along at the very moment we're "granting" some "right" and kill the grantee. What price our grant then?

Of course most people wouldn't agree to such an act [castration] against themself so this would be carried out against their will and would certainly be an authortarian and imaginably a violent act.

Would promote the castration of other male aniamls as well. Or is that animal cruelty!?

Evidently people can virtually fall over this example and break their nose without seeing the parallel to our treatment of non-humans. I had hoped people would see it without my having to give chapter and verse, but okay, life is filled with disappointments.

We have no rights. We live at suffrance. At any moment, someone can decide to kill us, maim us, rob us, throw us in prison, anything they like. And if they have the power, then we have nothing to say about it. We are in exactly the same position as non-humans are. If I acquire the power, therefore, I can castrate you. And you can bleat that it's unfair, violent, authoritarian, whatever you like, and it won't mean anything. Why would it mean anything? If I have the power, and I want to do it, then that's all that's required. I can declare myself to be more moral, more worthy, more whatever-it-takes. I can declare that you have no rights. And you are screwed. Also gelded.

We tell ourselves that we have rights because it's just too goddamned painful to have to live with a gut-level understanding of exactly how thin the line is between being autarch of all we survey and being a collection of elementary particles.

So if we want to come a little closer to really having rights, then our only hope is for everyone, everywhere to agree a set of characteristics that we'll call rights and agree who has them. And, I'll tell you, I'm not real big on supporting rights for the selfish. Anyone who tells me his god gave him dominion over all he surveys isn't going to get my vote. He's going to have to apply to his god to secure any "rights" he wants to enjoy. Frankly, I wouldn't fancy his chances.

counterblast

24th July 2007, 07:46

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 18, 2007 02:23 pm
We don't exist for a convenience or any purpose. Mice do not exist for the convenience of owls and rocks do not exist for humans to build roads. Any sort of ethical rights we have are by our own creation through culutre and society and do not signify a purpose of the universe. Humans have rights becuase they live in human society which created those rights. If other animals have rights it is becuase they are granted to them by society. We can grant rights to plants but that does not mean they exist for our convenience, though they are very useful to use.
Also, one could claim animals are justified in eating each other like primitives but humans are not because they exist outside the vortex of instinct-driven behavior, in one of invented laws and morality.

You see? Your "logic" is just an ungrounded opinion, and can be applied to any series of ideological concepts.

TheTickTockMan

25th July 2007, 20:04

I am astonished at the highly anti-earth, anthropocentric arguments of people on this messageboard. Meat farming is highly inefficient and wasteful, and its byproducts produce vast amounts of pollutants and toxins, not to mention the impact of the infrastructure necessary to support it in the first place. In fact, you'd be able to feed ten times as many people on grain than you would on animal meat.

Without considerations in regards to the well-being of life on earth, your future communist state will continue to commit the same mistakes as the capitalist state, with the end result being the extinction of life on this planet.

@~TTTM

bloody_capitalist_sham

25th July 2007, 23:22

Black Cross

26th July 2007, 00:56

Who Takes Animal Rights Seriously?

Obviously someone does if this thread went on for 7 damn pages.

TheTickTockMan

26th July 2007, 01:18

Yay we can all enjoy bowls of Grain in future society!! woohoo! :rolleyes:

I don't know if you are part of the liberal environmental camp, but RevLeft is about workers revolution leading to the emancipation of humans. Communism is the final domination of man over nature.

With all due respect, Capitalist Sham, any enlightened thinker should realise that replacing one form of domination for another isn't progress -- it's semantics. Nature existed before mankind, and shall exist after we're gone, so long as we don't transform our wild planet into a toy garden. As the most powerful species on the planet we have the responsibility to serve as stewards of life on earth, to ensure that the ecosystem services that maintain a liveable planet today exist for our descendants in the future. The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.

Without considerations in regards to the well-being of life on earth, your future communist state will continue to commit the same mistakes as the capitalist state, with the end result being the extinction of life on this planet.

So you're a fortune teller too?

I also tell jokes and do magic tricks, so long as you play nice with the other kids.

!~TTTM

RevMARKSman

26th July 2007, 02:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:18 pm
The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.
So what, we shouldn't remove and destroy cancerous tumors because they're alive and therefore "deserve" to be preserved, otherwise it's "oppressive"?

RedHal

26th July 2007, 03:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:04 pm
I am astonished at the highly anti-earth, anthropocentric arguments of people on this messageboard. Meat farming is highly inefficient and wasteful, and its byproducts produce vast amounts of pollutants and toxins, not to mention the impact of the infrastructure necessary to support it in the first place. In fact, you'd be able to feed ten times as many people on grain than you would on animal meat.

Without considerations in regards to the well-being of life on earth, your future communist state will continue to commit the same mistakes as the capitalist state, with the end result being the extinction of life on this planet.

@~TTTM
I have not read the thread so I don't know what "anti-earth" comments have been made. However since we socialists, people come before animals and the environment. That does not mean we condone abuse of animals and the environment. Everyone deserves decent living conditions.

Under a capitalist system, the environment is exploited for profits, which leads to unnecessary luxury products and rapid destruction. Under a socialist system, the environment will be exploited to meet the needs of the people, decent housing, clean water and enough to eat. Grossly decadent items (SUVs, yachts, multiple cars, mansions etc...) will be eliminated. A healthier diet will also be promoted, so no more unhealthy fast/junk foods will be shoved down ppl's throats, and yes a reduced consumption of meat products.

We need to raise the living standards of the 3rd world while eliminating 1st world decadence. The 1st world will have to share the world's resources with the rest of the world.

The human species has advanced to a point where going backwards (primitivism) is not an option, so exploitation of the enviroment is unavoidable. Once everyone's needs are met, environmentalism should be strongly pushed.

TheTickTockMan

26th July 2007, 04:34

Once everyone's needs are met, environmentalism should be strongly pushed.

And here we reach the core of my objections: that people seem to be thinking of environmentalism as something pretty that can be indulged in in one's leisure time -- a kind of elite toy ideology that the upper-classes can be free to sate the needs of their whimsy. I don't think it is. I think a good environmental awareness is necessary -- and complements -- to ensuring an effective future for the socialist state.

@~TTTM

counterblast

27th July 2007, 04:19

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+July 26, 2007 01:54 am--> (RevMARKSman @ July 26, 2007 01:54 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 07:18 pm
The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.
So what, we shouldn't remove and destroy cancerous tumors because they're alive and therefore "deserve" to be preserved, otherwise it's "oppressive"? [/b]
Of course not. Nor should you allow a lion to eat you.

But roaming the sub-Saharan plains shooting at lions from a Hummer, is hardly comparable to self-defense.

RevMARKSman

27th July 2007, 16:04

Originally posted by counterblast+July 26, 2007 10:19 pm--> (counterblast @ July 26, 2007 10:19 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:54 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:18 pm
The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.
So what, we shouldn't remove and destroy cancerous tumors because they're alive and therefore "deserve" to be preserved, otherwise it's "oppressive"?
Of course not. Nor should you allow a lion to eat you.

But roaming the sub-Saharan plains shooting at lions from a Hummer, is hardly comparable to self-defense. [/b]
So the "preservation of all life" does not really go "hand in hand with the liberation of the oppressed."

Pawn Power

28th July 2007, 02:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:46 am

Also, one could claim animals are justified in eating each other like primitives

Some animals do eat each other. They don't need to justify it...we do that by examining biology and nature.

Also, one could claim animals are justified in eating each other like primitives but humans are not because they exist outside the vortex of instinct-driven behavior, in one of invented laws and morality.

What primitives? Are those primitive peoples with 'primitive' cultures and moralities?

What is "the vortex if instinct-driven behavior"?

Who's laws and moralities are 'right'? Of course, you would like to think your own. There exists a many different and contradictory 'laws; both within and between states and varying 'moralities' in a variety of cultures.

The question is; do you think it is immoral to eat meat and why?

LuÃs Henrique

28th July 2007, 04:20

Would you take seriously a Black People' Rights organisation composed exclusively by whites?

Would you take seriously a Gay Rights organisation in which only straights were allowed?

Would you take seriously a Feminist group with no women?

Would you take seriously a Fight Antisemitism front in which Jews could not participate?

Would you take seriously a Worker's Union only bosses could join?

No?

Why should us take seriously any "Animal Rights" organisation in which only humans are allowed?

Luís Henrique

midnight marauder

28th July 2007, 07:54

Why should us take seriously any "Animal Rights" organisation in which only humans are allowed?

What exactly are you getting at?

The key difference between this situation and the other scenarios you posted are that nonhuman animals by and large do not have the capacity to fight for their own rights.

This, however, certainly is not indicative of whether they have rights or not. My brother has severe down syndrome and has the mental faculties of about a six month old infant. Under your paradigm, considering he has no ability whatsoever (despite his vested interest in abstaining from being harmed or hurt -- an interest certainly not unique to humans), he should have no rights to speak of.

I can't imagine you really believe this point. Do you?

socialistfuture

28th July 2007, 13:25

its more about selfishness or caring about the wider world as I see it, and for a lot of people being rich and well off is the most important thing - a lot of marxists included.

counterblast

28th July 2007, 15:35

TheTickTockMan

29th July 2007, 01:57

Originally posted by RevMARKSman+July 27, 2007 03:04 pm--> (RevMARKSman @ July 27, 2007 03:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:19 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:54 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:18 pm
The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.
So what, we shouldn't remove and destroy cancerous tumors because they're alive and therefore "deserve" to be preserved, otherwise it's "oppressive"?
Of course not. Nor should you allow a lion to eat you.

But roaming the sub-Saharan plains shooting at lions from a Hummer, is hardly comparable to self-defense.
So the "preservation of all life" does not really go "hand in hand with the liberation of the oppressed."
"The preservation of life" does; but the "preservation of all life" is a purely utopian concept.[/b]

Why should it be? And what's wrong with utopianism in the first place?

Simply put it, we can divide it into items of pure utilitarianism:

Item 1: We humans no longer need to eat meat to survive. We can produce vitamin B-12, and proteins, which are what we get from meat-eating, either artificially or extract it from legumes and similar plants.

