Speciesism

[Coggeh]

Anti-Speciesism:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism) for those not familiar with the term .
Could this become a concept of socialism,now i'm not talking about is it right or not right to eat meat . But the slaughtering animals go through cheaply and "efficiently" to produce so much for the needs(or wants) of society.For example pigs get their tail cut off , their teeth pulled out ,ears plugged off and are castrated which is bad enough but for the fact its without any anesthetic these are done to cut costs and to ensure high quality meat(obvious product of capitalism) but with such huge demand for meat trying to keep it as cheap as possible seems like a good idea , How would socialism combat this ?

Is it primitivist to say we really need to re-evaluate our situation and seriously cut back on our meat consumption ?

[Coggeh]

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=119 a movie on animal abuses , which drove me to make this thread i suppose . Really good should have a watch.

[Dros]

There's no reason to cut back on meat consumption.

I think ethical treatment of animals is desirable but we shouldn't bend over backwards about it.

[spartan]

What is the point in wasting lots of time and money on treating animals in a nicer manner, when their whole lives are for the purpose of one thing: Being killed and turned into food for human consumption?

Humans and their needs must always come first, whilst animals should come a distant second (If even that).

[Black Dagger]

FYI the discrimination forum is for discussion of social discrimination against humans, sorry to all the animals who post on this board.

Moved and edited topic title.

[Coggeh]

That was intentional was trying to make a point, but ok.

Were trying to build a society based on needs , America consumes more poultry in one day than it did in a year before ww2 (granted the economic aspects of that statistic) but we don't need to consume so much meat. were overfishing the sea's , breeding animals from birth just to end up on our plate because its too costly to let them live before we kill them .

Humans with power exploit those who lack it , bourgeoisie to the workers etc ,I'm not saying we all become veggies , workers relationship to the bourgeoise embodies the same properties of that of humans to animals , we obtain food , clothing etc(though we don't fully need either from animals) we use them to meet our wants and the wants of profit.


What is the point in wasting lots of time and money on treating animals in a nicer manner, when their whole lives are for the purpose of one thing: Being killed and turned into food for human consumption?Says who ? and since when ? when did we decide that other species ones sometimes older than us , exist merely to serve our wants ?


I'm aware of the mass hunger on the planet and although i've used the term "want" when referring to meat eating I acknowledge the "need" for meat in all countries but the over production and mass slaughter in western society surely must be cut back ?

Edit: Ive a bad feeling about this post lol

[lvatt]

The problem is that animals cannot defend themselves. They cannot organize themselves in a group and file discrimination lawsuits. Efforts to protect them and award them ethical treatments are all made by humans. This makes the entire animal rights movement extremely difficult to carry out, because the animals themselves cannot understand it and fight the battle with their own means.

We all (well most of us) eat meat and wear leather or fur clothing without really thinking much about it. Its become part of our lives. Of course I get shocked when I hear about places where animals are treated inhumanly and I wish the conditions could be better to avoid unessesary suffering, but frankly what can we do? Can we really afford to just forget about meat altogether and give animals housing or something? We need them to survive. Some fatal illnesses can only be treated by medications made from animals. Should we sacrifice the sick people for the sake of the animals used for those medications?

I like animals as much as the next guy, and there have been many stories about heroic animals and such. Check this out for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachiko

In the end, it all comes down to what we believe in. Is an average cow or bull worth saving when placed against the interests of our human society? In my mind, the class battle we are facing cannot include animals, simply because of our own needs.

[Coggeh]

I agree , im not proposing we ban anything to do with meat or medicines obtained from animals , just place restrictions on the treatment of animals such as making all meat free range with real regulator's(and not the phony standards of today) to ensure animals get as much freedom as possible .

The point that animals can't or don't organize(which is a fairly good point) is nonetheless irrelevant , the bourgeoisie exploited and still exploit unorganized workers who in their mindset see themselves incapable of organizing , which might as well be the same as lacking the ability in the first place . Does this make it any less rotten on behalf of the bourgeois ?

