Animal Liberation Front - Veganism

[settlefornothin]

I for one fully support the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, but the topic of discussion is on Veganism/vegetarianism. I think that it is impossible to be "revolutionary" and eat meat/benefit from the imprisonment/torture of animals. The exploitation of animals is fully bound to the capitalist system, so it seems as though the refusal of this sort of exploitation is paramount to revolutionary living/consciousness. Thoughts?

[Organic Revolution]

Well as a fellow vegan, I hold a different opinion. Dietary choices aren't inherently revolutionary, because it in no way furthers the cause of working class revolution. I do think however, that to be an environmentalist, one has to be either a vegan or vegetarian.

[Organic Revolution]

This belongs in Science & Environment.

Moved

[settlefornothin]

No, a dietary choice isn't inherently revolutionary...in a VACUUM, but due to the reality of the capitalist system, continuing to eat meat is counter-revolutionary. Secondly, on moral grounds, I don't believe there is anyway to justify a meat-eating diet.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:50 pm
No, a dietary choice isn't inherently revolutionary...in a VACUUM, but due to the reality of the capitalist system, continuing to eat meat is counter-revolutionary. Secondly, on moral grounds, I don't believe there is anyway to justify a meat-eating diet.
Can you explain to me how eating meat is counter-revolutionary?

[settlefornothin]

It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution

[abbielives!]

being a vegan is a lifestyle choice, it does not change the mode of production. so not eating meat will not change the system. boycott is not a revolutionary tactic. i like ELF but they are not revlutionary and so have limited utility. ALF is a joke, we have way bigger priorities then help the small group of animals we consider 'cute', think about it why don't people get nearly as upset about smashing insects, if you have ever driven a car you are guitly of gencide against misquitos

ps- morality is subjective

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:00 pm
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
It's capitalism, nearly everything you do supports big business and the destruction of the environment. You can't boycott the system. Also, we've had plenty of debates on this subject already, look at the sticky section for Science and Environment.


Secondly, on moral grounds, I don't believe there is anyway to justify a meat-eating diet.
I like eating it. Looks like I just justified it.

[settlefornothin]

I ride a bike, I don't drive a car, and I don't step on insects, and at least the ALf and ELF are doing something, because last time I checked none of you were operating urban guerrilla cells or anything like that. And Fawkes, saying that you like eating is a justification means you should have no problem with the rich because them liking money justifies it in your mode of reason. Secondly, for saying that it has already been discussed is a misguided attempt to silence debate, and that is social fascism.

Boycott is not revolutionary, agreed, but the refusal is a big part of revolutionary thought (Situationist International)

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:09 pm
I ride a bike, I don't drive a car, and I don't step on insects, and at least the ALf and ELF are doing something, because last time I checked none of you were operating urban guerrilla cells or anything like that.
Lots of groups and individuals are "doing something," that doesn't make what they're doing automatically good or productive. As for the second part, you have no way of knowing what any of us are doing outside of this board, and that knowledge would be none of your business anyway. Security culture, you should learn a thing or two.

[Bilan]

Settlefornothin, really, that's not the right attitude to take towards those who don't necessarily agree with you.
I'm a vegan as well, and have been for some time.
And I also used to argue the same points. :lol:



Secondly, for saying that it has already been discussed is a misguided attempt to silence debate, and that is social fascism.

No, it isn't, it's just pointing out this has been discussed many, many times before, and that you can view the debates there. It doesn't mean you can't have another, but I'm sure people are pretty fed up with arguing with Animal rights activists. Why? because they all have the same attitude you do.

Veganism is something that is really accessibly only to those of the middle class and above. You can argue 'til your blue in the face about how your supporting Multi-National corporations when you buy meat, and your supporting a cruel industry, but frankly, no one's going to listen when you speak to them like they're idiots (or at all, as alot of people here support the meat industry)

Really, when it comes down to it, whether you eat meat or not is really a personal choice, and not something that you should be forced to do or not to do. It's not revolutionary, nor is it counter-revolutionary. How can it be revolutionary? What makes it so?
You could argue its ethical. Some would say it's better for you. Some would say it's better for the planet.
So, essentially, if you've got valid, scientific points to raise - seeing as though you're in science and environment - then raise them. But don't be a twat about it.

[settlefornothin]

I wasn't trying to be a dick, but Fawkins said I eat it because I like it, thus it is justified, that was a dick move. Second of All we can all read the UN Food and Agricultural report of 2006 where they give such jaw dropping facts as "You can save more water by not eating a pound of meat than you could by not showering for a year" and with the environment crisis reaching critical mass, can we really continue consuming a product that is responsible for methane emissions that are one of the greatest sources of greenhouse gases, a primary source of deforestation, who's shit pollutes our water ways, etc? I mean, it's been reported that overfishing will deplete all seafood sources by 2049. THe bottomline is that it is destroying the environment and there will come a time that just to save our hides being a vegan won't be a choice, but a necessity.

[black magick hustla]

Go live in the forest and stop using a computer then.

Everything you do is destroying the enviroment. Boycotting mcdonalds won't do shit. We embrace socialism because we are willing to have more, not because we want to live as humbly as possible.

[settlefornothin]

Wow, so debate has been reduced to personal attacks, if this is the revolutionary left, we're all doomed.

No revolutionary practice can ignore the environmental factor, the Zapatistas agree for example. Jeez, Capitalism is based on the pillage of the earth, are we forgetting this?

And if we want to talk socialism, lets not forget that it is our consumption in the first world that starves the third world, you can get 50 times the food from one acre of land growing crops than you can live stock, people in the first world consuming wastefully is just another form of colonialism, especially when your hamburger grazed on land that was once south american rain forest.

Oh, real good comment Marmot, next you'll say that if I don't love America I should leave it.

Meat eating is wasteful, and with the environment ready to break there's no justifying it if you're a well informed person

[Bilan]

Originally posted by settlefornothin
I wasn't trying to be a dick,

Maybe so, but it's something all AR activists do.
*this is not an insult, it's just how it is*


THe bottomline is that it is destroying the environment and there will come a time that just to save our hides being a vegan won't be a choice, but a necessity.

Then so be it!

[MarxSchmarx]

Meat eating is wasteful, and with the environment ready to break there's no justifying it if you're a well informed person

settlefornothin, do you believe that husbandry and aquaculture are inherently environmentally devastating?

Or do you think it is how capitalist agriculture is organized that encourages clearing land for cattle or over-fishing?

I mean, couldn't the same arguments, such as the demand placed on the land, be used against grain farming? Granted, cattle ranching and troll fishing are environmental disasters, it seems veganism have other environmental problems implied by pesticide/herbicide use, land conversion, etc...

The problem, therefore, seems to be capitalist agriculture, rather than meat-eating per se.

[Herman]

I think Maddox said this, and I partially agree:

"For every animal you don't eat, i'm going to eat three."

In other words, accusing others of being counter-revolutionary just because they eat meat is counter-revolutionary itself.

[midnight marauder]

Veganism is something that is really accessibly only to those of the middle class and above.

What? :blink:

Arguments over what constitutes something as "revolutionary" are silly and meaningless semantical debates which attempt to prove or disprove arguments not by their own individual merits, but by an imagined associated emotional criterion (revolution points? revolutioness? revolutionosity?) which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

This debate can never reach a conclusion without having established a meaningful definition of what constitutes being a revolutionary. Because I'll tell you, if supporting the unbridled liberation of humanity is a revolutionary position to uphold, than advocating certain basic protections for the millions of animals that are tortured and slaughtered for human privilege is certainly more than just a "lifestyle choice".

I'm not a vegan for dietary reasons, just as I'm not an anti-capitalist because I like the "lifestyle", although I certainly enjoy both being a vegan and an activist, and it would be absurd if I were to claim that all anarchists and communists were just participating in some "lifestyle". No, I'm a vegan for explicit political reasons, and not by chance, these reasons happen to be almost identical to my reasons for being a leftist.

I don't know how many times I've seen this argument crawl out from it's rock in debates over animal exploitation. "Veganism isn't "revolutionary", so it doesn't matter." It really needs to stop. Unfortunately, progress in these threads is never made, and most many either get used to these threads being nonstop onslaughts against logic and debate, or they quit arguing about it altogether.

Sure, there are few good ones (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69712&st=25&hl=), but most degenerate into conflating personal taste with moral justification, or placing ethical decisions in the hands of semantical line drawing (like here, with "revolutionary").

The bottom line is this: if you oppose the torture, slaughter, and exploitation of sentient people, then it follows that you would oppose the same atrocities when committed against sentient animals who experience every bit of the same pain humans feel. Leftism and veganism aren't identical by a long shot, nor are they necessarily inclusive of each other, but their goals and philosophical backings overlap to such a degree that we see more and more leftists becoming vegans, and more and more vegans becoming leftists. This is not the result of coincidence, nor is it a consequence of "lifestyle", but rather it is the result of the realization that it is only logically consistent to oppose oppression regardless of whether it's a CEO getting rich off the surplus labor of his wage slave employees or an individual with a full range of food choices choosing to support the slaughter of millions of animals for his personal harmful and unnecessary luxury.