Item 2: Raising meat is wasteful of time and energy. Firstly, we need to input energy in order to raise the grains and other plant-foods that are used to feed the animals. Then we need to raise the animals themselves -- a complicated and energy-intensive procedure in itself. Now, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy that goes into raising the food for the animals will not be converted one-for-one -- some is 'lost' in the form of heat and the wastes the animals produce. Hence, the energy that might have gone into humans had the food-plants been directly ingested, has simply been "lost" to the environment.

From these two items, what can be deduced, in terms of benefit to society?

1) Human society can be fed upon plants, plant extracts, and industrial products.
2) The more people there will be, the more need to feed more people with what arable land we have.
3) Meat production is wasteful in terms of time and energy.
4) The more food energy available to everyone, the better off everyone is.

Hence, it can be deduced that meat is, in fact, a bourgeois luxury. It is wasteful, it is time-consuming, it is energy and resource-intensive, and its excesses contribute to environmental degradation. It is costly and inefficient.

Therefore it would be beneficial to human society, if we had to spend less time raising animals and more time feeding people.

@~TTTM

Vanguard1917

29th July 2007, 16:26

TheTickTockMan

29th July 2007, 16:35

Hence, it can be deduced that meat is, in fact, a bourgeois luxury. It is wasteful, it is time-consuming, it is energy and resource-intensive, and its excesses contribute to environmental degradation. It is costly and inefficient.

Therefore it would be beneficial to human society, if we had to spend less time raising animals and more time feeding people.

But, with intensive farming methods, we've taken massive strides forward in meat production - to the extent that meat is no longer the 'bourgeois luxury' that it once was. In fact, in the developed world, ordinary working class people can now afford to consume meat on a daily basis. This is thanks partly to the factory farms which you AR people attack. For example, a factory farm can kill up to 9,000 chicken an hour (excellent article on factory farming (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3517/)). This is remarkable productivity in comparison to the backward farming methods which human beings employed prior to intensive farming. The point is to see even greater development of intensive farming methods, so that we can have meat production which can provide for the world's population - not just for Westerners.

Animal rights activists are reactionaries - they attack human progress.

Now, now, don't go calling me an Animal Rights activist. I'm not saying we should be friends with the chickens or treat them like our cousins or in-laws. I'm just saying that it's more efficient, hence, more productive to feed at a lower level of the food chain.

Question: where did all the grain for the chickens come from? Could we have grown other food crops where it did come from? Could we have fed people with those food crops? Do you see it as a one-for-one basis? Is a chicken a magical transmutation device, to turn plant crops into meat, at the same rate? If so, then why are there fewer animals, on a mass-per-mass basis, than plants?

You're just defending the fact that you like meat (that's okay, I like eating meat too!) you're not making any serious attempts to rebut my proposal: It is more efficient to eat plants.

*ahem* From Wikipedia, on Trophic Levels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level):

Every time there is an exchange of energy between one trophic level and another, there is quite a significant loss due to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. This means so many units of grass can only support a much smaller number of units of rabbits, who can only support a smaller group of bobcats, who can only support a smaller group of mountain lions. This is why trophic levels are usually portrayed as a pyramid, one that places grass on the bottom and mountain lions on top---the top is always much smaller than the bottom. Each level implies a loss of energy and efficiency and less life that can be supported by the sun.

@~TTTM

Vanguard1917

29th July 2007, 16:50

Question: where did all the grain for the chickens come from? Could we have grown other food crops where it did come from? Could we have fed people with those food crops? Do you see it as a one-for-one basis? Is a chicken a magical transmutation device, to turn plant crops into meat, at the same rate?

All i know is that, with the development of intensive farming methods, we have been able to produce far more meat that ever before.

One big production line can prodcue 9,000 chicken an hour. In the US, 24 million chicken are killed every 24 hours! That's twenty-four million chicken per day.

It seems that it doesn't make much sense to counterpose grain production to chicken production - not with intensive farming methods anyway.

You're just defending the fact that you like meat, you're not making any serious attempts to rebut my proposal: It is more efficient to eat plants.

This has nothing to do with what i like to eat. Whether vegans/vegetarians like it or not, more and more people are eating meat today than ever before. On the whole, greater wealth = greater meat consumption. Greater meat consumption is a signal of material progress. I'm interested in seeing a wealthy world society which can provide the goods for people. You're interested in turning 6.5 billion people into vegetarians.

TheTickTockMan

29th July 2007, 16:59

All i know is that, with the development of intensive farming methods, we have been able to produce far more meat that ever before.

One big production line can prodcue 9,000 chicken an hour. In the US, 24 million chicken are killed every 24 hours! That's twenty-four million chicken per day.

All that that statement is saying is meat production has gotten more efficient. But it will never be true that meat production will be as efficient as plant production.

It seems that it doesn't make much sense to counterpose grain production to chicken production - not with intensive farming methods anyway.

It makes perfect sense, because chicken production depends upon the production of feed. Which is made mostly from grain. Which people can also eat, not to mention the countless other resources that go into chicken production, such as steel (for coops), manpower (could be used to build houses for the poor, roads, infrastructure, factories, educate students, clean up toxic waste dumps, program computers and all those other lovely things), antibiotics (to keep the chickens from getting sick and dying, which could be used to produce human antibiotics instead), water, electricity... the list is endless.

You're just defending the fact that you like meat, you're not making any serious attempts to rebut my proposal: It is more efficient to eat plants.

This has nothing to do with what i like to eat. Whether vegans/vegetarians like it or not, more and more people are eating meat today than ever before. On the whole, greater wealth = greater meat consumption. Greater meat consumption is a signal of material progress. I'm interested in seeing a wealthy world society which can provide the goods for people. You're interested in turning 6.5 billion people into vegetarians.

Why shouldn't I, if it means more food for more people? Every pound of food that goes into an animal is one less pound for a person. Animals need constant maintenance to ensure their health and wellbeing, plants need fertilizer, soil, water, the occasional pesticide and the sun will do the rest. Ultimately, what I'm interested in is feeding people, regardless of the kind of food that's used to do it. You're a believer in material progress -- why can't modern or near-future science invent healthy, plant, bacteria, or fungus-based substitutes to meat, produced by industrial automation on a vast scale, fundamentally indistinguishable from the original, that completely circumvents the time-consuming and energy-intensive process of animal husbandry? If you couldn't tell whether your sirloin steak came from a real cow or an artificial mycoprotein produced in a tank, would you care?

@~TTTM

LuÃs Henrique

29th July 2007, 17:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:54 am
This, however, certainly is not indicative of whether they have rights or not. My brother has severe down syndrome and has the mental faculties of about a six month old infant. Under your paradigm, considering he has no ability whatsoever (despite his vested interest in abstaining from being harmed or hurt -- an interest certainly not unique to humans), he should have no rights to speak of.
Your brother - sorry to hear about his illness - rights are granted him because he is a human being.

"Rights" are a social construct*, not a biological or metaphysical essence. We do agree that depriving ill people from rights will create slippery slops and end harming the whole of society. There is no reason to fear this in the case of animals.

* a social construct is not something that does not exist or that is irrelevant or arbitrary.

Luís Henrique

Vanguard1917

29th July 2007, 17:24

All that that statement is saying is meat production has gotten more efficient. But it will never be true that meat production will be as efficient as plant production.

So what if it doesn't? Television production may never be as 'efficient' as radio production - i.e. it may indeed always be the case that less resources are needed to produce radios than televisions. But that doesn't mean that we should only strive to produce radios and tell people that they should not be allowed to watch TV.

The point is to strive to produce both meat and vegetables as efficiently as possible, so that we can provide the best for everyone.

You're a believer in material progress -- why can't modern or near-future science invent healthy, plant, bacteria, or fungus-based substitutes to meat, produced by industrial automation on a vast scale, fundamentally indistinguishable from the original, that completely circumvents the time-consuming and energy-intensive process of animal husbandry? If you couldn't tell whether your sirloin steak came from a real cow or an artificial mycoprotein produced in a tank, would you care?

No, if the product was the same, i wouldn't care, and nor would most people. But until that hypothetical day comes, the world's people want to eat inexpensive meat regularly. They don't want to feed themselves solely on grain and plants. This calls for greater development of meat production.

We don't even need to hypothesise about future developments: intensive farming methods have shown us just how productive we can already be. Our best production methods need to be applied worldwide so that we can all enjoy meat regularly.

counterblast

30th July 2007, 01:12

Originally posted by TheTickTockMan+July 29, 2007 12:57 am--> (TheTickTockMan @ July 29, 2007 12:57 am)

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:04 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:19 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:54 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 07:18 pm
The preservation of all life goes hand-in-hand with the liberation of the oppressed.
So what, we shouldn't remove and destroy cancerous tumors because they're alive and therefore "deserve" to be preserved, otherwise it's "oppressive"?
Of course not. Nor should you allow a lion to eat you.

But roaming the sub-Saharan plains shooting at lions from a Hummer, is hardly comparable to self-defense.
So the "preservation of all life" does not really go "hand in hand with the liberation of the oppressed."
"The preservation of life" does; but the "preservation of all life" is a purely utopian concept.

Why should it be? And what's wrong with utopianism in the first place?

Simply put it, we can divide it into items of pure utilitarianism:

Item 1: We humans no longer need to eat meat to survive. We can produce vitamin B-12, and proteins, which are what we get from meat-eating, either artificially or extract it from legumes and similar plants.

Item 2: Raising meat is wasteful of time and energy. Firstly, we need to input energy in order to raise the grains and other plant-foods that are used to feed the animals. Then we need to raise the animals themselves -- a complicated and energy-intensive procedure in itself. Now, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy that goes into raising the food for the animals will not be converted one-for-one -- some is 'lost' in the form of heat and the wastes the animals produce. Hence, the energy that might have gone into humans had the food-plants been directly ingested, has simply been "lost" to the environment.

From these two items, what can be deduced, in terms of benefit to society?

1) Human society can be fed upon plants, plant extracts, and industrial products.
2) The more people there will be, the more need to feed more people with what arable land we have.
3) Meat production is wasteful in terms of time and energy.
4) The more food energy available to everyone, the better off everyone is.

Hence, it can be deduced that meat is, in fact, a bourgeois luxury. It is wasteful, it is time-consuming, it is energy and resource-intensive, and its excesses contribute to environmental degradation. It is costly and inefficient.

Therefore it would be beneficial to human society, if we had to spend less time raising animals and more time feeding people.