[Vanguard1917]

Were trying to build a society based on needs , America consumes more poultry in one day than it did in a year before ww2


Yes, and this is a good thing. Prior to the mass production methods which we have today, meat and poultry were scarce, expensive and reserved only for the wealthy. Now, almost everyone in the developed world can afford to add meat to their everyday diets.


I agree , im not proposing we ban anything to do with meat or medicines obtained from animals , just place restrictions on the treatment of animals such as making all meat free range with real regulator's(and not the phony standards of today) to ensure animals get as much freedom as possible .


Why? Like i pointed out above, it is, at least partly, as a result of advanced agricultural methods (intensive farming, factory farming) that meat is less and less scarce for millions of human beings. Free range and organic methods simply cannot produce the kind of output that we require to allow every human being to add meat to their diets regularly.

And, sorry, but to consider the welfare of an animal whose sole purpose is to be raised to be slaughtered for meat, strikes me as absolutely bonkers (thank you spartan and drosera99 for stating the bleeding obvious).

[lvatt]

I agree , im not proposing we ban anything to do with meat or medicines obtained from animals , just place restrictions on the treatment of animals such as making all meat free range with real regulator's(and not the phony standards of today) to ensure animals get as much freedom as possible .

The point that animals can't or don't organize(which is a fairly good point) is nonetheless irrelevant , the bourgeoisie exploited and still exploit unorganized workers who in their mindset see themselves incapable of organizing , which might as well be the same as lacking the ability in the first place . Does this make it any less rotten on behalf of the bourgeois ?

But the less educated a people is, the easier it is to exploit them. On an individual basis, the average working class man barely knows his rights. And this is how the upper class wants it to be.

A lawyer I know once told me that when he started his legal profession he worked as a civil lawyer for an insurance company. He said that in one of his first days on the job he went to his boss and told him that one of the clauses in the policies the company was handing out was illegal. The boss just shrugged and said "I know" as if it was the most normal thing in the world. And of course when an average client makes a claim and the insurance opposes the illegal clause to deny him coverage, he rarely fights back because he assumes that the clause is legal.

But if every working class family knew how to tell illegal clauses in insurance policies, and if they always knew the rights they have when they get fired from a job or when they are victim of a discrimination, then they would be more difficult to oppress wouldn't they?

For years communist litterature was banned. Its more difficult to take such measures nowadays, but the objective is the same - keep the oppressed people ignorant of their situation. Do not let them know that there is a battle for their cause. Do not let them join. Threaten them. These are all techniques by the bourgeois to make those they oppress just as animals - separated and ignorant.

If you go to an average wal-mart and you try to get the employees to form an union (I've tried, trust me), its very difficult to convince them to join up. Why? Because they're afraid of losing their job. They know that their position (and their meager salary) is at risk if they are suspected of being pro-union. And to protect themselves and their families, they run away from the battle out of fear. This is exactly how the bourgeois want it to be - keep their little sheep satisfied with their peanuts and make them too afraid to try and get what they deserve.

How could capitalism be described as anything other than theft? People work and receive very little in exchange for their work, they are kept down and cowed into submission while being indoctrinated against socialism by the news media. In some ways, they are made into "animals," or rather they are forced into a situation in which, as is the case for animals, they are unable to voice their complaints (out of fear of getting fired, and out of not having money for hiring a lawyer, among other things), and are prevented from organizing themselves in a group (from fear of losing the little they have).

It's all pretty convenient for the big bosses, no? Its much easier for a millionaire company to fight against many small families individually than to fight against a united and educated workforce who knows its rights and is willing to fight for it under a single banner.

[Coggeh]

Lvatt:I'm aware of the greeds of capitalism and how the bourgeoise use fear among many other tactics to disorganize the working class i don't think thats the question or point were trying to get at here but point taken anyway.