[settlefornothin]

Thanks for a well informed and well spoken explanation Midnight, I'm glad to see that someone else recognizes the political gravity of veganism. As to MarxSchmarx, the way to get around capitalist agricultural practices is to eat organic, which admittedly is expensive, so many others and I have practiced growing our own food without the use of chemicals or mechanization. And although I live in the northeastern US which experiences a decent winter in which I have to resort to buying my food, my efforts during the spring and summer allow me and others to be self-supportive and independent of the capitalist system for nearly half to three quarters of the year. And being nutritionally independent of the capitalist system is possible while working a 40+ hour a week job in my own experience, however raising my own livestock would be impossible in the same situation. In this sense, and to use a word that has got me into trouble, being self-sufficient and operating outside of the capitalist system is a revolutionary act and can arguably be more revolutionary than throwing stones at a protest because it is an act that is done everyday as opposed to sporadically throughout the year. Many scholars and activists would agree that "revolutionizing" your everyday life is tantamount if not paramount to all other political acts (The Revolution of Everyday Life by Guy Debord) and is a major staple of anarchist resistance. So if it is possible to negate the capitalist system and the state that supports it with a little extra effort and abstinence from a wasteful commodity such as meat on an everyday basis, and in turn protecting the environment which the capitalist system is by design raping, how then is meat-eating, which depends on capitalist exchange, not a counter-revolutionary act?

Moral arguments aside, as Midnight has already pointed out, the greatest reasons not to eat meat is environmental and to expand the scope of the idea of liberation. As one ALF activist stated (paraphrased): in years to come the animal rights movement will be viewed the same as the civil rights movement or the womens rights movements (both seen as preposterous by many at the time). So you must ask yourself, will you be ahead of history or behind it? In a society in which you have access to so much information instantly, and there is no doubt that meat consumption is intrinsically tied to the capitalist system and the destruction of the earth, it must be asked if the continuance of a meat-eating diet is willful ignorance.

Perhaps in terms of historical precedent, the enslavement of animals might be related to the enslavement of africans or the indigenous of the Americas in previous times in that such a system of inherent exploitations can never be reformed by more human practices, it must be abolished outright.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As to MarxSchmarx, the way to get around capitalist agricultural practices is to eat organic, which admittedly is expensive, so many others and I have practiced growing our own food without the use of chemicals or mechanization.

No it isn't. Organic is simply a fad that is being milked for every penny, playing on peoples' fear of science.


And although I live in the northeastern US which experiences a decent winter in which I have to resort to buying my food, my efforts during the spring and summer allow me and others to be self-supportive and independent of the capitalist system for nearly half to three quarters of the year.

Good for you. For those of us without a garden however, like me, we have to buy our food from the shops.


And being nutritionally independent of the capitalist system is possible while working a 40+ hour a week job in my own experience, however raising my own livestock would be impossible in the same situation.

Possible? Yes. Easy? Not necessarily so. Not all of us are green-fingered and working to produce enough food to feed oneself in addition to working for a paycheque sounds mighty tiring. Some people may get off on working all the time but it's not for everyone.


In this sense, and to use a word that has got me into trouble, being self-sufficient and operating outside of the capitalist system is a revolutionary act and can arguably be more revolutionary than throwing stones at a protest because it is an act that is done everyday as opposed to sporadically throughout the year.

But far from everyone is able to do it, whereas other methods of direct action can be done by anyone with the motivation and spare time.



Many scholars and activists would agree that "revolutionizing" your everyday life is tantamount if not paramount to all other political acts (The Revolution of Everyday Life by Guy Debord) and is a major staple of anarchist resistance.

An appeal to authority? From an anarchist? I'm scandalised.


So if it is possible to negate the capitalist system and the state that supports it with a little extra effort and abstinence from a wasteful commodity such as meat on an everyday basis,

It's impossible for such actions to "negate" the capitalist system unless everyone is doing it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.


and in turn protecting the environment which the capitalist system is by design raping, how then is meat-eating, which depends on capitalist exchange, not a counter-revolutionary act?

Because it's a fucking dietary choice, and whether or not you choose to eat meat does diddly-squat to the capitalist system.

Let's imagine a little scenario. Suppose that suddenly, mysteriously, everyone on the planet was to become vegan. What happened to capitalism? Haven't you heard? Carrot shares have gone up!

The idea that a dietary choice can be revolutionary or otherwise is laughable, unless you're a capitalistarian.


Moral arguments aside, as Midnight has already pointed out, the greatest reasons not to eat meat is environmental and to expand the scope of the idea of liberation. As one ALF activist stated (paraphrased): in years to come the animal rights movement will be viewed the same as the civil rights movement or the womens rights movements (both seen as preposterous by many at the time).

The problem with this is that there is no appreciable difference between the sexes and the races, while there are major and easily observable differences between species. Discrimination is only wrong if it is baseless. I certainly have no problem with women and non-whites bearing arms, but would you allow monkeys to do so?

"Animal rights" is a preposterous concept, but that's not to say that I'm opposed to animal welfare.


So you must ask yourself, will you be ahead of history or behind it? In a society in which you have access to so much information instantly, and there is no doubt that meat consumption is intrinsically tied to the capitalist system and the destruction of the earth, it must be asked if the continuance of a meat-eating diet is willful ignorance.

As I have pointed out, dietary choice is a non-issue when it comes to capitalism.


Perhaps in terms of historical precedent, the enslavement of animals might be related to the enslavement of africans or the indigenous of the Americas in previous times in that such a system of inherent exploitations can never be reformed by more human practices, it must be abolished outright.

It's an insult to the memory of the slaves that you compare your Disney-inspired view of animals to the struggle of anti-slavery campaigners. :angry:

[Cult of Reason]

As to MarxSchmarx, the way to get around capitalist agricultural practices is to eat organic, which admittedly is expensive, so many others and I have practiced growing our own food without the use of chemicals or mechanization.

According to Norman Borlaug, if all current non-organic food production in the world was switched to organic, then the world would only produce 2/3 of what it did before. This seems plausible to me; after all, that is what the pesticide and fertiliser are for, right?


In this sense, and to use a word that has got me into trouble, being self-sufficient and operating outside of the capitalist system is a revolutionary act and can arguably be more revolutionary than throwing stones at a protest because it is an act that is done everyday as opposed to sporadically throughout the year. Many scholars and activists would agree that "revolutionizing" your everyday life is tantamount if not paramount to all other political acts (The Revolution of Everyday Life by Guy Debord) and is a major staple of anarchist resistance.

OMFG!!! ALF + Lifestylism FTW!

Seriously, GTFO, pretentious twat. Being 'self-sufficient' changes nothing in the more general scheme of things, and absolute self-sufficiency is pretty much impossible in most circumstances. A true example of self-sufficiency: marooned sailors surviving on desert islands. Anything else needs society, and our society is Capitalist.

Also, even if you did persuade everyone else to be 'self-sufficient' in terms of food, what have you done? You have killed off the food industry. Well done. Now, there are only 1000 other industries left, plus everyone is now too busy trying to grow their own food as well as work and try to enjoy themselves. People will likely have less time to do things that actually would make a revolution more likely. Success?

[settlefornothin]

Hey Noxion, way to get around the debate and not even address the issue of meat-eating and just argue syntax and semantics. And appealing to the Situationist International is not an appeal to authority but simply a way of citing a source which explains an idea better than I could in the space of a message board, it's called using precedent. Secondly, that tactic of trying to use someone's own political outlook against them in such a base way lacks all merit.

As far as not being able to have a garden, even if you live in the city there has been a large movement of communities and buildings which have made rooftop gardens or illegally reclaimed abandoned land. Shit, even if you put a flower box in your window with a few tomato plants that would be better than nothing.


It's impossible for such actions to "negate" the capitalist system unless everyone is doing it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

That's a great attitude, "If everyone else is doing it I might as well just go along because one action doesn't make a difference" is what you basically said. Thoughts like that are the acid which erode all progressive thought.


The problem with this is that there is no appreciable difference between the sexes and the races, while there are major and easily observable differences between species. Discrimination is only wrong if it is baseless. I certainly have no problem with women and non-whites bearing arms, but would you allow monkeys to do so?

"Animal rights" is a preposterous concept, but that's not to say that I'm opposed to animal welfare.

That sort of black and white thinking is right out of Fox News, akin to the "Love it or leave it" school of thought, does everything have to be that Binary. Saying animal rights is preposterous likens you to a 19th century victorian patriarch who says women's rights is a preposterous idea.

In the end, it is becoming more and more obvious that meat-eaters will do anything to defend their habit even if they know it is destroying us all

As far as your comment that some of you don't want to work all the time to do a fulltime job and grow a garden, no one ever said changing the world would be easy!!! It takes hardwork, dedication, and sacrafice and for anyone to think that it would be handed to them by attending a few protests is just ludicrous. Changing the world is not something to do on the weekend, is something you dedicate yourself to and act on it as much as you can and then some. And I'm not being a stalinist here, I don't demand anyone put all their effort into it, but if you like to talk big on revolution and claim your changing the world or you're a leftist, put your plans and words into action because in the end talk is cheap.

Now, I'm going to tend my garden :)

[Bilan]

What? :blink:

It aint cheap!
And information regarding it is usually much (much, much, much) more accessible to those who have access to more sources of information.
Plus, from my experience, vegan restraunts, or places that sell vegan products - aside from the obvious plain vegetables - are not particularly common in working class suburbs, and you generallly have to travel a bit to find them.
And, when they are, they're fucking expensive, because they're not high in demand - and it's generally expensive.
For example, it;s $7.00 for soycheese. And that is a small block. It's fucking absurd.