@~TTTM [/b]
You COMPLETELY misunderstood me. I didn't say veganism or variants (ie: vegetarianism, freeganism) were bad concepts. (I myself, am vegan) What I did say, was that preserving life at the expense of another life is sometimes unavoidable.

Just because one happens to be vegan, doesn't mean he/she should allow an animal/human to eat/kill them. There is clearly a line between survival and exploitation, and sometimes killing falls under both categories.

counterblast

30th July 2007, 01:28

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+July 29, 2007 04:10 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ July 29, 2007 04:10 pm)
[email protected] 28, 2007 06:54 am
This, however, certainly is not indicative of whether they have rights or not. My brother has severe down syndrome and has the mental faculties of about a six month old infant. Under your paradigm, considering he has no ability whatsoever (despite his vested interest in abstaining from being harmed or hurt -- an interest certainly not unique to humans), he should have no rights to speak of.
Your brother - sorry to hear about his illness - rights are granted him because he is a human being.

"Rights" are a social construct*, not a biological or metaphysical essence. We do agree that depriving ill people from rights will create slippery slops and end harming the whole of society. There is no reason to fear this in the case of animals.

* a social construct is not something that does not exist or that is irrelevant or arbitrary.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Who is this "we"? You clearly do not speak for all radical-minded individuals, so please do not pretend to.

And more accurately, less harm comes to the whole of society from executing the mentally incapable than animals. The mentally incapable (in general) contribute nothing to society, yet take vital resources from it. Animals, on the other hand exist outside of society, thus do not take from it.

So your extension of rights, is based purely on social taboo, rather than practicality.

counterblast

30th July 2007, 01:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:26 pm

Hence, it can be deduced that meat is, in fact, a bourgeois luxury. It is wasteful, it is time-consuming, it is energy and resource-intensive, and its excesses contribute to environmental degradation. It is costly and inefficient.

Therefore it would be beneficial to human society, if we had to spend less time raising animals and more time feeding people.

But, with intensive farming methods, we've taken massive strides forward in meat production - to the extent that meat is no longer the 'bourgeois luxury' that it once was. In fact, in the developed world, ordinary working class people can now afford to consume meat on a daily basis. This is thanks partly to the factory farms which you AR people attack. For example, a factory farm can kill up to 9,000 chicken an hour (excellent article on factory farming (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/3517/)). This is remarkable productivity in comparison to the backward farming methods which human beings employed prior to intensive farming. The point is to see even greater development of intensive farming methods, so that we can have meat production which can provide for the world's population - not just for Westerners.

Animal rights activists are reactionaries - they attack human progress.
Would you defend a pimp's right to abduct women and force them into sex slavery because the influx of prostitutes would provide cheaper sex workers to the men of the lower-class?

Or are you a "reactionary" when it comes to womens rights?!?

Unnecessary advancement is not progress when it comes at the exploitation of another group. Being a "communist" I thought you'd agree with that.

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 01:56

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about poultry - not women.

Pull yourself together.

counterblast

30th July 2007, 01:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:50 pm

Question: where did all the grain for the chickens come from? Could we have grown other food crops where it did come from? Could we have fed people with those food crops? Do you see it as a one-for-one basis? Is a chicken a magical transmutation device, to turn plant crops into meat, at the same rate?

All i know is that, with the development of intensive farming methods, we have been able to produce far more meat that ever before.

One big production line can prodcue 9,000 chicken an hour. In the US, 24 million chicken are killed every 24 hours! That's twenty-four million chicken per day.

It seems that it doesn't make much sense to counterpose grain production to chicken production - not with intensive farming methods anyway.

You're just defending the fact that you like meat, you're not making any serious attempts to rebut my proposal: It is more efficient to eat plants.

This has nothing to do with what i like to eat. Whether vegans/vegetarians like it or not, more and more people are eating meat today than ever before. On the whole, greater wealth = greater meat consumption. Greater meat consumption is a signal of material progress. I'm interested in seeing a wealthy world society which can provide the goods for people. You're interested in turning 6.5 billion people into vegetarians.
Those 50 million factory-farmed cows and chickens you speak of must be fed...

Meat is produced at the consumption of already-existing resources, thus using food and land that could've otherwise fed human populations. You claim to be some advocate for human advancement, yet you don't see the major flaw in meat production; the utter misutilization of resources.

counterblast

30th July 2007, 01:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:56 am
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about poultry - not women.

Pull yourself together.
But in what way do the two differ? Both are being exploited for the non-essential pleasure of another.

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 02:03

Meat is produced at the consumption of already-existing resources, thus using food and land that could've otherwise fed human populations. You claim to be some advocate for human advancement, yet you don't see the major flaw in meat production; the utter misutilization of resources.

The flaw is in your argument. As i already pointed out, grain production and meat production can't be counterposed in such a way - not with intensive farming methods.

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 02:05

Originally posted by counterblast+July 30, 2007 12:58 am--> (counterblast @ July 30, 2007 12:58 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 12:56 am
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about poultry - not women.

Pull yourself together.
But in what way do the two differ? Both are being exploited for the non-essential pleasure of another. [/b]
Yeah conversation over.

Are these the results of reading too much Judith Butler pomo bullshit?

counterblast

30th July 2007, 02:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:03 am

Meat is produced at the consumption of already-existing resources, thus using food and land that could've otherwise fed human populations. You claim to be some advocate for human advancement, yet you don't see the major flaw in meat production; the utter misutilization of resources.

The flaw is in your argument. As i already pointed out, grain production and meat production can't be counterposed in such a way - not with intensive farming methods.
You've yet to state, why not...

midnight marauder

30th July 2007, 03:14

Your brother - sorry to hear about his illness - rights are granted him because he is a human being.

"Rights" are a social construct*, not a biological or metaphysical essence. We do agree that depriving ill people from rights will create slippery slops and end harming the whole of society. There is no reason to fear this in the case of animals.

* a social construct is not something that does not exist or that is irrelevant or arbitrary.

Not necessarily, but in this comparison I'd say it certainly is arbitrary. The warrants for humanity's free reign over the animal kingdom are grounded in a very specific definition of what it means to be a human: humans have the capability to conceive of rights, humans are rational and selfrealizing beings, human compose socities and control societies and by extension the rights that are given to those within and outside of these societies.

Functionally, someone who is severely mentally handicapped, by this conception of what it means to be human vs. what it means to be an animal, cannot be a human. What makes us so different from other creatures is our existence as social beings.

Of course, a mentally retarded person is still a human biologically, but that, quite literally according to virtually every understanding of what it means to be a human, is it.

The reasons why we respect the rights of the significantly mentally retarded isn't because the refusal or negligence to do so would lead to a slippery slope sending us spiraling into an abandonment of the recognition of rights for other functional members of society. I can gurantee you that, after working and volunteering at shelters for the disabled, that is the last thing on the mind of other workers and the families of these people. The reason we do care and the reason we do respect them is because, even without the ability to recognize their own existence, or the effects they have on other people, or the ability to rationalize or communicate in the ways we take for granted, they are still sentient beings. They have needs, and wants. They go hungery when unfed. They can be happy. They can be angry. They can feel pain. And every one of these emotions is shared by animals.

That's why people still love them, recognize them as members of their family, and treat them as if they have the right to live a life free from uncessary pain. It isn't because they just biologically are different than animals.

As opposed to, say, unborn foetuses, wherein if we were going on the basis of alotting rights on the basis of biology, we'd never even allow the question of abortion to come up seeing as how they are biologically at the earliest stages of human development. The pro-life camp has been saying for years that the reason they oppose women's rights is because being biologically human, in some form, entitles you to certain inalienable rights. You're obviously not pro-life, but isn't that essentially what you're arguing? That although mentally handicapped individuals aren't functionally human, they're still biologically human, so we subsequently have a duty to give a certain set of rights to them by virtue of that fact alone?

Foetuses aren't persons, but they are a form of human life in a biological sense. A human foetus is different from a cow foetus which is different from a pig foetus and so on. But, aside from the political basis of how being pro-life denies a woman's right to choose her own life and violates her right to the autonomy of her own body and what life lives parasitically off of it, part of the ethical basis for abortions is that according to a large ammount of evidence they do not have the sensory, emotional and cognitive abilities to feel or interpret pain, nor do they experience emotions, nor are they in any capacity sentient whatsoever, at any point durning pregnancy. Not that I would be opposed to abortion otherwise, for the reasons stated above as well countless others in defense of women's rights.

The implications of this are thus: being biologically human isn't an effective criterion for determining rights. A human foetus doesn't have any rights to speak of. A severely mentally handicapped human does. The difference between the two is sentience -- the very same sentience in you and I share, and the very same sentience found in every single animal that is slaughtered and factory farmed for it's flesh, milk, or otherwise.

(I linked the issue to abortion not only because it was relevant in my argument against the mystical entitlement of rights based upon having human biology, but also in response to a post of yours concerning my views on abortion in another thread -- I hope you caught that, comrade.)

midnight marauder

30th July 2007, 03:18

Yeah conversation over.

Are these the results of reading too much Judith Butler pomo bullshit?

You clearly missed the point of counter's comparison.

I hope the ad hominem attacks are the result of you not being able to defend your asinine position with regards to AR and comrades who advocate AR, and not just the result of you being a dense cock.

Although I'd be willing to bet that, as it usually does, the truth lies somewhere inbetween.

"A little bit from column A, a little bit from column B?"

counterblast

30th July 2007, 03:18

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+July 30, 2007 01:05 am--> (Vanguard1917 @ July 30, 2007 01:05 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:58 am

[email protected] 30, 2007 12:56 am
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about poultry - not women.

Pull yourself together.
But in what way do the two differ? Both are being exploited for the non-essential pleasure of another.
Yeah conversation over.

Are these the results of reading too much Judith Butler pomo bullshit? [/b]
No... they stem from your regurgitation of the age-old human justification of unnecessary exploitation. The "I think men should be allowed to divorce, but I don't care if women can" or "I support increasing white workers' wages, I don't care about the black workers" shit that has been used since the beginning of time to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. While never actually examining the bigger situation -- that we're all victims of oppression.

But, are your arguments from reading too much of Stalin's post-capitalist bullshit? You really don't seem like a "Marxist".

I mean, you obviously don't agree with Marx's analysis of the commodity in Capital where he warns of placing "social relations behind the fetishism of commodities". Josef Stalin was the one who retained the theory of labor as the source of value by acting as if it is a quantitive matter -- by hiding the qualitative determination of value in favor of coercive, unnecessary means of production.