Vanguard1917:Actually a balanced diet without meat can be just as healthy if not healthier than one with meat , which is a choice we have in western society so just because whether by choice or not meat is absent from ones diet doesn't make them unhealthy, though if one decides to decide to continue their consumption of meat thats fine but the crazy consumption we have today is just ridiculous.Their is a mass over-production and a waste of meat products in the name of competition within capitalism their is no real need for such a productive system within the west .

And you mentioned a point I've already addressed but anyway , you think animals exist only to serve humans?even ones that are older than us ?

[Coggeh]

What about entertainment also , things like roedeos/circuses would these be banned/strictly regulated ? or are animals also present on the planet not only to feed us but now to entertain us ?

[Sentinel]

Is it primitivist to say we really need to re-evaluate our situation and seriously cut back on our meat consumption ?It's not primitivist to say that -- primitivism has nothing to do with dietary customs. It's however biocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism), and outright misanthropic.

Mankind has no rational reason to cut back it's meat consumption at all -- and we sure as hell aren't going to do it for emotional reasons! :lol:

Our society is too advanced for such astounding irrationality.. We should, however, make our meat production and distribution more smooth and effective, by scrapping the price system (aka Capitalism).

Perhaps after that we can afford to take our emotions into account when it comes to treatment of animals and other such issues.

About the term 'speciesism'.. I find that an absurd concept to begin with, all species look to the wellbeing of their own in the first place.

Ironically, this is not only rational behavior, it's also what the biocentrists themselves define as 'natural'. :ohmy:

The biocentric approach has in it's reasoning more holes than Swiss cheese. :D

[Coggeh]

Ya maybe a bad choice of eh topic title Im not an .. anti specieist ?

I think we should cut back on the unnecessary cruelty and consumption of animals in the name of serving our wants , having a diet with a disproportionate amount of meat in it which alot of people in developed nations have runs the risks of many diseases cancer,heart disease,stroke osteoporosis ,diabetes and alot more ,something we can do with less of don't you think ?

How are we so advanced ?computers have been advancing , tv has been advancing toothbrushes have been advancing humans haven't we use less of our brains now then ever before . Were certainly not a progressive species(god i got to avoid using that word) in the scope of things , were killing the planet , were killing animals , were killing fish and eventually we'll have killed ourselves .

And whats this biocentrism thing , a term you just pulled out of google and used as if it was a theory i believed in , its used as a means to oppose transgender rights apparently , thats a pretty big hole in that cheese...

[LSD]

The biocentric approach has in it's reasoning more holes than Swiss cheese.

Something which will no doubt be promptly banned after the great vegan socialist revolution. :rolleyes:

I think it goes without saying that this debate has been run through a couple hundred times now. No doubt it's a contentious isue, but unfortunately most treatments of it don't get beyond the superficial.

The problem is that, when you get right down to it, the issue of animal rights ultimately comes down to the nature of society itself. It touches on some of the biggest philisophical and political questions out there, and so is very hard to resolve in one or two quick paragraphs on a web forum.

I am pleased to say, however, that once or twice we've managed to hold a real in-depth discussion of this subject, and I would recommend to anyone interested in the subject matter to have a look. Specifically, I would recommend this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/animal-and-earth-t63116/index2.html) from a year ago which is probably the best animal rights debate I've ever seen.

It's a bit of a read, but it manages to cover pretty much every angle of this very knotted issue.


But the slaughtering animals go through cheaply and "efficiently" to produce so much for the needs(or wants) of society.For example pigs get their tail cut off , their teeth pulled out ,ears plugged off and are castrated ... How would socialism combat this ?

It wouldn't nescessarily.

Oh, I don't doubt that in the long run, a post-capitalism will result in more humane slaughtering techniques, since removing profit from the equation will minimize the impetus towards extreme efficiency. But "combating speciesism" will not be a priority of the revolution, nor will the immediate aftermath see any decrease whatsoever in meat production.