But still, Midnight, I think you have a pretty sound theory on this, and I do agree with you. Regardless, I still find it ...almost wrong to push my theory on Animal Rights on others - in anyway - because I see it as so much more of a personal choice.

[ComradeR]

This is ridiculous, dietary choices have nothing to do with class struggle therefor is not revolutionary. I have no problem with people choosing a vegan lifestyle if they can actually do it (like Proper Tea is Theft pointed out it's really only accessible to the middle-class and above) but if you start putting all your energy into campaigning for "animal rights" it becomes country-revolutionary as it takes the focus off class struggle and alienates working class people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:46 pm
As far as not being able to have a garden, even if you live in the city there has been a large movement of communities and buildings which have made rooftop gardens or illegally reclaimed abandoned land.
Maybe where you are but that doesn't hold true throughout the world. Also, when considering doing something illegally, the pros and cons have to be measured. In this case the pros are that you can feed yourself cheaply and the cons are you can get punished for doing something that wouldn't be necessary if you stepped off your high horse and went to the shops like a normal person.


Shit, even if you put a flower box in your window with a few tomato plants that would be better than nothing.

Yeah, and what if you're cack handed or too busy with work and the damn things die?


That's a great attitude, "If everyone else is doing it I might as well just go along because one action doesn't make a difference" is what you basically said. Thoughts like that are the acid which erode all progressive thought.

No. Utopian idealism is what is destroying progress, by trying to live outside capitalism all you're doing is marginalising yourself and making the movement less accessible to ordinary people.


Saying animal rights is preposterous likens you to a 19th century victorian patriarch who says women's rights is a preposterous idea.

Are you deliberately trying to belittle as many liberation movements as possible? First it's the slaves, now it's the women. Will it be the gay rights movement next?


In the end, it is becoming more and more obvious that meat-eaters will do anything to defend their habit even if they know it is destroying us all

Opposing your dietary dictatorship and condescending nanny behaviour is perfectly justified.


As far as your comment that some of you don't want to work all the time to do a fulltime job and grow a garden, no one ever said changing the world would be easy!!!

No, but using that as a justification for making life harder arbitrarily is just fucking stupid.


It takes hardwork, dedication, and sacrafice and for anyone to think that it would be handed to them by attending a few protests is just ludicrous.

But as has been pointed out to you what you're proposing is a hiding to nothing as far as bringing down capitalism is concerned.


Changing the world is not something to do on the weekend, is something you dedicate yourself to and act on it as much as you can and then some.

Your right. But needless guilt-inspired action is worse than no action, it distracts you from important actions.


And I'm not being a stalinist here, I don't demand anyone put all their effort into it, but if you like to talk big on revolution and claim your changing the world or you're a leftist, put your plans and words into action because in the end talk is cheap.

I don't recall anyone's words being "Let's change the world woth a spot of gardening, what.".


Now, I'm going to tend my garden :)

It's a shame we don't have a "smug" smiley.

[Vanguard1917]

As far as not being able to have a garden, even if you live in the city there has been a large movement of communities and buildings which have made rooftop gardens or illegally reclaimed abandoned land.

I can't believe you're seriously suggesting people grow their own food on their roofs.

I, for one, like to think that i have far, far better things to do, and i thank the advances made by the market system and capitalist divisions of labour that i don't have to grow and raise my own food like some kind of feudal serf.

The point is to surpass capitalism and create a better and more advanced system of production and distribution for society as a whole - not to retreat from capitalism and spend more time gardening.

[Vanguard1917]

--

[settlefornothin]

Whoever believes overthrowing capitalism is the sole ground of class struggle missed the last half of the 20th century, take that orthodox BS and shove it, cause that maoist, marxist, archaic shit doesn't cut it anymore.


Maybe where you are but that doesn't hold true throughout the world. Also, when considering doing something illegally, the pros and cons have to be measured.

For one, since when has anti-capitalist struggle ever been effective when it has been legal, any progressive movement is doomed when it accepts the "rules of the game." ("Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse). So reclaiming abandoned land, which is a form of attack on the notion of private property, something which has been central to leftism since the earliest thinkers, is quite revolutionary. Growing your own food is not about being a feudal serf, it is about being autonomous, let me say that word again, autonomous, and autonomy is exactly what the state doesn't want. It is not progress when you move higher up in the machine or if you share an easier spot in the machine, progress is when you're not apart of the machine at all. And as far as creating a more advanced form of production, maybe that is where you are going wrong, we don't need more production, we over produce, and it certainly wouldn't help things to have more advanced farms (genetic manipulation) and more centralized farms from which goods are shipped throughout the country (more carbon emission).


punished for doing something that wouldn't be necessary if you stepped off your high horse and went to the shops like a normal person.

Why don't I act like a normal person? I can't believe the ignorance in that statement! What is normal, over consumption? willfully ignoring environmental destruction?

I think what point you all miss is that there isn't going to be some new technology that will solve the environmental problem, and it certainly won't be solved through class struggle. The only way to solve the problem is through personally changing your own habits, and coming together with others who do likewise. All your theorizing about what a society should look like holds no water compared to those who are actually SHOWING what a new society could look like, a sustainable society.


Utopian idealism is what is destroying progress, by trying to live outside capitalism all you're doing is marginalising yourself and making the movement less accessible to ordinary people.


Utopian Idealism? There was a saying out of the new left, "Demand the impossible" and that slogan helped launch the May 68 uprising in France, a truly revolutionary moment. If you don't reach higher, you'll end up demanding the same archaic pay raises and rights to unionize that got most unions in the western world into their current bureaucratic funk.


Are you deliberately trying to belittle as many liberation movements as possible? First it's the slaves, now it's the women. Will it be the gay rights movement next?


Um, I didn't belittle any movement, Abolition, Women's Rights, and Gay rights are all of equal importance, and I equate them to the Animal Rights movement, if you feel that Animal Rights movement is not important it is you that is belittling.


But as has been pointed out to you what you're proposing is a hiding to nothing as far as bringing down capitalism is concerned.

I don't even get what this means, check the grammar.


This is ridiculous, dietary choices have nothing to do with class struggle therefor is not revolutionary. I have no problem with people choosing a vegan lifestyle if they can actually do it (like Proper Tea is Theft pointed out it's really only accessible to the middle-class and above) but if you start putting all your energy into campaigning for "animal rights" it becomes country-revolutionary as it takes the focus off class struggle and alienates working class people.

Has it ever occurred to you that class struggle alone is not the only revolutionary path? If it was it might have succeeding in the past 150 years. It is far more effective to attack capitalism on all fronts, picking at every weakness, and finding any fissure to exploit, much like a guerrilla movement would do to a conventional army. It is suicide to put all your eggs in one basket, in this case class struggle, and hope for the best.

On a Historical note, this whole debate, if you can call it that is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, all you nay sayers are much like the Stalinists who kept trying to tell the anarchists that their way was right, and the only way to attack capitalism, and the funny thing about it is that all the stalinists did was talk while the anarchists were working on creating free systems of exchange without monetary transactions, organizing workers councils etc.

[Cult of Reason]

Whoever believes overthrowing capitalism is the sole ground of class struggle missed the last half of the 20th century, take that orthodox BS and shove it, cause that maoist, marxist, archaic shit doesn't cut it anymore.

What else is class struggle, pray tell? Cake sales? Gardening? Freeing animals from oppressive humans? Killing scientists?


For one, since when has anti-capitalist struggle ever been effective when it has been legal, any progressive movement is doomed when it accepts the "rules of the game." ("Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse). So reclaiming abandoned land, which is a form of attack on the notion of private property, something which has been central to leftism since the earliest thinkers, is quite revolutionary. Growing your own food is not about being a feudal serf, it is about being autonomous, let me say that word again, autonomous, and autonomy is exactly what the state doesn't want. It is not progress when you move higher up in the machine or if you share an easier spot in the machine, progress is when you're not apart of the machine at all. And as far as creating a more advanced form of production, maybe that is where you are going wrong, we don't need more production, we over produce, and it certainly wouldn't help things to have more advanced farms (genetic manipulation) and more centralized farms from which goods are shipped throughout the country (more carbon emission).

You only do something that is illegal, and hence something that is risky to you, if you think it likely that the action is worth it.

Reclaiming abandoned land and 'autonomously' cultivating it is a proverbial 'drop in the ocean': totally useless. The world is not run or changed by philosophy or ideals except when they get a majority or a significant minority. What is needed for that is propaganda, agitation and convincing rhetoric, debate, not an agricultural circle-jerk.

The State doesn't give a flying fuck about your so-called 'autonomy', as you are no threat whatsoever. There are billions of other consumers.

Listen, cretin: Anarchism is not about removing yourself from the 'machine', society or social system, it is about getting the people to collectively destroy the 'machine' and create a new one from scratch where everyone has some (equal) potential measure of control.

Likely you have seen reports about productive techniques that can produce more with less resources, land etc.. That is, more efficient technologies. This should ALWAYS be supported as they have the potential to do two things: increase total production and/or reduce overall resource consumption.