Today, any prospect of uprooting capitalism, must revolve around a new human society, breaking down the alienative aspects of labor be it to humans, the environment, or animals.

TheTickTockMan

30th July 2007, 15:58

Now don't be too hasty, counter. I think it's something of a misplacement of presumption to extend the same Marxian analyses of labour, power, exploitation and value to animals; simply because animals are so radically different from human beings. It requires an entirely different paradigm of analysis, I believe, in order to be truly valid.

In short -- it's probably ridiculous to claim that animals have 'rights', but there is such a thing as animal welfare, as there should be welfare for humans who do not have the ability to defend themselves (fetuses aside, as they're not fully conscious or self-aware that a severely mentally handicapped person would be).

Nevertheless, I feel that it's necessary for humans to take an ecosystem-centered viewpoint on the world, focussing on the long-term effects of human behaviours upon the sustainability of life. Simply stated, it's advantageous to have a widespread pool of genetic resources -- biodiversity -- available for Darwinian adaptation in the future, which is why something incalculably valuable is lost whenever a species goes extinct -- not only are you killing off future members of that species, you are killing off all the millions of different species that might have evolved from it! Every species that we cause to go extinct, every ecosystem that collapses, is another strike against the survival of life on earth.

In essence, what I fear is that a worker's state, in its hubris to increase the wealth and affluence of its members, may end up treating the earth's ecosystem services as only a side-luxury -- in the words of some of RevLeft's forum members, a question of aesthetics that only the liberal rich can afford to ponder. In its anthropocentric hubris, a workers' state may perpetuate grievous damage to the earth's ecosystems, in an extent perhaps comparable to the worst excesses of capitalism.

Hence, we need to stop worrying so much about human survival as much as we should worry about the survival -- and flourishing -- of life itself.

!~TTTM

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 17:45

You've yet to state, why not...

There is already enough grain produced to meet the world's calorie requirements - in fact, there is more than enough produced. The problem is one of poverty - i.e. people in the developing world not being able to afford to eat adequately. In other words, the problem is capitalism - not greedy farm animals and meat-eating humans.

Are you seriously trying to claim that world hunger is being caused by animals eating all the grain?!

Take a step back and consider just how ridiculous such an assertion really is.

In reality, it has been shown that meat production and grain production can both be developed simultaneously - the output of both increasing together. If they were somehow counterposed, could this be possible?

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 17:49

No... they stem from your regurgitation of the age-old human justification of unnecessary exploitation. The "I think men should be allowed to divorce, but I don't care if women can" or "I support increasing white workers' wages, I don't care about the black workers" shit that has been used since the beginning of time to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. While never actually examining the bigger situation -- that we're all victims of oppression.

So you're comparing racist oppression of black people to the 'exploitation' of farm animals?

I find such an attitude extremely insulting to black people - to even dare to compare them to animals in such a way.

midnight marauder

30th July 2007, 18:08

So you're comparing racist oppression of black people to the 'exploitation' of farm animals?

I find such an attitude extremely insulting to black people - to even dare to compare them to animals in such a way.

That wasn't the quote, nor the suggestion, and you know it.

Your arguments are little more than appeals to emotion filled with straw men. Do you have anything to contribute besides bullshit sophistry?

(Note, for a minute, that all three of us -- counterblast, ticktock, and i -- all have very different views and justifications for advocating animal rights/animal wellfare. The idea of trying to slander an entire movement comprised of people with diverse backgrounds and opinions in not only a waste of time but crazy!)

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 18:32

Originally posted by J[email protected] 30, 2007 05:08 pm

So you're comparing racist oppression of black people to the 'exploitation' of farm animals?

I find such an attitude extremely insulting to black people - to even dare to compare them to animals in such a way.

That wasn't the quote, nor the suggestion, and you know it.
Actually, yes it was. Read it again:

No... they stem from your regurgitation of the age-old human justification of unnecessary exploitation. The "I think men should be allowed to divorce, but I don't care if women can" or "I support increasing white workers' wages, I don't care about the black workers" shit that has been used since the beginning of time to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. While never actually examining the bigger situation -- that we're all victims of oppression.

The implication is that the oppression of black people is somehow comparable to the 'unnecessary exploitation' of animals.

Of course, such an attitude is not unusual in the animal rights movement. They compare their cause to that of the civil rights movement, for example.

midnight marauder

30th July 2007, 19:32

I read it the first time, but thanks.

The implication of that quote is that often people care about oppression only when it's convenient and it relates to them directly. That a male who wants the right to divorce but doesn't care if women have the right to divorce, or a white person who wants better pay but doesn't care about blacks getting better pay are each similar in situation to human who wants to live a life free from unecessary oppression yet at the same time advocates the slaughter and torture of animals for human luxury.

Not that black people are animals, a la "I find such an attitude extremely insulting to black people - to even dare to compare them to animals in such a way."

bloody_capitalist_sham

30th July 2007, 19:49

Hence, we need to stop worrying so much about human survival as much as we should worry about the survival -- and flourishing -- of life itself.

Who is the 'we' in this sentence?

Why do we need to stop worrying about human survival? Why do we care about the ecosystem? So long as the earth doesn't get nuked all over, things wont get too messed up. Only weirdos who dream about the next ice age or super volcano blowing up.

What I'm getting at, is why should humans, in terms of our species, not act selfishly towards lesser animals?

Is it down to morals?

Invader Zim

30th July 2007, 20:21

But it is due to the intensive farming of animals that many people can now afford to eat meat on a regular basis.

But this ignores one fundermental, and much more important point, because some people are now eating meat, it is impossible for some people to eat, period.

It is a simple fact, meat production is highly inefficent. It takes a huge amount of resources to rear livestock to the point that it becomes ready for human consumption. Huge amounts of water, labour and arable farm land. All of these three ascets would be better employed in eliviating world hunger than providing what can only ever be a limited portion of the worlds population with multiple meat meals each day.

I am not suggesting that humans should cease eating meat, but there is no sound argument other than pure hedonistic self indulgence that we cannot cut down meat eating and focus more on arable farming for human, as opposed to animal, needs.

Not only would this end up being more healthy for the vast majority of people world wide, but it would be result in a far greater yield of food fit for human consumption and could certainly be a majot step in making famine a footnote in human history as opposed to a major current world crisis.

Thus it is entirely progressive to wish to see people reduce the, quite frankly, unhealthy levels of meat they consume. Not only would it be more healthy for us in the west, it would allow a greater amount of food to be sent to help end various famines world wide thus saving millions of lives and it would mean that far less animals are forced to suffer through the barbaric practises that currently plague modern farming techniques. Indeed I would say that support for factory farming of live stock, at the expence of arable farming is an entirely reactionary position to take. But when it comes to enviromentalism and the welfare of animals you consistantly take utterly ignorant and outrageously reactionary positions; thus it is no shock that you do so in this case as well.

The flaw is in your argument. As i already pointed out, grain production and meat production can't be counterposed in such a way - not with intensive farming methods.

My god, you really don't get it do you?

I will try and break this down into simple terms for you.

An acre of land can produce 250lbs of beef a year. An acre of land can produce 40,000lbs of potatos.

Thus

1lb of beef = 160lbs of potato

In other words, don't you think that 160lbs of potato will go a tad further in helping a community blighted by famine than one 16 oz steak?

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 22:29

Invader Zim, if you had been following the thread properly you would know that your arguments have already been addressed. Meat production cannot be counterposed to the production of vegetables - the output of both can be, as developments have shown, increased simultaneously.

And as progress in intensive farming methods shows, its application can radically increase both the production of meat and grain. In order to solve the problem of human hunger, the best and most advanced farming methods need to be applied worldwide so that we can provide the best for a growing world population.

I pointed out just how ridiculous it is to blame hunger on meat production. It also lets capitalism off the hook:

There is already enough grain produced to meet the world's calorie requirements - in fact, there is more than enough produced. The problem is one of poverty - i.e. people in the developing world not being able to afford to eat adequately. In other words, the problem is capitalism - not greedy farm animals and meat-eating humans.

Are you seriously trying to claim that world hunger is being caused by animals eating all the grain?!

In reality, it has been shown that meat production and grain production can both be developed simultaneously - the output of both increasing together. If they were somehow counterposed, could this be possible?

Marko

30th July 2007, 22:52

Vanguard1917,

What about fur coats? They are expensive, bourgeois luxury items which can be substituted with cheaper alternatives. It's true that many people would like to wear them but this doesn't mean that they should be manufactured.

For the animal rights perspective see this link:
http://www.parkc.org/fur.html

Invader Zim

30th July 2007, 23:06

Invader Zim, if you had been following the thread properly you would know that your arguments have already been addressed.

Bollocks. The same issues I raised were raised on the first page of this thread and are still being raised on this the latest page and throughout the saga that is this eight page thread you still have yet to come out with an adiquate answer; because there isn't one. The simple fact is meat consumption at the level enjoyed by us in the west is not only excessive to the point that it is actively unhealthy, but it has resulted in the industralisation of a grossly inefficient farming practise at the expense of a vastly more effecient practise.

And as progress in intensive farming methods shows

The progress of intensive pastoral farming can only occur with at least equal progress in arable farming, without the latter the former is impossible. Thus arable farming is still outstrips wasteful pastoral farming as much as it ever did, if not more so.

In order to solve the problem of human hunger, the best and most advanced farming methods need to be applied worldwide so that we can provide the best for a growing world population.

And pastoral farming is objectively less advanced and less efficent than arable farming. It cannot be any other way, think about it. Without arable farming pastoral farming can exist only on the most basic of levels. It is only through massive advances in arable farming that pastoral farming has been able to make the meagre and, to be honest, rather barbaric advances it has made.

You say you want to deal with world hunger, then how can you support such a wasteful practise existing as it currently does? You are either utterly ignorant of the subject or a fraud.

Oh and I have lived behind a cattle shed for the past decade, i have seen this 'advanced' farming on a level most have never seen, and with it I have seen dozens of calves obviously with deseases such as TB, I have seen cows living knee high in shit, piss and mud and I have seen pillars of smoke from entire cattle herds being burned because one of them may have had foot and mouth. You want to talk about advanced and efficent farming? I bet you don't have a fucking clue.