On the contrary, I would imagine that once class inequalities are removed, a great deal more meat would be consumed. After all, at present meat is still a luxury purchase; and one which the vast majority of the world can only afford on rare occasions, if at all.


I think we should cut back on the unnecessary cruelty and consumption of animals in the name of serving our wants

Agreed!

As I've said many times now, my position is that 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's a reason, after all, that the world was so outraged by the Taliban'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.


Says who ? and since when ? when did we decide that other species ones sometimes older than us , exist merely to serve our wants ?


Humans are not "superior" to animals in some sort of universalist externalistic sense. But we are more important to animals relative to human society.

There is no "morality" or "value" outside of human society; we invented such thing. Wolves do not feel "regret" or "empathy" after they slaughter an animal, nor do they view the animal as "inferior" to them, they just eat it!

Animals simply do not exist within a moral or rational social framework and the idea of some sort of "commonality of species" is just pure postmodern liberal superstition, no matter whether you characterize humans as being "better than" or "equal to" other species.

Now, on the practical stuff, most of the "humans are better crowd" has it right. "Rights" for animals are pure nonsense. Human society has an obligation to benefit its members and nothing more. That means minimizing animal suffering as much as possible, since it's distressing to most people and wholly unnescessary, but not to the degree that it would significantly harm human beings.

If someday we perfect artificial meat growing, then we'll do that. It'd probably be less resource intensive anyways. But don't delude yourself into imagining that that would somehow lead to a "harmony" of "animals".

The day that people stop eating natural meat is the day that you will see the biggest mass slaughter of animals in history. If PETA ever had its way, it would lead to more animal deaths than has occured in every seal hunt, fur factory, and farm since the animal rights movement began.

The world is not disney fantasy-land and we are never going to live in "harmony" with "nature". Anti-humanist "vegetarianism" is simply reactionary superanturalism and is practically no better than primativism.

But so is metaphysical nonsense about human "superiority".

Indeed, I would even go so far as to say that going down the road of "superiority" actually helps the "animal rights" position, although I'm sure it's not what most "superiority" proponents intend.

'Cause not only does it require building upon an intrinsically unstable foundation, but it actually serves to damage the humanist scale by buying into the environmentalist myth of an holistic natural continuum.

If humans are "superior" to animals than it implies a chain of hierarchy. Ostensibly, there should be one animal immediately "below" us and another one below that and and another one beloew that all the way to the bottom where there would be the "most inferior" creature of all.

The problem with that, though, is that it leave the door open to a shifting of the line. To saying why don't we include the top two most "superior" animals instead of just the one?, and before you know it, "great apes" have social rights.

That's why so many animal rights types focus on chimpanzees. They're so close to us that if we accept "superiority" as a standard, a whole lot of people would include chimps in that group.

And before you know it, we're saying that wolves have "civil rights" -- although presumably not their "victims"... :rolleyes:

[Coggeh]

It wouldn't nescessarily.

Oh, I don't doubt that in the long run, a post-capitalism will result in more humane slaughtering techniques, since removing profit from the equation will minimize the impetus towards extreme efficiency. But "combating speciesism" will not be a priority of the revolution, nor will the immediate aftermath see any decrease whatsoever in meat production.

On the contrary, I would imagine that once class inequalities are removed, a great deal more meat would be consumed. After all, at present meat is still a luxury purchase; and one which the vast majority of the world can only afford on rare occasions, if at all.
A good post , thanks for the link btw .
can i just clarify im not "specieist"or what ever, I really regret using that term. lol

I was also thinking that a socialist revolution which would drive out the need for profit would also stop these cost effective slaughtering techniques but now I've some serious doubts about that . Also on the wolves thing , you said they don't feel regret for the victim they've just killed is that not the same with humans ? we eat meat like crazy knowing perfectly well how and where it was obtained but because us and the wolves instinctively "specieist" we don't care about it ? just a thought really.