Food miles are caused by Capitalism, not technology.


Why don't I act like a normal person? I can't believe the ignorance in that statement! What is normal, over consumption? willfully ignoring environmental destruction?

What IS over-consumption? One TV? Two? Three? A 36 incher?

Willfully ignoring environmental destruction? Really? I thought it was simply that they were not as naive as you as to go digging up abandoned plots as a hobby.


I think what point you all miss is that there isn't going to be some new technology that will solve the environmental problem, and it certainly won't be solved through class struggle. The only way to solve the problem is through personally changing your own habits, and coming together with others who do likewise. All your theorizing about what a society should look like holds no water compared to those who are actually SHOWING what a new society could look like, a sustainable society.

Technology: Fusion? More efficient and cheap solar panels? Wind turbines?

Class struggle: it should be obvious to anyone that the current Capitalism positively requires wasted energy in the form of office lighting, commuting, computing of market models etc. etc. etc., all of which would be solved by Capitalism being overthrown.

Habits can only go so far. I always switch the light (energy saving) off, and the taps, when unused, but I keep my computer constantly on. Why? Because it is usually in some use, and I lik to be able to do things immediately. Nothing will take my computer away from me, ever.

A sustainable Capitalist society, hmmm?


Utopian Idealism? There was a saying out of the new left, "Demand the impossible" and that slogan helped launch the May 68 uprising in France, a truly revolutionary moment. If you don't reach higher, you'll end up demanding the same archaic pay raises and rights to unionize that got most unions in the western world into their current bureaucratic funk.

You truly are the most pathetic specimen that I have seen in a while. "Demand the impossible" is not about seperating yourself from the system, which actually is possible, though hugely inconvenient (no healthcare, education, mains water, mains electricity, farm produced food, money...). "Demand the impossible" means to demand a destruction of the system and the establishment of all the systems says is 'impossible'.

If you think people like us are asking merely for pay rises you truly are ignorant. Any sensible prole does that, it only makes sense.


Um, I didn't belittle any movement, Abolition, Women's Rights, and Gay rights are all of equal importance, and I equate them to the Animal Rights movement, if you feel that Animal Rights movement is not important it is you that is belittling.

Let the animals free them-fucking-selves! There were the suffragettes and the feminist movement, there were Pride marches, there were even some black slaves lucky enough to be educated and freed who then campaigned for the practice's abolition. Animals? As far as I know, no non-human animal has ever articulated what freedom would be or proselytised its envision among its own kind, let alone all non-human animal-kind. They are not fighting or even discussing freedom. They obviously do not want it, or not enough. :lol:

Seriously though, for those that cannot understand what the concept is, even on a basic instinctual level, freedom has no meaning.


Has it ever occurred to you that class struggle alone is not the only revolutionary path?

Oh, great, ANOTHER Liberalistic bastard who thinks that unrelated 'struggles' can somehow seed the liberation of the workers.


If it was it might have succeeding in the past 150 years.

The utopians, like you, have had over 200 years to try the same, so you FAIL.


It is far more effective to attack capitalism on all fronts, picking at every weakness, and finding any fissure to exploit, much like a guerrilla movement would do to a conventional army. It is suicide to put all your eggs in one basket, in this case class struggle, and hope for the best.

I cannot think of a single relevant one that isn't related to class struggle.


On a Historical note, this whole debate, if you can call it that is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, all you nay sayers are much like the Stalinists who kept trying to tell the anarchists that their way was right, and the only way to attack capitalism, and the funny thing about it is that all the stalinists did was talk while the anarchists were working on creating free systems of exchange without monetary transactions, organizing workers councils etc.

Are you so... cretinous that you cannot comprehend the fundamental difference between the Spanish Revolution, the attempted overthrow and replacement of the Capitalist system in Spain at the time, and your trivial, small-scale and fundamentally useless circle-jerks?

It is people like you that piss me off more than the average cappie advocate that I have met.

[Dr Mindbender]

i'd like to see these middle class lifestylists survive on a vegan diet in the ghettos of south east asia where the only regular sources of nutrition are caught rats and other wildlife!
:lol:

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:06 pm
No revolutionary practice can ignore the environmental factor, the Zapatistas agree for example. Jeez, Capitalism is based on the pillage of the earth, are we forgetting this?
No, capitalism is based on private ownership of goods and the means of production, and trade of private goods through a free market. Human beings had no problem "pillaging" the earth long before capitalism- since before civilization, even.



And if we want to talk socialism, lets not forget that it is our consumption in the first world that starves the third world,

No, it's private control of food supply that starves the third world.


with the environment ready to break there's no justifying it if you're a well informed person

The Earth has survived far worse than anything humanity could dish out.


All your theorizing about what a society should look like holds no water compared to those who are actually SHOWING what a new society could look like, a sustainable society.


Veganism has very little to do with sustainability... its entirely possible to lead a "sustainable" existence while having animals and eating them and their products.


On a Historical note, this whole debate, if you can call it that is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War, all you nay sayers are much like the Stalinists who kept trying to tell the anarchists that their way was right, and the only way to attack capitalism, and the funny thing about it is that all the stalinists did was talk while the anarchists were working on creating free systems of exchange without monetary transactions, organizing workers councils etc.

Spanish anarchists ate meat. QED.

No, but seriously, that's an absurd comparison to make and points to either the desperation or weakness of your thinking behind your argument. You lashed out at others for personal attacks, but you're essentially pulling the same nonsense here.


And by the way, Guy Debord did not write the Revolution of Everyday Life. <_<

[LSD]

ELF-ALF (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36532)
PETA (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38285)
veganism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39814)
Words cannot express my feelings about this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44463)
Vivisection (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46178)
vivisection (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48125)
practical vegetarianism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49249)
Animal and Earth Liberation (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69712&st=0)

Here we go again... <_<

First for the ludicrous "environmental veganism" crap:


And if we want to talk socialism, lets not forget that it is our consumption in the first world that starves the third world

What exactly do you think would happen if the first world stopped eating meat? do you honestly believe that that excess grain would be shipped to the third world?

Much more realistically, it would just stop being grown.

If the first world no longer wanted meat, it would want something else instead and all the resources currently going to feeding livestock would go into that. That&#39;s how capitalism works; it satisfies paying consumers.

Accordingly, our dietary preference in the first world is not going to seriously affect the food supply of the third. The only way that we can increase resources in underdeveloped countries is to end imperialism.

Political problems have political solutions; lifetylism is worse than useless.


Meat eating is wasteful,

So&#39;s fermenting grain to make alchohol.

Oops, there goes beer. :o

You know, I just can&#39;t wait to live in your neopuritanistic "vegan power" utopia. Sounds like it&#39;s going to be real fun...


and with the environment ready to break there&#39;s no justifying it if you&#39;re a well informed person

You&#39;re missing the point, ecological "footprints" aren&#39;t an individual problem, they&#39;re an institutional one.

Even if all of North America stopped eating meat, it wouldn&#39;t make a difference. It would just mean that McDonalds would drop its prices and market to the third world instead. Even the whole world rejecting eating meat wouldn&#39;t help. It would only divert the resouces from one "wasteful" industry to another. All that would change would be the name on the bulldozer -- that and a whole lot more dead animals, of course.

True environmental protection is impossible under capitalism. As long as there are resources to exploit, someone will be there to exploit them. If we "ban" eating meat, some entrepeneur will just find something else to do with former grazing lands; some other reason to clearcut the rain-forrest and drain the rivers.

If demand drops in one market, it will just be inflated in another. Capitalism cannot survive a cumulative drop in demand; it requires infinite demand to function. If oversupply shuts down McDonald farms, something else will grow up in its place. Maybe a big sticker factory for all those sleak yet elegant "Vegan Power" bumper stickers.

As long as people live within the paradigm of accumlating material possessions, they will accumulate material possessions. Changing which possessions they accumulate is ultimately meaningless.

At least with meat, it actually does help people. It does provide useful nutritional value and offers genuine pleasure. That&#39;s a lot more than you can say for the vast majority of capitalist industries.

And so it seems socially masochistic to me to sacrifice a functionally useful industry only so that it can be replaced by an almost certainly less useful one.

If the rain-forrests are going to be destroyed, at the very least it should be for something helpful. It&#39;s called the lesser of two evils. It&#39;s a choice we have to make because, unfortunately, as it stands, saving them isn&#39;t an option.

...at least not through market redistribution. Tthere are ways to help the environment. But boycotting one specific industry isn&#39;t one of them.

Fighting capitalism, however, is&#33;

***

And now for the much longer "moral" debate:

if you oppose the torture, slaughter, and exploitation of sentient people, then it follows that you would oppose the same atrocities when committed against sentient animals who experience every bit of the same pain humans feel.

I notice that for all your appeals to the fundamentality of "pain", you&#39;ve actually failed to define exactly what you mean by the term.

I suspect that&#39;s because you&#39;re using the word in a rather vague and nonscientific sense. That because you&#39;re coming at this from a primarily emotional direction, you haven&#39;t felt the need, or probably even considered the possibility, of specifying precisely what "pain" is for the purposes of this discussion.

But since you&#39;re trying to base an ethical paradigm and, accordingly, a political regime on this notion, you have no choice but to be specific about just what is that constitutes "pain" and, just as importantly, what doesn&#39;t.