There is already enough grain produced to meet the world's calorie requirements - in fact, there is more than enough produced. The problem is one of poverty - i.e. people in the developing world not being able to afford to eat adequately. In other words, the problem is capitalism - not greedy farm animals and meat-eating humans.

What a totally ludicrous argument. But in one small respect you are correct, for the utterly wrong reasons of course. It is the fault of capitalism that food is largely too expensive to export to developing countries, but do you really suppose that situation is helped by unnecessarily producing food which is vastly more expensive, far more labour intensive in its production and at the end of the day results in a lot less food?

You let capitalism and the west off the hook by defending an utterly inefficient practise, bolstered by massive corporate empires who depend upon and actively encourage unhealthy life styles, making food generally more expensive at the expense of well, everyone.

Vanguard1917

30th July 2007, 23:25

Well, factory farming has shown that the efficiency of meat production can be radically increased. Thanks to factory farming methods, we can now produce more and more using less and less resources. Big production lines in Britain can produce up to 9,000 chicken an hour. American factory farms are producing literally millions of chicken per day. Such methods, if applied worldwide, can provide meat to billions. We already know this - we don't even need to hypothesise about future developments.

Applying such methods worldwide would represent progress. But you call it barbarism. You prefer to moralise with people and tell them to be vegetarians. Yet, whether you like it or not, more and more people are eating meat today than ever before, and even more worldwide aspire to be able to eat meat on a regular basis. If intensive farming was to be banned tomorrow, output would go down radically, the price of meat would go up, and meat would once again be a rarity which can only be eaten on special occasions or enjoyed by a priviledged few.

Invader Zim

31st July 2007, 01:18

Well, factory farming has shown that the efficiency of meat production can be radically increased.

Yes, it can be. But in order to do so, arable farming must be at a level to support it; thus making the whole excersise even more wasteful.

Thanks to factory farming methods, we can now produce more and more using less and less resources.

Thanks to factory farming we must grow more vast amounts more crops to sustain an ever increasing volume of live stock. We get more meat at a lower cost, that doesn't alter the fact that meat is wasteful, expensive and at the levels it is consumed by large numbers of western society, unhealthy.

Big production lines in Britain can produce up to 9,000 chicken an hour.

Which means you have to produce feed for that 9,000 per hour in order to sustain them to the point that they are at a stage ready to be killed and sent to be prepared for human consumption. So basically, you could just grow far more food on far less land, feed far more people, use far less labour, employ far fewer resources, etc, by simply missing out the 9,000 chickens per hour?

Such methods, if applied worldwide, can provide meat to billions.

Or alternatively we could reduce meat production by a mere 10%, and use the land and resources saved to provide arable produce for every person currently dying of starvation. This would be cheeper, more efficient in terms of land use, less of a drain on resources, healthier for Westerners, provide millions with food as well as reducing needless suffering among animals. We already know this - we don't even need to hypothesise about future developments.

Applying such methods worldwide would represent progress.

No it would be regressive, a step towards general inefficency, lower quality meat, an even larger demand on arable farming and even and poorer dietry standards.

But you call it barbarism.

Well, almost certainly unlike you, have seen it first hand every day for the past decade.

You prefer to moralise with people and tell them to be vegetarians.

I say no such thing. I suggest a reduction in meat eating and an emphasis on the farming of arable produce for human consumption. Not a sudden world wide move to vegetarianism.

Yet, whether you like it or not, more and more people are eating meat today than ever before

And a third of people in the US are suffering from obesity. Guess why that maybe sweetie.

If intensive farming was to be banned tomorrow, output would go down radically

If the same efforts placed into producing feed for live stock were placed into providing food for human consumption, there would be a vast surplus of food world wide, poduction would sky rocket.

and meat would once again be a rarity which can only be eaten on special occasions or enjoyed by a priviledged few.

What, you mean like food in general, be it meat or veg is for many because instead of feeding starving people with our farms produce we feed cattle in factory farms in Anglesea? Obviously individuals like you need their steak far more than starving people need any form of sustenance; what was I thinking.

chimx

31st July 2007, 02:28

It would help Libertarian1917 to stop thinking in terms of dietary preferences, but instead focus on caloric and protein needs of peoples. It is more efficient to provide a populations caloric needs primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, through vegetation. The consumption of animals and their byproducts, though nutritious, is an inefficient means of caloric intake, given the caloric waste in the production process.

counterblast

31st July 2007, 02:41

There is already enough grain produced to meet the world's calorie requirements - in fact, there is more than enough produced. The problem is one of poverty - i.e. people in the developing world not being able to afford to eat adequately. In other words, the problem is capitalism - not greedy farm animals and meat-eating humans.

If capitalism is the problem, then factory farming is the product.

Are you seriously trying to claim that world hunger is being caused by animals eating all the grain?!

I do not claim this to be the only factor. A major contributing factor, yes.

In reality, it has been shown that meat production and grain production can both be developed simultaneously - the output of both increasing together. If they were somehow counterposed, could this be possible?

By whom? What agricultural expert or mathmatician suggested utilizing twice the land for half (even less, when you toss undesirable parts) the product increases output?

counterblast

31st July 2007, 03:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:49 pm

No... they stem from your regurgitation of the age-old human justification of unnecessary exploitation. The "I think men should be allowed to divorce, but I don't care if women can" or "I support increasing white workers' wages, I don't care about the black workers" shit that has been used since the beginning of time to create an "us" versus "them" mentality. While never actually examining the bigger situation -- that we're all victims of oppression.

So you're comparing racist oppression of black people to the 'exploitation' of farm animals?

I find such an attitude extremely insulting to black people - to even dare to compare them to animals in such a way.
Never did I suggest black people or women are of the same primal mental state as animals. I simply suggested that animals also suffer physically -- even if not mentally-- from the exploitation inflicted by big businesses and political institutions in the name of "profit" or "power".

counterblast

31st July 2007, 03:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:49 pm

Hence, we need to stop worrying so much about human survival as much as we should worry about the survival -- and flourishing -- of life itself.

Who is the 'we' in this sentence?

Why do we need to stop worrying about human survival? Why do we care about the ecosystem? So long as the earth doesn't get nuked all over, things wont get too messed up. Only weirdos who dream about the next ice age or super volcano blowing up.

What I'm getting at, is why should humans, in terms of our species, not act selfishly towards lesser animals?

Is it down to morals?
Are women among these lesser animals? Because we are biologically (although not universally) weaker in strength, and politically repressed?

Who said that survival and preservation are incompatible?

Doesn't your arguement really only boil down to one of morality also?

Vanguard1917

31st July 2007, 03:35

Which means you have to produce feed for that 9,000 per hour in order to sustain them to the point that they are at a stage ready to be killed and sent to be prepared for human consumption. So basically, you could just grow far more food on far less land, feed far more people, use far less labour, employ far fewer resources, etc, by simply missing out the 9,000 chickens per hour?

This clearly displays the major flaw in this idiotic argument.

Intensive farming methods make meat production more efficient. This means that, with the development of intensive farming (of meat as well as crops), less feed, water, land, etc. is needed to produce a greater output. Due to such methods of production, more and more land and resources can be released from agriculture every year without decreases in output.

I do not claim this to be the only factor. A major contributing factor, yes.

It's not a 'major contributing factor'. It's not even relevant. Hunger in the developing world has nothing to do with farm animals eating grain. There's hunger in the developing world because there's economic poverty and backwardness there (with large sections of the population engaged in subsistence farming, for example). What the developing world needs is agricultural and industrial development - to be able to apply the best and most advanced production practices available - in order to raise their populations out of poverty.

Trying to turn Westerners into vegetarians - or limiting their meat consumption - is not going to solve anything. (In fact, it could never be applied in practice without having to resort to the worst authoritarian measures. History shows us that people generally don't accept cuts in their standards of living without putting up a fight, and nor should they - who wants to go back to the days when eating chicken drumsticks for dinner was, until a couple of generations ago, reserved strictly for special occasions?)

It just diverts attention away from the real problem - the severe lack of economic development in the developing world.

counterblast

31st July 2007, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:35 am

Which means you have to produce feed for that 9,000 per hour in order to sustain them to the point that they are at a stage ready to be killed and sent to be prepared for human consumption. So basically, you could just grow far more food on far less land, feed far more people, use far less labour, employ far fewer resources, etc, by simply missing out the 9,000 chickens per hour?

This clearly displays the major flaw in this idiotic argument.

Intensive farming methods make meat production more efficient. This means that, with the development of intensive farming (of meat as well as crops), less feed, water, land, etc. is needed to produce a greater output. Due to such methods of production, more and more land and resources can be released from agriculture every year without decreases in output.

I do not claim this to be the only factor. A major contributing factor, yes.

It's not a 'major contributing factor'. It's not even relevant. Hunger in the developing world has nothing to do with farm animals eating grain. There's hunger in the developing world because there's economic poverty and backwardness there (with large sections of the population engaged in subsistence farming, for example). What the developing world needs is agricultural and industrial development - to be able to apply the best and most advanced production practices available - in order to raise their populations out of poverty.

Trying to turn Westerners into vegetarians - or limiting their meat consumption - is not going to solve anything. (In fact, it could never be applied in practice without having to resort to the worst authoritarian measures. History shows us that people generally don't accept cuts in their standards of living without putting up a fight, and nor should they - who wants to go back to the days when eating chicken drumsticks for dinner was, until a couple of generations ago, reserved strictly for special occasions?)

It just diverts attention away from the real problem - the severe lack of economic development in the developing world.
Okay, let me reply to both of these.

1) And here is the flaw in this response you keep giving. No matter the advancements made in food production; agricultural farming will be more environmentally positive and more efficient than meat production. Animals will still require food and chemicals to survive and grow to profitable sizes.

Furthermore; even more of this land could be freed up by closing down factory farms; and focusing solely on plant-based foods, which enable direct-consumption.

2) It is a contributing factor, it misdirects technology and financial resources to a system that, as I stated earlier, produces 1 at the cost of 2. I do agree with you on one point, however; what we need, are not primitive farming methods, but a better utilization of land and resources. And factory herding is not one of those "better utilizations".

And I suppose Marxism will never be implemented either; because most westerners aren't Marxist? Because it might affect a wealthy CEOs "standard of living"? How could you possibly be an idealist in one situation, yet a realist in the other?

RevMARKSman

31st July 2007, 14:41

Doesn't your arguement really only boil down to one of morality also?