[Sentinel]

How are we so advanced ?computers have been advancing , tv has been advancing toothbrushes have been advancing humans haven't we use less of our brains now then ever before . Were certainly not a progressive species(god i got to avoid using that word) in the scope of things , were killing the planet , were killing animals , were killing fish and eventually we'll have killed ourselves .

Oh no, a doomsday prophet.. :rolleyes:

Listen, comrade, there are 2 reasons why technology is currently damaging the environment:

1) it is too primitive, we are still too dependant of organic fuels, which generally make industry generate more pollution. There is promisng research going on as we speak though, which may soon solve that problem. To put it simply, the problem is a too low, not a too high tech level.

2) it is managed uncarefully. Technology is only harmful when used in the interests of a 'short term profit-hungry' minority. That could not happen in a libertarian-communist direct democracy.


And whats this biocentrism thing , a term you just pulled out of google and used as if it was a theory i believed in ,

Lol, no. We have discussed biocentrism in length on RevLeft, I merely provided you the shortest explanation which is wikipedia's. The Human Progress Group subforum has been made transparent recently, go and check our discussions out! :)


its used as a means to oppose transgender rights apparently , thats a pretty big hole in that cheese...

Well that's not what we mean by it. We refer to the belief that 'all life is equal' as biocentrism -- and oppose it as metaphysical, misanthropic bullshit. ;)

[FireFry]

Well, as with many of these silly new left debates, it's absurd that the exploitation of animals is placed on a higher priority than the exploitation of people. As has been consistent through all of human history, humans are a higher priority. I support speciesism as a means of human survival and nutrition.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think that 90% of animal suffering is down to preventable circumstances caused by capitalist cutbacks.

The living conditions of battery chickens, for example.

[Coggeh]

i think that 90% of animal suffering is down to preventable circumstances caused by capitalist cutbacks.

The living conditions of battery chickens, for example.
No, apparently that would effect production and were going to need more meat after the revolution so ....or something like that

[Don't Change Your Name]

Do other animals care about their own rights? And do those who hunt care about the rights of those they catch and kill to eat?

While some chimpanzees have shown certain reactions that seem to suggest they have a certain sense of "morality" and so, trying to argue that somehow humans are doing something "wrong" by acting in a simmilar way than other animals who do so without giving a damn is hypocrital, simply because it means somebody is being treated differently.

Sure, animals "suffer" in the process by which they are turned into hamburgers, but I'm also sure that, for example, zebras also "suffer" when lions catch them. I suppose that those who fight "speciesism" somehow see those lions as a bunch of "irrational poor retard things" who "are not to blame" because "Mother Nature" "made them that way", but will they expect humans institutions to take legal action against lions? I see that possibility as absurd.

[Dystisis]

Do other animals care about their own rights? And do those who hunt care about the rights of those they catch and kill to eat?

While some chimpanzees have shown certain reactions that seem to suggest they have a certain sense of "morality" and so, trying to argue that somehow humans are doing something "wrong" by acting in a simmilar way than other animals who do so without giving a damn is hypocrital, simply because it means somebody is being treated differently.

Sure, animals "suffer" in the process by which they are turned into hamburgers, but I'm also sure that, for example, zebras also "suffer" when lions catch them. I suppose that those who fight "speciesism" somehow see those lions as a bunch of "irrational poor retard things" who "are not to blame" because "Mother Nature" "made them that way", but will they expect humans institutions to take legal action against lions? I see that possibility as absurd.

That is a point.

Although this won't pass as an argument, I gotta note us humans are kind of forgetting we're just animals with a bigger ego and sense of self awareness (with a more developed brain). Therefore we are still very much part of the world (no matter how much telly-watching will make you feel otherwise,) and everything we do has an impact on our future development as well as other animals possible future evolution.