&#39;Cause although we all know subjectively what it is to "hurt" and, thanks to the psychological trick of emotional projection, believe we can see that same feeling in other creatures, that&#39;s an emotional experience, not an objective standard.

Sentience is typically described as the capacity to sense, hence the root of the word. And while there&#39;s a tendency to restrict that to those creatures that sense like us, there&#39;s really no way to draw a line at which point "feeling" begins.

A bacterium is just as capable of interacting with and responding to its environment as a fish is. The responses are simpler, but the capacity to sense is none the less real.

And so while the "pain" that a bacteria is hypothetically capable of may not manifest in exactly the same way as that of a fish or a reptile, that&#39;s only relevent insofar as it affects how we percieve that pain, it doesn&#39;t change the biological reality of its existance.

That&#39;s the problem with trying to base a social paradigm on a fundamentally non-social concept like "pain". It&#39;s unavoidable arbitrary since it bears no connection with the formulation of said society.

The only way that we can construct a viable and legitimate rights paradigm is if that paradigm is grounded in and how and why society, and not biology, operates.

We have rights not because we are "alive" or because we "feel" but because we are a part of society. It is our membershpi in that relationship which entitles us to the protections of and from our fellow humans.

Our right to security of person exists not because we have "interests", everything has "interests", but because society&#39;s very existance is predicated on is serving those who make it up.

That doesn&#39;t mean that every human society has lived up to that purpose, of course, the fact that rights exist does not mean that people must respect them. What it does mean, however, is that people should respect them.

The same, however, cannot be true for so-called "animal rights" as they have nothing whatsoever to do with the reality of human social interaction.

Animals should not be tortured for the same reson that historic or other precious artifacts should not be destroyed, the psychic harm that it does to people.

There&#39;s a reason, after all, that the world was so outraged by the Taliban&#39;s detonation of those Buddhist statues a few years back. It was not that dissimilar to how we react when we read about animal abuses in factory farms or cosmetic labs.

That said, however, there is a concrete limit to how enfranchised fundamentally nonsapient animals can be within the complex web of human social relations.

Here, let me make this simple for you; I take it that in your perfect idealized "total animal liberation" utopia, people would be punnished for "abusing" or "exploiting" animals.

Well, how about other animals?

That is, could we kill a lion that&#39;s about to attack a elk?

If so, then you, effectively, kill all lions and seriously disrupt the ecosystem. If not, then you are permitting the "capture and abuse of animals", the use of animals for food.

And what happens if the lion doesn&#39;t finish eating the elk? A coyote will probably come along eventually and eat the rest. What if a human comes by first? Can he cook it and eat it? I mean, if it&#39;s already dead....

Look, what you&#39;re doing is trying to give animals human protections without any of the responsibilities that come with them. All humans must refrain from killing any living being, but this same prohibition does not apply to the living beings we&#39;re refraining from killing&#33;

You&#39;re trying to create a two-tiered society in which humans, as the upper tier, are responsible self-actors with societal rights accompanying those rather hefty obligations, and animals, as the lower tier, with no ogligations but identical social protections.

Firstly, such a system dramatically cheapens rights by seperating them from their social context; but secondly, such a systm does something very similar to the present system, namely it concedes that humans are socially and morally suprerior.

You&#39;re proposing a model in which not only is more required of humans than other animals (which classifies them as higher moral agents), but in which the killing of a human by an animal is considered a much more serious crime than the killing of another animals by an animal.

Now, all of this makes sense&#33; It makes sense because humans are intelligent moral actors capable of participating in society and making independent rational determinations within society. Hence their killing is more serious to society than the death of a chipmunk. Furthermore more must be required of humans, since we are the only ones capable of fulfilling such responsibilities.

Let&#39;s be clear here, you are not "liberating" animals, you&#39;re just giving them more protections than they presently have. Humans will still be much more important, much more valued, and much more free than animals.

Our disagreement is that I don&#39;t think that your two-tiered system goes far enough. You want to extend a certain limited degree of human societal protection to animals solely on the basis of their "being alive". The thing is, so do I&#33;

We are merely disagreeing on how much protection is nescessary. You want proction of animals to only be limited by human need, I want it to be limited by reasonable human want. And while you accept, in your model, human moral superiority, you seem unable to grasp how this nescessarily translates within human society.

Human society has the primary responsilibty of serving it&#39;s members. You&#39;ve conceded this. You accept that the protection of humans is more important than the protection of other animals. But now that you&#39;ve conceded this, the only question is how far do we move the line? If society must provide for human needs, it surely must provide for human wants as well. It is not unreasonable to say that the satisfaction of our wants is something that we need (to some degree at least)&#33; Therefore, the only way that society can fail to satisfy our wants (which you have tacitly agreed are paramount to those of aimals), is if the satisfaction of said wants would infringe on the needs/wants/rights of another charge of society, any other member of society.

The killing of animals does not do this.

The eating of meat is a reasonable want; the use of animals in medical research is a need.

Accordingly, society has no right to stop either.

[RedStarOverChina]

I&#39;d like to see more anarchists attack the "animal rights" movement.

Real anarchists should really make it known what is anarchism and what isn&#39;t because right now, anarchism is too strongly associated with this reactionary movement.

So anarchist comrades, time to start working.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Nonhuman Working Class-- Working Class, Nonetheless.

Do animals not apply to the working class definition? They, too, are forced to use their labor. At least human workers get a paycheck; the animals are sent to the slaughterhouse once they&#39;re no longer needed.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 12, 2007 08:52 pm
Nonhuman Working Class-- Working Class, Nonetheless.

Do animals not apply to the working class definition? They, too, are forced to use their labor. At least human workers get a paycheck; the animals are sent to the slaughterhouse once they&#39;re no longer needed.
I&#39;ll think it over when the animals launch a general strike.


It&#39;s an insult to the working class the way you are comparing them with non-sentient, low-intelligence animals.

Also, the feminist movement and the "animal liberation movement" are NOT the same, unless you are willing to argue that women, like animals, can&#39;t think and act rationally.

"Rights" are a philosophic construct made up by humans and only for humans. There is no way to "give animals equal rights" since animals on their own tend to be hunted down and eaten by each other in their natural habitat---Are the predators criminals according to you?

[Cult of Reason]

I&#39;d like to see more anarchists attack the "animal rights" movement.

Real anarchists should really make it known what is anarchism and what isn&#39;t because right now, anarchism is too strongly associated with this reactionary movement.

So anarchist comrades, time to start working.

There are too god damn many of them and too few of us, and the action itself is inherently depressing.

[Ian]

I&#39;m vegan. If you can read this you are too old to drink milk.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:10 pm
I&#39;m vegan. If you can read this you are too old to drink milk.
If you can read this, you&#39;re old enough to be able to realise that milk is not "intended" for anyone, as nature has no intention.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:53 pm

I&#39;d like to see more anarchists attack the "animal rights" movement.

Real anarchists should really make it known what is anarchism and what isn&#39;t because right now, anarchism is too strongly associated with this reactionary movement.

So anarchist comrades, time to start working.

There are too god damn many of them and too few of us, and the action itself is inherently depressing.
I&#39;ve certainly been moving in your (attacking animal rights) direction lately.
I don&#39;t think I could give up being vegan - the thought of eating meat again is just weird - but fuck you guys have some good arguments.

[Bilan]

I&#39;ll think it over when the animals launch a general strike.

Are you suggesting workers are only workers when they decide to stop working, or when they take direct action in their workplace?
If so, I suggest you look at how many Lion tamers have been killed :lol:

[Ian]

Originally posted by NoXion+October 13, 2007 10:26 pm--> (NoXion @ October 13, 2007 10:26 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 12:10 pm
I&#39;m vegan. If you can read this you are too old to drink milk.
If you can read this, you&#39;re old enough to be able to realise that milk is not "intended" for anyone, as nature has no intention. [/b]
Every mutation has to prove to increase the survival of a species or it would be deleterious. We can establish because of that fact that every adaption to produce milk for offspring is to ensure the survival of the progeny of that species.

There may be no grand design to nature, but there are facts which are clear as day. Cows milk is produced by mothers for Calves.

[Ian]

double post

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Ian+October 13, 2007 12:47 pm--> (Ian @ October 13, 2007 12:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 10:26 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 12:10 pm
I&#39;m vegan. If you can read this you are too old to drink milk.
If you can read this, you&#39;re old enough to be able to realise that milk is not "intended" for anyone, as nature has no intention.
Every mutation has to prove to increase the survival of a species or it would be deleterious. We can establish because of that fact that every adaption to produce milk for offspring is to ensure the survival of the progeny of that species.

There may be no grand design to nature, but there are facts which are clear as day. Cows milk is produced by mothers for Calves. [/b]
You&#39;re still projecting intention onto something without it. There is nothing "wrong" with consuming milk products as an adult.

[Ian]

Just like there is nothing wrong with sucking milk out of the teet of a pregnant dog...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:19 pm
Just like there is nothing wrong with sucking milk out of the teet of a pregnant dog...
And what&#39;s wrong with that, apart from possible hygiene issues?

Plus it&#39;s spelt "teat".

[Ian]

Originally posted by NoXion+October 14, 2007 12:22 am--> (NoXion @ October 14, 2007 12:22 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:19 pm
Just like there is nothing wrong with sucking milk out of the teet of a pregnant dog...
And what&#39;s wrong with that, apart from possible hygiene issues?