I can only give you an overwhelming NO!.

Society as a whole grants rights that it deems to be beneficial. We grant rights to all those who may have a significant contribution to society - and that includes most humans, including the physically handicapped (Stephen Hawking, anyone?). We also give protections to small children and the mentally handicapped, to make sure we don't miss anyone. We don't give rights to animals because they don't make life easier for any members of society.

Invader Zim

31st July 2007, 19:11

This clearly displays the major flaw in this idiotic argument.

No sweetie, it doesn't; it is simple logic.

Intensive farming methods make meat production more efficient.

Yes we know. But it does not alter the fact that if you have more live stock you need more feed, thus you need vastly more crops, more water, more labour; which require more labour land and resources to grow to support the new livestock. Thus the more meat you produce the less efficent the system becomes because vastly more resources are required for relatively little increase output. If output goes up then the input of material must grow in order to support the increased demand.

Due to such methods of production, more and more land and resources can be released from agriculture every year without decreases in output.

No, they can't. If you have factory farms which allow a greatly increased capacity for the rearing of livestock, you must provide the feed and water for the livestcok. This feed needs to be grown, thus you not only take up physical space rearing the livestock you also take up space and resources provoding the vastly increased number of livestock with the materials to allow them to mature to the point they can be slaughtered and then consumed.

More animals = more feed = more crops = more land used and more resources utilised in agriculture

chimx

31st July 2007, 19:36

I believe that Libertarian1917 is speaking to the genetic modifications done in animal husbandry, as well as breeding to a degree, that causes animals to grow at an increased rate compared to their wild counter-parts.

But for growth at this rate to occur, no matter what it requires a caloric intake in excess of the caloric output that the animal can provide due to the required time necessary in growing the animal to full term.

Granted, this time has been reduced due to scientific advancements, but it still requires an inefficient amount of resources, and always will.

Invader Zim

31st July 2007, 20:47

We don't give rights to animals because they don't make life easier for any members of society.

Wrong.

http://www.fredericremington.org/images/mule.jpg

Various animals have, sinse the dawn of recorded history, been revered in various societies because of how much easier they make life.

Not to mention your entire concept of rights and how they are applied and to what and whom they are accorded is utterly wrong.

TheTickTockMan

31st July 2007, 21:31

Still, comrades, it is helpful to note that our Vanguard friend hasn't yet justified exactly why it's so important to eat meat anyway. Just for the sake of eating it, I suppose?

It's also helpful to note that a vast percentage of usable arable land is set over to grow food for animals -- that is only edible for animals -- when it could be used for other purposes, be they farming or other constructive uses, such as in industry, commerce, or the environment. Imagine if all the countless thousands of acres used to grow soybeans and corn for cows and chickens and pigs were used to restore damaged ecosystems, expand housing and infrastructure, develop factories to make cheaper products, or grow crops for people. Isn't it a wiser thing to invest in non-perishable wealth items, such as consumer goods, or civilian infrastructure (manpower, resources, land, and energy that might've gone into meat production) than in perishables, like meat?

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a nice big house in the country, or a new car, or a pleasant wildlife park, to a quarter-pound hamburger.

Yes, it is true that the major cause of famine nowadays is inefficient distribution of food, but once that is gained, wouldn't it be even better to build up a surplus (something that can't be done with perishable meats) to help bolster the world population? Food that might've fed animals could feed perhaps billions more people on a First-World caloric intake.

@~TTTM

RevMARKSman

31st July 2007, 22:16

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 31, 2007 02:47 pm

We don't give rights to animals because they don't make life easier for any members of society.

Wrong.

http://www.fredericremington.org/images/mule.jpg

Various animals have, sinse the dawn of recorded history, been revered in various societies because of how much easier they make life.

Not to mention your entire concept of rights and how they are applied and to what and whom they are accorded is utterly wrong.
I meant the rights, not the animals.

...and, prove it.

chimx

31st July 2007, 22:31

Actually some people do give animal's rights. Germany for example:

CNN - "Germany votes for animal rights" (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/17/germany.animals/)

While the United States doesn't protect animals from mistreatment in the constitution, it does usually have state or federal laws protecting them from abuse, torture, mistreatment, etc.

You'll recall a famous American football player is currently being charged for torturing and killing bulldogs, a crime that could bring a jail sentence of 6 years. You may not call it animal rights, but that is what it amounts to, albeit at a lower level than most animal rights activists want.

RevMARKSman

31st July 2007, 22:43

Actually some people do give animal's rights. Germany for example:

CNN - "Germany votes for animal rights"

While the United States doesn't protect animals from mistreatment in the constitution, it does usually have state or federal laws protecting them from abuse, torture, mistreatment, etc.
You'll recall a famous American football player is currently being charged for torturing and killing bulldogs, a crime that could bring a jail sentence of 6 years. You may not call it animal rights, but that is what it amounts to, albeit at a lower level than most animal rights activists want.

Ok, some countries do give animals rights, but a) why aren't they throwing all the animals they can find in jail for killing each other and b) I'm saying I oppose giving animals rights because it's not useful.

BTW I oppose the punishment of Michael Vick simply because of the law in question. If he was being charged with something like assault I would want the NFL to wait until the trial and verdict, and not do anything unless he's convicted, but I don't even like this law in the first place.

chimx

31st July 2007, 23:49

a) why aren't they throwing all the animals they can find in jail for killing each other and b) I'm saying I oppose giving animals rights because it's not useful.

a) why are you asking stupid questions? and b) the majority of people in this country seem to disagree with your sadistic opinions.

but I don't even like this law in the first place.

You don't like laws against dog fighting, and torturing animals?

TheTickTockMan

1st August 2007, 00:08

Just because we're not letting people torture animals doesn't mean we're talking about giving animals the right to vote. Preventing abuse is one thing, treating animals like people is another.

Besides, the stance that most animal rights activists take -- that we should prevent all 'bad' things from happening to all animals on an individual, case-by-case basis, like with humans, is a ridiculous idea, in my opinion. On the whole, most animals act and behave the same as each other.

What would be most constructive is to think of animal rights on a species level -- i.e. the ecosystem services that the species provides, the species' niche in the ecosystem, its status as a 'keystone species', its chances for survival and evolution in the future. It's a practical, utilitarian question that can be quantified and rationally analyzed. Biocentrism, not anthropocentrism. That makes much more sense than giving Fluffy the poodle the right to own property, get an abortion, or run for president.

@~TTTM

Invader Zim

1st August 2007, 00:33

...and, prove it.

Prove what? That you don't understand the concept of rights? I don't need to prove it; you have already done so your self. Rights are obviously not drawn up on the basis of what makes life easier for society in general, they never have been and never will be. Rights are whatever those who run society say they are. At the moment we, in the west, live in a democracy and most people are opposed to the abusive treatment of animals, as such societies rulers have - whether they wanted to or not - given animals certain rights. For example in most US states various forms of animal abuse are misdemeanors and in some states fellonies.

Thus we do not base 'rights' upon anything like what you claim.

Vanguard1917

1st August 2007, 00:46

No, they can't. If you have factory farms which allow a greatly increased capacity for the rearing of livestock, you must provide the feed and water for the livestcok. This feed needs to be grown, thus you not only take up physical space rearing the livestock you also take up space and resources provoding the vastly increased number of livestock with the materials to allow them to mature to the point they can be slaughtered and then consumed.

More animals = more feed = more crops = more land used and more resources utilised in agriculture

Not at all. I don't think that you know much about intensive farming. The main advantage of intensive farming in comparison to backward farming methods is precisely its ability to produce greater output using less land. Hence 'intensive' farming.

But for growth at this rate to occur, no matter what it requires a caloric intake in excess of the caloric output that the animal can provide due to the required time necessary in growing the animal to full term.

This is totally untrue. Two-thirds of what we feed to farm animals is made up of substances which are either undesirable or unsuitable for human consumption. It is simply false to say that humans and animals are competing for food. In reality, animal farming improves the quantity and quality of human food because it converts inedible plants to human food.

Also, as i have pointed out at least twice in this thread, there is more than enough food produced today to feed every single person in the world. Hunger is not caused by the lack of food in any absolute sense. Instead, it is caused by poverty - people's inability to afford it: i.e. the lack of demand for food ('demand' in the strict economic sense).

So, the question is, if every single one of us in the West became vegetarians, would this help alleviate hunger in the developing world? Not at all. While demand for meat will fall in the West, the demand for food in the developing world will stay the same: the ability to buy food - the buying power - of people in places like Africa will not change at all - not for the better, anyway.

The conlusion is that the problem of human hunger cannot be solved by changes in our lifestyles. Instead, radical social change is needed - for an economic system which can provide the best for all.

TheTickTockMan

1st August 2007, 01:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:46 pm

No, they can't. If you have factory farms which allow a greatly increased capacity for the rearing of livestock, you must provide the feed and water for the livestcok. This feed needs to be grown, thus you not only take up physical space rearing the livestock you also take up space and resources provoding the vastly increased number of livestock with the materials to allow them to mature to the point they can be slaughtered and then consumed.

More animals = more feed = more crops = more land used and more resources utilised in agriculture

Not at all. I don't think that you know much about intensive farming. The main advantage of intensive farming in comparison to backward farming methods is precisely its ability to produce greater output using less land. Hence 'intensive' farming.

I think I rebutted this assertion of yours a fair while back. Intensive farming will NEVER produce an equivalent amount of input plant material for the amount of animal meat OUTPUT.

But for growth at this rate to occur, no matter what it requires a caloric intake in excess of the caloric output that the animal can provide due to the required time necessary in growing the animal to full term.

This is totally untrue. Two-thirds of what we feed to farm animals is made up of substances which are either undesirable or unsuitable for human consumption. It is simply false to say that humans and animals are competing for food. In reality, animal farming improves the quantity and quality of human food because it converts inedible plants to human food.

Yes, but what are we wasting in feeding the animals, when we could be using the land that grew the food that fed animals for other purposes, if we didn't need to feed those animals in the first place?

Also, as i have pointed out at least twice in this thread, there is more than enough food produced today to feed every single person in the world. Hunger is not caused by the lack of food in any absolute sense. Instead, it is caused by poverty - people's inability to afford it: i.e. the lack of demand for food ('demand' in the strict economic sense).