Therefore I do not see the point behind this argument as one of compassion or "ending the suffering" towards beings that are incapable of expressing emotions to the extent we are (although obviously unnecessary harm really should be avoided for obvious reasons). It is much more important to have in mind the long-term changes and harm this could bring to the natures order of things.

After all, we should be past the era of thinking of short-turn race-specific egoistical goals.

[Vanguard1917]

i think that 90% of animal suffering is down to preventable circumstances caused by capitalist cutbacks.

The living conditions of battery chickens, for example.

The 'living conditions' of chicken?! Chicken in farms are there to be slaughtered to produce meat and to lay eggs. Their conditions should be improved if it improves the quality and the quantity of the output produced. Irrational concerns about 'animal welfare' should not come into it at all; the only reason these animals exist in such numbers is to meet human ends - i.e. to produce food.

Let's make no mistake about it: the intensive farming of animals, along with crops, represents immense progress in food production methods. Under communism, instensive farming methods (e.g. the factory farming of chicken) will not be abolished or reduced, but expanded worldwide.

[Dros]

Well, as with many of these silly new left debates, it's absurd that the exploitation of animals is placed on a higher priority than the exploitation of people. As has been consistent through all of human history, humans are a higher priority. I support speciesism as a means of human survival and nutrition.

Oh my god! FireFry made an intelligent argument that I agree with!

Nice job!:cool:

[careyprice31]

I am so against speciesism. I don't believe that humans are 'better' than other species. I do not feel my life is worth more than my cat's life. We are all equally important in this world, and we should be treated equally.

Humans can make atom bombs and technologies but that does not make us any better.

remember that various animal species have abilities to do things that we humans can only dream of.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Speciesism makes sense, though. Humans are a different category of thing to an animal, if we're considering this on some moralistic level.

It does not matter that the cheetah can outrun me, the ape can outclimb me, et cetera. I can out think all of them, and that is the important factor.

-Alex

[careyprice31]

Speciesism makes sense, though. Humans are a different category of thing to an animal, if we're considering this on some moralistic level.

It does not matter that the cheetah can outrun me, the ape can outclimb me, et cetera. I can out think all of them, and that is the important factor.

-Alex

You can out think all of them, and our brains that allow us to live in inhospitable environments for example by allowing us to make things like warm clothes, strong houses that stand up against the elements, make weapons that allow us to hunt and fight if need be, are something that we humans have that is a great talent (if humans would stop fucking up in the world and use them properly)

But animals have learned to adapt to their environment without the use of artificial aids. They do not need guns or A bombs or computers or clothes. They have suitable weapons and did not need to invent. In addition when they fight, hunt and kill they are much more humane than humans are. A tiger merely hunts and tears to pieces, thats all he knows. It would never occur to him to nail his victims up to trees and watch them suffer even if they are able to do it. He kills as quickly and with as little pain as possible.

There are many things we can learn from an animal.

Don't you regard that as just as important as being able to think? The ability to know humility. The ability to instinctively know to kill quickly and with as little pain as possible.

These are some things that humans still need to learn. With animals they come naturally.

I regard this as just as important as being able to think well.

[MarxSchmarx]

The ability to instinctively know to kill quickly and with as little pain as possible.

The crocodile drowns its prey after rolling it around and essentially drawing and quartering it. The spider spits venom on them and lets them digest alive. Many wasps lay their eggs on unsuspecting bugs, letting their babies eat the host alive. Sounds bloody miserable in all cases.


We are all equally important in this world, and we should be treated equally.

Even the AIDS virus?

Indeed, after discussing this issue at some length around here, I am yet to hear a single convincing reply to the question: "Where should it stop?" other than "Fellow human beings."

[jake williams]

High meat consumption on its own is a horrid idea for environmental reasons alone, and particularly in the gluttonously wealthy West, its health effects.