Plus it&#39;s spelt "teat". [/b]
Urgh, fucking pedant.

Drink a pint of dogs milk, prove your convictions.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Ian+October 13, 2007 02:24 pm--> (Ian @ October 13, 2007 02:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:22 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 02:19 pm
Just like there is nothing wrong with sucking milk out of the teet of a pregnant dog...
And what&#39;s wrong with that, apart from possible hygiene issues?

Plus it&#39;s spelt "teat".
Urgh, fucking pedant.

Drink a pint of dogs milk, prove your convictions. [/b]
...or maybe someone has already tried it, and found out it tastes fucking disgusting which is why it isnt commonplace.

[Luís Henrique]

I love how people want to mess with my diet, telling me that I can&#39;t be a revolutionary if I eat this or that - and then complain about the authoritarianism of others...

Can someone thrash this garbage?

Luís Henrique

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 13, 2007 10:21 am
I love how people want to mess with my diet, telling me that I can&#39;t be a revolutionary if I eat this or that - and then complain about the authoritarianism of others...

Can someone thrash this garbage?

Luís Henrique
I agree. However, I don&#39;t know if trashing the thread would be the most contructive. The thing is, Veganism and "animal rights" make up a considerable part of the "radical left," at least in the US and needs to be debated.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 13, 2007 03:21 pm
I love how people want to mess with my diet, telling me that I can&#39;t be a revolutionary if I eat this or that - and then complain about the authoritarianism of others...

Can someone thrash this garbage?

Luís Henrique
like i said, i wish these side-tracking timewasters would go to a developing world country where livestock forms their staple diet lets see how well their veganism washes with them&#33;
:lol:

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 14, 2007 01:31 am--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 14, 2007 01:31 am)
Luís [email protected] 13, 2007 03:21 pm
I love how people want to mess with my diet, telling me that I can&#39;t be a revolutionary if I eat this or that - and then complain about the authoritarianism of others...

Can someone thrash this garbage?

Luís Henrique
like i said, i wish these side-tracking timewasters would go to a developing world country where livestock forms their staple diet lets see how well their veganism washes with them&#33;
:lol: [/b]
I&#39;d love even more for meat eaters to stick to rational arguments, rather than stupid irrelevant crap like this.
You don&#39;t live in South East Asia; the ability to determine ones diet is completely different.
Yeah, veganism is probably a more first world ideology, because there is more access to such foods - and food in general - in the First World. But that doesn&#39;t disprove it or anything like that.
That&#39;s like saying, "Yeah, I&#39;d like to see these pro-choice people going to the third world and being pro-choice there."
It&#39;s just stupid.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 13, 2007 07:36 am

I&#39;ll think it over when the animals launch a general strike.

Are you suggesting workers are only workers when they decide to stop working, or when they take direct action in their workplace?
If so, I suggest you look at how many Lion tamers have been killed :lol:
I only sympathize with workers who resist, since the primary reason I&#39;m in this class struggle thing is because I believe the working class will liberate themselves and replace the Bourgeoisie as the ruling class.

And what would an "liberation of animals" do? And how would that benefit humans and more specifically, the working class?

"Liberated" animals would just roam in the wild until they get eaten by other animals. If, say, a wolf can eat other animals, why can&#39;t I? Am I worth less than a instinct-driven beast?

In case you haven&#39;t noticed, it&#39;s not just the lion tamers that lions "target"...They tend to attack everyone and everything on sight&#33; So unfortunately, lions don&#39;t really "get" this class struggle thing. You probably think they do, but that&#39;s just because you watched too many Disney cartoons.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 13, 2007 03:35 pm--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 13, 2007 03:35 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 01:31 am

Luís [email protected] 13, 2007 03:21 pm
I love how people want to mess with my diet, telling me that I can&#39;t be a revolutionary if I eat this or that - and then complain about the authoritarianism of others...

Can someone thrash this garbage?

Luís Henrique
like i said, i wish these side-tracking timewasters would go to a developing world country where livestock forms their staple diet lets see how well their veganism washes with them&#33;
:lol:
I&#39;d love even more for meat eaters to stick to rational arguments, rather than stupid irrelevant crap like this.
You don&#39;t live in South East Asia; the ability to determine ones diet is completely different.
Yeah, veganism is probably a more first world ideology, because there is more access to such foods - and food in general - in the First World. But that doesn&#39;t disprove it or anything like that.
That&#39;s like saying, "Yeah, I&#39;d like to see these pro-choice people going to the third world and being pro-choice there."
It&#39;s just stupid. [/b]
For all you know, people in the 3rd world might be pro choice, only they dont have that luxury thanks to the influence of the evangelical right and as well as a lack of amentities.
Im sure given the choice between abortion and another mouth to feed the former may be quite popular&#33;

So Im afraid your analogy is made of fail, PTIT.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ian+October 13, 2007 02:24 pm--> (Ian @ October 13, 2007 02:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:22 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 02:19 pm
Just like there is nothing wrong with sucking milk out of the teet of a pregnant dog...
And what&#39;s wrong with that, apart from possible hygiene issues?

Plus it&#39;s spelt "teat".
Urgh, fucking pedant.

Drink a pint of dogs milk, prove your convictions. [/b]
We don&#39;t just run around arbitrarily drinking various milks. Dog&#39;s milk is foul therefore we don&#39;t drink it. I find the flavour of cows milk to be similarly foul and I therefore don&#39;t drink it, but I don&#39;t give a shit if someone else does.


Do animals not apply to the working class definition? They, too, are forced to use their labor. At least human workers get a paycheck; the animals are sent to the slaughterhouse once they&#39;re no longer needed.

You could argue that they&#39;re slaves from that definition but they&#39;re not actually sapient and as such unable to realise they are "oppressed". They may be in pain and realise this is not a good thing, but they sure as fuck aren&#39;t going to be able to conceptualise a different way of life - that&#39;s abstract thought.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:09 pm
And Fawkes, saying that you like eating is a justification means you should have no problem with the rich because them liking money justifies it in your mode of reason. Secondly, for saying that it has already been discussed is a misguided attempt to silence debate, and that is social fascism.


There&#39;s a difference: we&#39;re talking about non-human animals. Why should we care if we eat them? And don&#39;t try to compare me to a fascist, I was saying that there already is a debate going on in the sticky section.

[Comrade J]

Do animals not apply to the working class definition? They, too, are forced to use their labor. At least human workers get a paycheck; the animals are sent to the slaughterhouse once they&#39;re no longer needed.

This is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. People arguing that animals should have the same rights as humans are incredibly deluded, and an embarassment to the left.

Please don&#39;t relate your radical sheep-loving ideology to your communist ones; it&#39;s hard enough to win support without half the working class thinking we&#39;re all of that disposition.

My friend&#39;s dad is blind - should I go and tell him to free his guide dog on the fucking moors or something, seeing as it&#39;s currently a &#39;slave&#39; for him? :rolleyes:

Anyway, good luck to the Animal Liberationists getting through the following without medical treatment:
(Because of course it would be extremely hypocritical to take medicine or treatment that was developed with the use of animals, right?&#33;)


Asthma
Blood transfusions
Diabetes
Diphtheria
High blood pressure
Heart/Lung disease
Heart replacement
Meningitis
Kidney diseases requiring dialysis
Leukaemia
Organ transplants
Polio
Whooping cough

Bronchiolitis
Depression
Breast cancer
HIV/Aids
Prostate cancer

And here are a few things that animal researchers are currently working on, so make sure you don&#39;t ever recieve treatment for them&#33; -

Alzheimer&#39;s treatment
BSE/CJD
Blindness
Bone and joint diseases
Cystic fibrosis
Diabetes
Huntington&#39;s disease
Motor neurone disease (amyotropic lateral sclerosi
Multiple sclerosis
Muscular dystrophy
Parasitic disease
Parasitic disease - malaria
Parasitic disease - schistosomiasis
Parasitic disease - leishmaniasis
Parkinson&#39;s disease
Spinal cord injury
Stroke

[Bilan]

For all you know, people in the 3rd world might be pro choice, only they dont have that luxury thanks to the influence of the evangelical right and as well as a lack of amentities.
Im sure given the choice between abortion and another mouth to feed the former may be quite popular&#33;

So Im afraid your analogy is made of fail, PTIT.

It&#39;s not made of "Fail", US.

It just exposes how silly your argument is.

I have no doubt that there are people in the Third World who are pro-choice, I was more referring to the accessibility to hospitals, and medical treatment to have abortions which makes that extremely difficult.
Do you see what I&#39;m getting at?

[Bilan]

Wow, thanks for being a total asshole, RedStarOverChina.


I only sympathize with workers who resist, since the primary reason I&#39;m in this class struggle thing is because I believe the working class will liberate themselves and replace the Bourgeoisie as the ruling class.


Sweet, that&#39;s not what makes them workers though.



And what would an "liberation of animals" do? And how would that benefit humans and more specifically, the working class?

Change their diet. :lol:



"Liberated" animals would just roam in the wild until they get eaten by other animals. If, say, a wolf can eat other animals, why can&#39;t I? Am I worth less than a instinct-driven beast?