So, the question is, if every single one of us in the West became vegetarians, would this help alleviate hunger in the developing world? Not at all. While demand for meat will fall in the West, the demand for food in the developing world will stay the same: the ability to buy food - the buying power - of people in places like Africa will not change at all - not for the better, anyway.

I thought the question was: Is it more efficient to feed people on meat or on vegetables? Because we're not saying that "All people in the West should become vegetarians." You've been systematically ignoring everything that I, and three other reasonable people, have been saying to you all this time.

You have failed to answer my point that by converting arable land used for animal feed to plant feed, we could afford to support many times more people, on a much higher caloric intake, than we could even if we redistributed the food. What if in the future, there are ten or twenty billion people on this world, all of whom need feeding? Would it still be rational to continue producing meat by industrial animal farming? Is it even a good choice at all to eat meat when there are perfectly good substitutes? You have also failed to answer these questions.

You have failed to answer my point that plant products are infinitely easier to store long-term than meat, and can serve as a surplus to hedge against disasters or hard times.

You have failed to answer my point that plant farming is far less environmentally destructive than animal farming, howsoever much 'intensive' that may be.

And until you provide adequate answers to these points, I fail to see the point of continuing such a debate, when you have shown such senseless hardheadedness.

!~TTTM

counterblast

1st August 2007, 01:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 01:41 pm

Doesn't your arguement really only boil down to one of morality also?

I can only give you an overwhelming NO!.

Society as a whole grants rights that it deems to be beneficial. We grant rights to all those who may have a significant contribution to society - and that includes most humans, including the physically handicapped (Stephen Hawking, anyone?). We also give protections to small children and the mentally handicapped, to make sure we don't miss anyone. We don't give rights to animals because they don't make life easier for any members of society.
Then if predominantly nonbeneficial entities recieve partial rights, such as children and the mentally/physically incapable; so should animals. Not necessarily the right to vote; but like children and the mentally incapable; the right to life.

Otherwise it seems your basis for granting the unproductive certain rights, stems from a socially imposed moral obligation, rather than actual contribution.

counterblast

1st August 2007, 01:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:43 pm

Actually some people do give animal's rights. Germany for example:

CNN - "Germany votes for animal rights"

While the United States doesn't protect animals from mistreatment in the constitution, it does usually have state or federal laws protecting them from abuse, torture, mistreatment, etc.
You'll recall a famous American football player is currently being charged for torturing and killing bulldogs, a crime that could bring a jail sentence of 6 years. You may not call it animal rights, but that is what it amounts to, albeit at a lower level than most animal rights activists want.

Ok, some countries do give animals rights, but a) why aren't they throwing all the animals they can find in jail for killing each other
Because it is required to prove the "crime" stemmed out of malice. Otherwise you have a crime committed out of insanity or by accident.

Any criminal defense book can tell you that.

counterblast

1st August 2007, 01:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:46 pm
This is totally untrue. Two-thirds of what we feed to farm animals is made up of substances which are either undesirable or unsuitable for human consumption. It is simply false to say that humans and animals are competing for food.

I don't believe this statistic for a minute. Cattle feed is primarily made up of grain, with added cottonseed, and ground-up animal parts considered "undesirable".

The only ingredient, that could not otherwise be utilized is the ground-up animal parts. But again; if we didn't have factory farms, these excess animal parts wouldn't be a dilemma in the first place.

Vanguard1917

1st August 2007, 01:44

I think I rebutted this assertion of yours a fair while back. Intensive farming will NEVER produce an equivalent amount of input plant material for the amount of animal meat OUTPUT.

I'm not sure what you're talking about? Be clearer.

And bear in mind that intensive farming is used to produce both meat and crops.

Yes, but what are we wasting in feeding the animals, when we could be using the land that grew the food that fed animals for other purposes, if we didn't need to feed those animals in the first place?

The answer is simple. More than 60% of the earth's dry land is not suited to farming - and it is primarily from such land that food for farm animals is produced (moutainous, desert and open range areas).

You have failed to answer my point that by converting arable land used for animal feed to plant feed, we could afford to support many times more people, on a much higher caloric intake, than we could even if we redistributed the food. What if in the future, there are ten or twenty billion people on this world, all of whom need feeding? Would it still be rational to continue producing meat by industrial animal farming? Is it even a good choice at all to eat meat when there are perfectly good substitutes? You have also failed to answer these questions.

So you're admitting that human hunger today has nothing to do with animal farming. Instead, what you're now talking about is hypothetical future scenarios.

At the moment we produce grain that could feed around 10 billion people. If our best agricultural practices (which are always subject to development and progress) were applied worldwide, this number would radically increase. There is no reason for Malthusian fears about population growth and food shortages. The problem is always one of underdevelopment and capitalist misdistribution.

You have failed to answer my point that plant products are infinitely easier to store long-term than meat, and can serve as a surplus to hedge against disasters or hard times.

I don't know about that. Meat can be stored, too. I know i've currently got some lamb chops in the freezer that have been there for a few weeks. Using methods of canning and drying, meat can be preserved for a lot longer.

In terms of grain storage, most countries don't store any more than a few weeks worth of grain at any one time, anyway.

You have failed to answer my point that plant farming is far less environmentally destructive than animal farming, howsoever much 'intensive' that may be.

Well, you have failed to back up your 'point' with facts.

Invader Zim

1st August 2007, 02:09

Not at all. I don't think that you know much about intensive farming.

Clearly not, because you obviously misunderstand the fundermental nature of the beast.

The main advantage of intensive farming in comparison to backward farming methods is precisely its ability to produce greater output using less land.

Less land for pastoral farmer yes, pastoral farm as individual buisnesses. The farmers still have to aquire the feed for an increased number of livestock. Where do you think that feed comes from? Actually don't bother trying to answer that, you will just further expose your gross ignorance. It comes from arable farms which most increase productivity in order to meet demands, this means that arable farms increase in size and use more resources even while animal farmers jam more livestock into the same area.

Do you honestly not get that?

Marko

1st August 2007, 02:09

Vanguard1917,

Could you answer to my point about fur coats?

They are expensive, bourgeois luxury items which can be substituted with cheaper alternatives. It's true that many people would like to wear them but this doesn't mean that they should be manufactured.

And the production causes suffering to animals:
http://www.parkc.org/fur.html

Do you think fur coats should be produced in a socialist state?

RevMARKSman

1st August 2007, 02:10

Because it is required to prove the "crime" stemmed out of malice. Otherwise you have a crime committed out of insanity or by accident.

Any criminal defense book can tell you that.

Oh, so animals don't have "intent" now? If they don't have these basic mental functions why are we giving them rights anyway? And if we're protecting animals, doesn't that mean separating the more vicious ones regardless of "intent"?

Otherwise it seems your basis for granting the unproductive certain rights, stems from a socially imposed moral obligation, rather than actual contribution.

The "unproductive"? The mentally handicapped are still able to participate in society. Children have incredible potential, and often do contribute. Not only that, but society gives rights to children to ensure its continued existence. Who's going to be taking care of you when you're 85?

Rights are whatever those who run society say they are.

I never said the state and ruling class do not enforce rights that only forward their class interests. They obviously do. However, animal rights materially benefit no members of society at all, and are therefore not useful.

At the moment we, in the west, live in a democracy and most people are opposed to the abusive treatment of animals, as such societies rulers have - whether they wanted to or not - given animals certain rights. For example in most US states various forms of animal abuse are misdemeanors and in some states fellonies.
I'm arguing that they're not materially useful rights.

Thus we do not base 'rights' upon anything like what you claim.

The ruling class bases rights on what they think is materially beneficial to their position, I know this. But in post-revolutionary society, I'm assuming that since there is no ruling class, society will decide communally what rights to keep. We get rid of non-useful rights, enforce new rights that materially benefit society as a whole, and keep the ones that are useful.

Vanguard1917

1st August 2007, 02:17

Do you think fur coats should be produced in a socialist state?

That would be up to society to decide. But i have no objection to the production of fur coats from an 'animal rights' perspective.

Do you honestly not get that?

Do you honestly not get that human hunger today has absolutely nothing to do with the meat production?Even TheTickTockMan gets it.

Me,from two posts down:

Also, as i have pointed out at least twice in this thread, there is more than enough food produced today to feed every single person in the world. Hunger is not caused by the lack of food in any absolute sense. Instead, it is caused by poverty - people's inability to afford it: i.e. the lack of demand for food ('demand' in the strict economic sense).

So, the question is, if every single one of us in the West became vegetarians, would this help alleviate hunger in the developing world? Not at all. While demand for meat will fall in the West, the demand for food in the developing world will stay the same: the ability to buy food - the buying power - of people in places like Africa will not change at all - not for the better, anyway.

The conlusion is that the problem of human hunger cannot be solved by changes in our lifestyles. Instead, radical social change is needed - for an economic system which can provide the best for all.

chimx

1st August 2007, 05:45

Also, as i have pointed out at least twice in this thread, there is more than enough food produced today to feed every single person in the world. Hunger is not caused by the lack of food in any absolute sense. Instead, it is caused by poverty - people's inability to afford it: i.e. the lack of demand for food ('demand' in the strict economic sense).

Good point, and I agree. But unfortunately for your argument, due to the resource investment required for animal husbandry, beans will always be cheaper than a steak. Animal husbandry thrives on being a commodity of scarcity.

socialistfuture

1st August 2007, 09:38

could cap vanguard explain what 'animal' rights means?

Vanguard1917

1st August 2007, 17:27

due to the resource investment required for animal husbandry, beans will always be cheaper than a steak. Animal husbandry thrives on being a commodity of scarcity.

In the developed world, meat is no longer a scarce commodity: partly due to developments in intensive farming methods, most can now afford to add meat to their everyday diets.

But you people are against intensive farming. If we got rid of intensive farming, eating meat would again be a rarity even in the developed world, and we would indeed go back to eating beans more.

If, on the other hand, our best and most advanced meat production methods were applied worldwide, we would be one step closer to providing meat for the billions worldwide who wish to have more regular consumption of it.

Since i'm having to repeat myself over and over again (which is a sign that people here are stubbornly ignoring facts and logic), i think my job in this thread is probably done.

chimx

1st August 2007, 17:41

We are hearing what you are saying, but you are ignoring us. We have told you a million times over the resource costs of intensive animal husbandry are incredibly high, and the caloric output is lower than the caloric input. You can say that this is irrelevant due to the "type" of food that makes up animal feed, but that still ignores the resource waste from dedicating arable land to feeding animals instead of humans.