To make the point clear, human concerns are much more important than animal concerns, because our conscious experience of the world is deeper and more complex than any other animals of which we're aware, at least as far as we have any ability to know. But animal welfare concerns are not totally trivial. I think we should work hard to treat animals well, and only cause harm to them when it's totally necessary. I don't think eating meat is really at all criminal, particularly if it's ensured (which it is admittedly hard to do) that the animal was otherwise looked after.

I should at that I consider these views to be at least an honest attempt at objectivity. I don't think this is any of this "I'm a human and you're a human and we're talking humans so humans are best!". I think with a couple of necessary discoursal assumptions, you can arrive at the conclusions I've come to objectively.

[bellyscratch]

first of all, as a human i think human's needs come first, however we still need to take animal welfare into account as they are a vital component of the environment we live in. The production of food should satisfy human needs not wants. We currently live in a society where the consumption of meat is not essential for us to survive, not only that we can do more than just survive without meat, we can live a much healthier lifestyle without it than over consuming it which is happening alot. Therefore, there should be no mass production of meat, as it is not a need to do so for our survival. Im not saying that humans and other types of animals (dont forget we are animals too) should be treated equal, but other animals should not be treat in a way which they have to suffer through their lives to meet our needs, as non-intensive farming methods are available to use.

This also may be of benefit to humans, as intensive farming requires less jobs for the amount of meat produced, so by changing the production to a fairer method, more jobs will be created.

[careyprice31]

The crocodile drowns its prey after rolling it around and essentially drawing and quartering it. The spider spits venom on them and lets them digest alive. Many wasps lay their eggs on unsuspecting bugs, letting their babies eat the host alive. Sounds bloody miserable in all cases.



Even the AIDS virus?

Indeed, after discussing this issue at some length around here, I am yet to hear a single convincing reply to the question: "Where should it stop?" other than "Fellow human beings."

1. Yes many animals eat that way, and kill that way, but there is still a difference between them and people. The croc, the spider, the wasp, the dihole (a type of african dog which kills by disembowelment). They dont enjoy suffering. They still kill as fast as they can with as little pain for the victim as possible. They cannot be compared to the harm that humans do.

I still find it pretty offensive that people say my life is worth more or im somehow more worthy than the lives of the 3 cats I've been guardian of. My first cat saved my life and showed me love while I was growing up in a hostile world. My cats are no less precious, and I would risk my life to save them.

The AIDS virus. Obviously the AIDS virus needs to be kept in check and its been shown the harm it has done. But I do not believe in making anything even an aids virus suffer while we kill it. Even an aids virus has a reason for existing, as a means of population control. All predators have a reason for existing. And like the wasp, it does not get any pleasure from causing harm to its host over a long period of time. (btw there is some doubt over whether the virus is alive or not because it cannot live except within the walls of a cell. Outside the cell, it can do nothing on its own. Even making more viruses isnt called 'reproduce' because scientists arent sure if it is alive. So they named it 'replicate'

AFAIK, no creature except a human is even so sadistically cruel, with the intention of being cruel, and inventing new and different forms of torture, and actually loving doing it and watching it.

There are still many things that can be learned from animals.

I'll use a USSR Stalin example. Pauker, walking with Stalin, sometime in 1937 or so, pretending to be Kamenev, rolling on his side, and getting down on his knees, begging for mercy just before he was shot. Pauker pretended to be him and was reveling in it, making fun of Kamenev's crying and begging. Sadistic, no?

Ever hear of a wasp doing that? No, because they dont enjoy suffering and they dont make fun of it afterwards and they do try to kill as fast as possible.

[bellyscratch]

in relation to the AIDS virus:
obviously this requires the suffering of a human to survive and so therefore must be killed. although as said before, it is debateable whether it is a living organism.


I try base how i live my life on this (emphasise the word try, as im not perfect like all of you)
"Live your life to meet your needs while making as little negative impact on the environment around you, while still making progress as a human being."