:o
Have I argued you can&#39;t?
Please, go read up the page and see what I&#39;ve previously said if you&#39;d like an answer to that.


In case you haven&#39;t noticed, it&#39;s not just the lion tamers that lions "target"...

um...it was a reference to your "come back to me when they take direct action".
Get it now?



o unfortunately, lions don&#39;t really "get" this class struggle thing. You probably think they do, but that&#39;s just because you watched too many Disney cartoons.

If you can find me a Disney cartoon where Lions are involved in the class struggle, I&#39;ll give you 50c.
In the meantime, go fuck yourself, you smug ****.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 14, 2007 02:22 am

For all you know, people in the 3rd world might be pro choice, only they dont have that luxury thanks to the influence of the evangelical right and as well as a lack of amentities.
Im sure given the choice between abortion and another mouth to feed the former may be quite popular&#33;

So Im afraid your analogy is made of fail, PTIT.

It&#39;s not made of "Fail", US.

It just exposes how silly your argument is.

I have no doubt that there are people in the Third World who are pro-choice, I was more referring to the accessibility to hospitals, and medical treatment to have abortions which makes that extremely difficult.
Do you see what I&#39;m getting at?
i understand your argument, i just dont entirely agree with it as i think there are other factors which play a big role, specifically the church.
Also, abortions arent the most complicated procedure. Times were, when a girl wanted one badly enough she would consult an amateur or take a coathanger and a bottle of gin into the bath. This wasnt Africa or the thai peninsula, it was the backstreets of London.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 12:35 pm

i understand your argument, i just dont entirely agree with it as i think there are other factors which play a big role, specifically the church.
Also, abortions arent the most complicated procedure. Times were, when a girl wanted one badly enough she would consult an amateur or take a coathanger and a bottle of gin into the bath. This wasnt Africa or the thai peninsula, it was the backstreets of London.
Of course, and there alot of factors stopping people from being able to be vegan in the 3rd world: it&#39;s the same with a fuckload of things, as you know.

But you get why I&#39;m saying it&#39;s a silly point to make?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 14, 2007 02:42 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 14, 2007 02:42 am)
Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 12:35 pm

i understand your argument, i just dont entirely agree with it as i think there are other factors which play a big role, specifically the church.
Also, abortions arent the most complicated procedure. Times were, when a girl wanted one badly enough she would consult an amateur or take a coathanger and a bottle of gin into the bath. This wasnt Africa or the thai peninsula, it was the backstreets of London.
Of course, and there alot of factors stopping people from being able to be vegan in the 3rd world: it&#39;s the same with a fuckload of things, as you know.

But you get why I&#39;m saying it&#39;s a silly point to make? [/b]
...so people in the first world have an obligation to be vegan because of their land of origin (an accident of birth?) Sorry the rationale for that is lost on me, bearing in mind the logic and scientific arguments really point to the conclusion that meat eating is a natural pre-disposition for humans.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 14, 2007 12:50 pm
...so people in the first world have an obligation to be vegan because of their land of origin (an accident of birth?) Sorry the rationale for that is lost on me, bearing in mind the logic and scientific arguments really point to the conclusion that meat eating is a natural pre-disposition for humans.
It&#39;s not a question of should or shouldn&#39;t, it&#39;s just a realization that the conditions determining our ability to choose our lifestyle differentiate substantially when we&#39;re in the first world, compared to that of the third world; and those factors shouldn&#39;t be the things deterring us from changing our lifestyle (or diet) - i.e. We shouldn&#39;t not go vegan because in the 3rd world it is difficult, or because it&#39;s a concept that has more potential in the first world, and using such comparisons (as "go vegan in the third world&#33;&#33;") are absurd and irrelevant to us, and shouldn&#39;t be the determining factors (unless of course us taking such an action will significantly harm those in the 3rd world, then that changes things).

kay?

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:00 am
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
Being a vegan though somehow protects the environment?

You might want to research the damage soy causes.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp+October 14, 2007 04:17 pm--> (LogicalPimp @ October 14, 2007 04:17 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:00 am
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
Being a vegan though somehow protects the environment?

You might want to research the damage soy causes. [/b]
It&#39;s arguably better for the environment.
Not necessarily "good"

[Ian]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp+October 14, 2007 04:17 pm--> (LogicalPimp @ October 14, 2007 04:17 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:00 am
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
Being a vegan though somehow protects the environment?

You might want to research the damage soy causes. [/b]
Vegan diets have a lower carbon footprint, produce less methane gas, waste less water, and leave rainforests standing.

Either you ignored the fact, or just haven&#39;t read enough about it to know, but 70% of the Soy grown in the world is fed to cattle.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Ian+October 14, 2007 07:32 am--> (Ian @ October 14, 2007 07:32 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:17 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 01:00 am
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
Being a vegan though somehow protects the environment?

You might want to research the damage soy causes.
Vegan diets have a lower carbon footprint, produce less methane gas, waste less water, and leave rainforests standing.

Either you ignored the fact, or just haven&#39;t read enough about it to know, but 70% of the Soy grown in the world is fed to cattle. [/b]
And in this scenario, when people stop eating cattle, the soy will be grown to feed humans, so the argument doesn&#39;t work.

[Ian]

Originally posted by Comrade J+October 14, 2007 10:06 pm--> (Comrade J @ October 14, 2007 10:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 07:32 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:17 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 01:00 am
It supports big business, the destruction of the environment, ignorance in the form of not understanding the first two reasons, and it just makes for a terrible personal constitution
Being a vegan though somehow protects the environment?

You might want to research the damage soy causes.
Vegan diets have a lower carbon footprint, produce less methane gas, waste less water, and leave rainforests standing.

Either you ignored the fact, or just haven&#39;t read enough about it to know, but 70% of the Soy grown in the world is fed to cattle.
And in this scenario, when people stop eating cattle, the soy will be grown to feed humans, so the argument doesn&#39;t work. [/b]
Except for the fact that 6 kilograms of soy protein needs to be fed to Cattle to produce 1 kilogram of beef.

The Biological Value proves soy protein is a more useable protein for humans than beef protein (just check wikipedia&#33; "oh not accuratez lolz").

This will probably start some stupid anti-soy conspiracy bullshit thread, like Soy makes you gay or Soy makes you wank 20 times a day. But seriously, eat more soy, the Choline in Soy Letichin will make you smarter than the average bear.

(that&#39;s no diss on omnivourouse bears)

[Ian]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14, 2007 04:09 am
And here are a few things that animal researchers are currently working on, so make sure you don&#39;t ever recieve treatment for them&#33; -[i]

BSE/CJD

I won&#39;t get BSE/Mad Cow because I don&#39;t eat meat, so I guess I am making sure I don&#39;t ever receive treatment for it. I guess the whole Feeding cows to cows thing fucked up right there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Biological Value proves soy protein is a more useable protein for humans than beef protein (just check wikipedia&#33; "oh not accuratez lolz").

A scientist who based their doctoral thesis purely on Wikipedia articles would be laughed out the building. Just why do you think that no scientist uses Wikipedia as a reference?

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft
It&#39;s arguably better for the environment.
Not necessarily "good"

Soy is hardly "better" for the environment, at least in Brazil where thousands of acres of the Amazon rain forest is being cleared to grow soy. I&#39;ve gone to Brazil every year for the past 7 years for family. Every year the forest is further and further away because of soy crops.

To the OP of this thread: I hope you feel good avoiding dairy & the like and eating some soy. Smile, the forests are being cleared because of you. At least for soy, veganism is the secret acid environmentally, who would have thunk?

[Bilan]

Soy is hardly "better" for the environment

VEGANISM&#33; Not Soy&#33;

For fucks sake...


at least in Brazil where thousands of acres of the Amazon rain forest is being cleared to grow soy. I&#39;ve gone to Brazil every year for the past 7 years for family. Every year the forest is further and further away because of soy crops.


This is undoubtedly a big problem, but is not because of soy.
That just happens to be the crop that is high in demand, and land in Brazil (As well as labor) is cheap.
I suppose you can see where this is going.

[LogicalPimp]

Agreed, Proper Tea. Soy is a large part of vegan diets and when you have someone like the OP saying veganism is great for the environment, we all have to be aware of the environmental damage it causes. Currently because of the demand you spoke of (demand from vegans), soy crops are currently destroying the most complex ecosystem in the world.

Can this problem be fixed? I&#39;m not knowledable enough about how soy is grown (is it easy to grow? Can it grow on some crappy land in the Mid West instead of the rain forest?) but I&#39;d have to say there has to be a better place in the world to grow soy, cheap labor in Brazil a major factor aside. (Africa and a lot of Asia is cheap too from what I&#39;ve read).

[Ian]

Those forests are being cleared for soy to be grown for cattle, not vegans.

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 12:15 am
Those forests are being cleared for soy to be grown for cattle, not vegans.
100% of them are being cleared for soy to be grown for cattle?

I hope you don&#39;t believe that because that would be a mistake.

Outside of Foz de Iquazu some 5000 acres of forest was cut down for soy. 35% of that soy went to Whole Foods markets in the US --- for vegans.

[csquatdbeat]

Crucify the vegan&#33;
This is ridiculous, he did not post here with the intent to offend anyone so quit taking it that way. His points are valid and many of your counter-arguments have been downright stupid. If you can save the environment and life by doing a little extra, why not do it?