Vanguard1917

2nd August 2007, 03:19

We have told you a million times over the resource costs of intensive animal husbandry are incredibly high, and the caloric output is lower than the caloric input.

And i have told you that this is incorrect; that, in reality, meat production converts materials mainly inedible by mankind into food of higher quality and quantity.

You can say that this is irrelevant due to the "type" of food that makes up animal feed, but that still ignores the resource waste from dedicating arable land to feeding animals instead of humans.

Below are examples of meat-producing factory farms. What makes you say that these factory farm are built on land better suited to crop production?

http://www.cowsarecool.com/photos/pigFarm01.jpg

http://www.all-creatures.org/images/loosehen.jpg

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/72/05/23410572.jpg

----

And the fundamental fact is not being addressed: that human hunger has nothing whatsoever to do with meat production - that there is more than enough food produced to meet the calorie requirements of every single human being. The problem is not meat-eating Westerners; the problem is capitalist market distribution of food.

midnight marauder

2nd August 2007, 04:09

And the fundamental fact is not being addressed: that human hunger has nothing whatsoever to do with meat production - that there is more than enough food produced to meet the calorie requirements of every single human being. The problem is not meat-eating Westerners; the problem is capitalist market distribution of food.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

What's your point? We know this already, in fact, I as well as countless others have posted the same fact in response to rightest arguments about how vegetarianism/veganism would only increase hunger.

The point is that ideally, preferably under the conditions of a post-capitalist enviornment where land was used to it's fullest potential, that factory farming is a waste of resources, and further, that it uses resources that could better be spent on more productive things.

Why do you keep defending capitalism?

Vanguard1917

2nd August 2007, 14:38

We know this already,

:lol:

I don't know about you, but at least two people in this thread claimed that people are hungry because of Westerners eating meat.

The point is that ideally, preferably under the conditions of a post-capitalist enviornment where land was used to it's fullest potential, that factory farming is a waste of resources, and further, that it uses resources that could better be spent on more productive things.

You're not paying any attention at all are you? Read the thread before you talk out your behind.

chimx

2nd August 2007, 17:08

And i have told you that this is incorrect; that, in reality, meat production converts materials mainly inedible by mankind into food of higher quality and quantity.

I don't understand you. Are you just making up things that I've said?

The issue isn't the land used for animal husbandry, or the grain/alfalfa that is used to feed animals. It is that there is massive amounts of *land* (and water for that matter) being used to grow food for animals. The land and resource requirements for modern animal husbandry are inefficient when you look at the resource requirements--including land dedicated to growing the crops for feed.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2007, 17:55

What makes you say that these factory farm are built on land better suited to crop production?

Well that would depend on where they were built. But that ignores the more important point which you have consistantly ignored, in order to feed those animals you must have a piece of land somewhere else producing their feed. That takes up room, a lot of room and if we ate less meat and more veg that land could be utilised for other purposes.

And more meat and less veg makes the average price of food higher, which makes it more expensive to provide aid for people in developing countries. If the focus of arable farming was shifted towards providing food for people and opposed to animals, then the cost of aid would invariably drop. This would of course mean that we could send more aid for less.

chimx

2nd August 2007, 18:51

This would of course mean that we could send more aid for less.

Not to mention, poorer countries could buy more food for less money.

Invader Zim

2nd August 2007, 20:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:51 pm

This would of course mean that we could send more aid for less.

Not to mention, poorer countries could buy more food for less money.
Indeed. But it all comes back to the point that producing crops is more efficient and less expensive, something our friend here either cannot or will not accept.

chimx

2nd August 2007, 22:12

It's easier having a discussion with a rock. At least the rock won't make irrelevant and confused retorts.

I just don't understand what is so confusing. Neither of us are arguing for the eradication of meat production. We are simply stating the obvious: that meat production requires resources in excess of what is being produced, i.e.: it is inefficient.

Personal tastes, cultural needs, etc., may justify this inefficiency, but to deny the existence of its inefficiency is completely ignorant.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd August 2007, 22:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:12 pm
We are simply stating the obvious: that meat production requires resources in excess of what is being produced, i.e.: it is inefficient.
But if this is the concept of inefficiency, then everything would be inefficient, except for the perpetuum mobile, that does not exist...

Luís Henrique

Pawn Power

2nd August 2007, 22:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:09 pm

The point is that ideally, preferably under the conditions of a post-capitalist enviornment where land was used to it's fullest potential, that factory farming is a waste of resources, and further, that it uses resources that could better be spent on more productive things.

Hypothetical question for a post-capitalist society; what if people wanted to eat meat (not necessarily derived from factory farms), should it be stopped and would you still morally object?

Vanguard1917

2nd August 2007, 23:51

This thread is good example of the horrific consequences of protein deficiency on the human brain.

RevMARKSman

3rd August 2007, 00:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:51 pm
This thread is good example of the horrific consequences of protein deficiency on the human brain.
You're making a mockery of your own position here, which to my dismay somewhat parallels mine. Don't act like you're somehow "above" the debate.

counterblast

3rd August 2007, 01:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:10 am
Oh, so animals don't have "intent" now? If they don't have these basic mental functions why are we giving them rights anyway? And if we're protecting animals, doesn't that mean separating the more vicious ones regardless of "intent
Young children and the mentally incapable don't act out of malice either. You, explain to me why they are given rights...

Why? Because they are able to feel pain like everyone else. Worth based on amount of contribution is a capitalist concept; worth based on capability and inherent worth are communist/anarchist ones.

(I will reply to the rest of these when I get home)

RevMARKSman

3rd August 2007, 01:09

Originally posted by counterblast+August 02, 2007 07:05 pm--> (counterblast @ August 02, 2007 07:05 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 01:10 am
Oh, so animals don't have "intent" now? If they don't have these basic mental functions why are we giving them rights anyway? And if we're protecting animals, doesn't that mean separating the more vicious ones regardless of "intent
Young children and the mentally incapable don't act out of malice either. You, explain to me why they are given rights...

Why? Because they are able to feel pain like everyone else. Worth based on amount of contribution is a capitalist concept; worth based on capability and inherent worth are communist/anarchist ones.

(I will reply to the rest of these when I get home) [/b]
I addressed that in my previous post (read the whole thing) - oh, and don't even imply that I somehow am not a communist, that'll get you absolutely nowhere.

chimx

3rd August 2007, 02:03

But if this is the concept of inefficiency

Yeah, we probably could argue that if we are taking into account human energy expenditure. But this is an inefficiency in non-human resources alone. And at the heart of this, as Zim has been discussing, is that because animal husbandry requires an increase in resources and heightened inefficiency in production, it results in higher prices, if we are looking at this in terms of nutrition.

counterblast

5th August 2007, 11:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:10 am
The "unproductive"? The mentally handicapped are still able to participate in society. Children have incredible potential, and often do contribute. Not only that, but society gives rights to children to ensure its continued existence. Who's going to be taking care of you when you're 85?

That's a bit of a generalization; don't you think? There are varying degrees of mental incapability.

Children cannot contribute. Our current society is designed only for adults. Children are left to do menial tasks; just as animals. Making them the same in that respect.

I never said the state and ruling class do not enforce rights that only forward their class interests. They obviously do. However, animal rights materially benefit no members of society at all, and are therefore not useful.

Tell that to the profiteers of the multi-billion dollar meat industry.

As for your above statement; I am not claiming you are not communist; but I am claiming you are thinking in capitalist terms regarding animal rights.

counterblast

5th August 2007, 11:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:19 am
Below are examples of meat-producing factory farms. What makes you say that these factory farm are built on land better suited to crop production?

http://www.cowsarecool.com/photos/pigFarm01.jpg

http://www.all-creatures.org/images/loosehen.jpg

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/72/05/23410572.jpg

Those are small portions of a meat factory farm. They generally contain many more animal housing units, hatcheries/birthing quarters , slaughterhouses, administration offices, a parking lot for workers, a waste disposal building, and a meat packaging & distrobution center.

RevMARKSman

6th August 2007, 16:37

Children cannot contribute. Our current society is designed only for adults. Children are left to do menial tasks; just as animals. Making them the same in that respect.

But there's something you're missing: foresight. We know that when we get old and can't do things for ourselves, there will be no one to take care of us except the people who were children when we were capable. Full participants in society give rights to those younger than them because they know they will depend on these younger people when they get older.

Tell that to the profiteers of the multi-billion dollar meat industry.

If we get rid of the meat business, it won't mean workers are better off, it won't mean less poverty. It will mean thousands/millions of people losing their jobs, and less meat.

Tower of Bebel

6th August 2007, 21:20

What are animal rights? The same rights as we have like the treaties signed in the past to concilidate them? Of course not. If we grant a Lion the same rights as we have it will still attack us on sight.

What are animal rights then? We use the wrong words and that of course is because of the petty-bourgeois thoughts of many animal-rights activists.

The way we (ab)use animals mirrors society. The unhealthy industry only to maximize production in order to maximize profits also affects the way we treat animals. Animals are consumer goods, which they were not (or almost) before the industrious revolution -or better- capitalism. Hundreds of years ago animals were treasures. People took great care in order to keep their farm productive enough. All of it has changed now.

So we need to mirror "animal rights" to communism, as it is the best society humanity can live in. Their will be less abuse, yet I do not think there will be much less production of meat. Instead of profit, the element that makes the production of meat going, it will be quality for the people under socialism.

Cows produce better milk if they are treated nice, if they get milked when they want to. Their are computers and machine already that can make it possible for cows to milk "theirsleves" by just entering the "milking room". Cows hate to wait for milking -this is proven- and it can hurt too. This is important because cows want to be milked voluntarily. So with the right machines and the right attitude you produce the best milk. As humans we are adaptable, and so we can use this way of production also for meat and other products made of animals.

Why is it that this way of farming is not commonly used by farmers? Because the dominating element in farming is prodit and because in most countries there is a social barrier that makes it impossible for the poor to buy this machinery.

Socialism is the key to better use of techbology. And my example of the milking cows shows us that technology and another way of thinking can make the lives of animals much pleasant.

To conclude, I do not take animals rights seriously as there are no rights for animals (there are also no rights for unborn childs I guess). But socialism can make the lives of both humans and animals seriously more pleasant.