Eh that sums it up. Keep it real

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:08 am
Crucify the vegan&#33;
This is ridiculous, he did not post here with the intent to offend anyone so quit taking it that way. His points are valid and many of your counter-arguments have been downright stupid. If you can save the environment and life by doing a little extra, why not do it?

Eh that sums it up. Keep it real
You accuse others of stupidity then end a post with &#39;keep it real&#39;? Irony, much?

[LogicalPimp]

Originally posted by csquatdbeat+--> (csquatdbeat)
This is ridiculous, he did not post here with the intent to offend anyone so quit taking it that way. His points are valid and many of your counter-arguments have been downright stupid. [/b]

So the destruction of the amazon rain forests is stupid, huh? You&#39;re okay with soy crops destroying the most complex ecosystem on earth?


Originally posted by [email protected]

If you can save the environment and life by doing a little extra, why not do it?

This proves you read absolutely nothing on this thread. Instead of hitting quick reply, make sure you read all the information so you don&#39;t look stupid.



csquatdbeat

Eh that sums it up. Keep it real

Er, um, yeah fo sho dawg.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:08 am
Crucify the vegan&#33;
This is ridiculous, he did not post here with the intent to offend anyone so quit taking it that way.

I think that it is impossible to be "revolutionary" and eat meat

:rolleyes: Yeah, never intended to offend anyone.


His points are valid and many of your counter-arguments have been downright stupid.

Saying "your arguments are stupid" isn&#39;t the same as actually disproving them.


If you can save the environment and life by doing a little extra, why not do it?

If. If. If. If. If. If. The problem is that one can&#39;t save the environment by dicking about in the garden growing their own food.


Eh that sums it up. Keep it real

Fuck off.

[piet11111]

thnx jazzratt i dont have anything to add to that.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by LogicalPimp
, we all have to be aware of the environmental damage it causes.

Yup, sure do. But we have to be conscious of all environmental damage like that. I think of the two, from my knowledge, soy isn&#39;t as bad as farming animals (when it comes to environmental destruction).*
But I think the property system, and much productive and useful land, which could be used to grow food - and so on- remains unused is more to blame than which particular crop we choose to grow, or whether it&#39;s cattle or soy.

*That said, I don&#39;t think one should be forced either way.



Can this problem be fixed? I&#39;m not knowledable enough about how soy is grown (is it easy to grow? Can it grow on some crappy land in the Mid West instead of the rain forest?) but I&#39;d have to say there has to be a better place in the world to grow soy, cheap labor in Brazil a major factor aside. (Africa and a lot of Asia is cheap too from what I&#39;ve read).

Well, yeah, and it is. Soy is also grown in China and so on, and it&#39;s much the same situation.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:39 am
This is ridiculous, dietary choices have nothing to do with class struggle therefor is not revolutionary. I have no problem with people choosing a vegan lifestyle if they can actually do it (like Proper Tea is Theft pointed out it&#39;s really only accessible to the middle-class and above) but if you start putting all your energy into campaigning for "animal rights" it becomes country-revolutionary as it takes the focus off class struggle and alienates working class people.
I completely agree. It has no relevance to revolutionary practice.

I am somewhat vegetarian (and that does not mean I don&#39;t eat meat- I said somewhat - meaning I do still eat meat) though I do not support these arguments against consumption of meat. Either way, no it doesn&#39;t make anyone more or less revolutionary. class struggle and animal rights do not go together anyway.

[mandy_z]

Quick question: Is Marxism anti-vegan?

[Herman]

Quick question: Is Marxism anti-vegan?

Nope. We just don&#39;t like to be forced to be vegans just because "it helps a wee bit" in our "fight against the bourgeoisie" (supposedly, because I barely see how being a vegan has to do anything with the liberation of the poor and class struggle&#33;).

[Bilan]

class struggle and animal rights do not go together anyway.

They don&#39;t necessarily clash either.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 08:00 am

class struggle and animal rights do not go together anyway.

They don&#39;t necessarily clash either.
true but some vegan comrades *cough*settlefornothin*/cough* seem to be "distracted" to what takes priority

[Bilan]

Originally posted by piet11111+October 16, 2007 07:17 pm--> (piet11111 @ October 16, 2007 07:17 pm)
Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 08:00 am

class struggle and animal rights do not go together anyway.

They don&#39;t necessarily clash either.
true but some vegan comrades *cough*settlefornothin*/cough* seem to be "distracted" to what takes priority [/b]
Indeed, indeed.

[Cult of Reason]

I don&#39;t give a shit what you will and will not eat (unless I have to cook for you, ugh...), just leave me the fuck alone. That is my basic position. Fine, be a vegan if it makes you feel good, or if you just don&#39;t like meat. I, however, will carry on cooking myself chili con carne. :)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+October 16, 2007 04:33 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ October 16, 2007 04:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:17 pm

Proper Tea is [email protected] 16, 2007 08:00 am

class struggle and animal rights do not go together anyway.

They don&#39;t necessarily clash either.
true but some vegan comrades *cough*settlefornothin*/cough* seem to be "distracted" to what takes priority
Indeed, indeed. [/b]
yes exactly

[w0lf]

I like eating it. Looks like I just justified it.
So If someone likes raping people, they can say its fine and "justified" then everyone should leave them alone and let them rape whoever they want?

[RevMARKSman]

So If someone likes raping people, they can say its fine and "justified" then everyone should leave them alone and let them rape whoever they want?
Not so much.

See, most people realize that if they allow people to go around raping other people, they'll probably end up a victim.

Eating meat, however...

[w0lf]

Not so much.

See, most people realize that if they allow people to go around raping other people, they'll probably end up a victim.

Eating meat, however...

That still doesn't justify it..

[R_P_A_S]

but you know what pisses me off? it seems that being vegetarian and vegan is a bit more on the "Posh" side... all this fucking pro organice and vegetarian stores are so fucking expensive for working class people to shop at. :mad:

Whole Foods anyone?:rolleyes:

[RevMARKSman]

That still doesn't justify it..


How not?

[Bilan]

but you know what pisses me off? it seems that being vegetarian and vegan is a bit more on the "Posh" side... all this fucking pro organice and vegetarian stores are so fucking expensive for working class people to shop at. :mad:

Whole Foods anyone?:rolleyes:

You understand why that is, though, right?

And also, you can buy organic and vegan food from super markets and so on - at least here in Australia.
It's not amazingly cheap, either. It's still about the same.

I wouldn't say it's "posh" or anything, but the bourgeoisie always capitalize on progressive trends. Always.

[Jazzratt]

but you know what pisses me off? it seems that being vegetarian and vegan is a bit more on the "Posh" side... all this fucking pro organice and vegetarian stores are so fucking expensive for working class people to shop at. :mad:

Whole Foods anyone?:rolleyes:

Vegetarianism/Veganism != buying organic. A lot of veggie food is cheaper and there are plenty of working class vegetarians/vegans. It is dishonest and unfair to attack veggies on a class basis.

[Comrade Rage]

So If someone likes raping people, they can say its fine and "justified" then everyone should leave them alone and let them rape whoever they want?Apples and oranges, buddy. Human beings have a little more consciousness than animals.

[Bilan]

Apples and oranges, buddy. Human beings have a little more consciousness than animals.

Crum, you blatantly missed the crux of the issue.
The issue is not what the action is, but what justification their is for taking said action.
The claim was, eating meat is justified because "you feel like it", and that is no better than a rapist justifying their actions because they "felt like it".

[Comrade Rage]

Crum, you blatantly missed the crux of the issue.
The issue is not what the action is, but what justification their is for taking said action.
The claim was, eating meat is justified because "you feel like it", and that is no better than a rapist justifying their actions because they "felt like it".You're right, Proper Tea. I jumped the gun on that one.

[w0lf]

Apples and oranges, buddy. Human beings have a little more consciousness than animals.

So lets eat little kids.

Edit: sorry mate just saw your post above

[R_P_A_S]

Vegetarianism/Veganism != buying organic. A lot of veggie food is cheaper and there are plenty of working class vegetarians/vegans. It is dishonest and unfair to attack veggies on a class basis.

im not attacking nobody. i know plenty of poeple who are working class and are vegetarians or vegans....

but at least here in Southern California you get this feeling that only rich people do it and all the restaurants that have "healthy food" are super expensive. and whenever im at the market.. Organic stuff its always a bit more pricey that the fumigated shit brought in from Mexico

[Jazzratt]

im not attacking nobody. i know plenty of poeple who are working class and are vegetarians or vegans....

but at least here in Southern California you get this feeling that only rich people do it and all the restaurants that have "healthy food" are super expensive. and whenever im at the market.. Organic stuff its always a bit more pricey that the fumigated shit brought in from Mexico

Well, clearly. Most of that organic crap is a hell of a lot more expensive as you say and it's basically an inflated price tag for inflated, precious, egos.

[R_P_A_S]

so now we want the working class to not only be class conscious... BUT to stop eating meat.. we are fucked. this is gonna take forever! lol.:p

[w0lf]

'Natural' and 'Organic' are sales gimics in America if anything.There is also a likely chance of E. Coli in 'organic' crops with the restriction of antibiotics.

I don't think the government should choose peoples diets nor their religion or anything personal. This is coming for a vegetarian also.