I know this is vague and can be taken in many ways, but should be the basic philosophy (dont know if thats the right word) to live your life by.

The only time you should impact another organism's life is if it is conflict with you, this may be direct or indirect. so if a lion tries to kill you, you try kill it first, or, you need more protein in your diet as a lack of protein is affecting your health, so you eat lamb, beef, chicken or whatever is easiest to get hold of. I know these are pretty basic statements and their may be grey areas of what you 'need' and what exactly is 'conflict', but you should not cause no more suffering to an animal than is needed if you intend to eat it. so if you are raising animals to be slaughered you should at least have the respect and compassion to give it a decent life. simple really.

Yes i know at the moment there are people all over the world suffering and whatever, but other animals need to be taken into consideration too. Of course you need to prioritise and meet the needs of suffering humans first, but it needs to be done in a way that respects the enivironment and other organisms in the environment too.

[Vanguard1917]

The AIDS virus. Obviously the AIDS virus needs to be kept in check and its been shown the harm it has done. But I do not believe in making anything even an aids virus suffer while we kill it. Even an aids virus has a reason for existing, as a means of population control.


The AIDS virus needs to be eradicated off the face of this Earth. According to your 'logic', we should not do this because AIDS 'has a reason for existing' (to maintain Malthusian limits on population).

[Dr Mindbender]

No, apparently that would effect production and were going to need more meat after the revolution so ....or something like that
free range chickens taste better and are more nutritious. Same goes for the eggs.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, we probably agree that people who torture animals for the sake of torturing animals are disturbed.


They still kill as fast as they can with as little pain for the victim as possible. They cannot be compared to the harm that humans do.

Organisms use what works to acquire food. It's not that they're somehow inherently more "humane" (by our standard anyway) as a result of ethical deliberation. It's just that torturing prey for its own sake is, physiologically, woefully inefficient.



AFAIK, no creature except a human is even so sadistically cruel, with the intention of being cruel, and inventing new and different forms of torture, and actually loving doing it and watching it.

This may be. However, there is evidence to suggest that real cruelty results from social situations people find themselves in (e.g. the stanford prison experiment), rather than something inherent in human nature. 99.999% of people go through life without being sadists. I suspect you can train, say, a dog to "torture" another dog.

Moreover, why does this imply non-humans deserve the same protections we enjoy? Indeed, slaughtering a cow or harvesting a potato is quite different from sadism.


I'll use a USSR Stalin example. Pauker, walking with Stalin, sometime in 1937 or so, pretending to be Kamenev, rolling on his side, and getting down on his knees, begging for mercy just before he was shot. Pauker pretended to be him and was reveling in it, making fun of Kamenev's crying and begging. Sadistic, no?

Ever hear of a wasp doing that? No, because they dont enjoy suffering and they dont make fun of it afterwards and they do try to kill as fast as possible.

Or could it be that the wasp is incapable of "acting", much less "tasteless comedy"?

[zufolek]

It bothers me that millions of animals live hellish lives merely for our convenience, while most of the pussy consumers out there could not even bear to see what happens to one of these creatures.

I see our world becoming more and more like their world. Like the animals we treat as products, we no longer know anything about a natural life. We live and work in little boxes, all alike. Our feelings don't matter, we're just numbers.

Suppose some space-aliens landed, and they had superior destructive technology. Would that mean it's perfectly okay for them to perform any torturous research upon us humans and keep millions of us in cages until, one by one, we're killed and eaten?

I'm not a vegan, and I can't oppose hunting for food, and it's true that many animals would rip you apart and eat you if given the opportunity, but I think we should not create the nightmarish warehouses of tortured freak animals who are deprived of all that is natural.

[careyprice31]

The AIDS virus needs to be eradicated off the face of this Earth. According to your 'logic', we should not do this because AIDS 'has a reason for existing' (to maintain Malthusian limits on population).


I explained what i meant to my friend who posted it on cc when i found out what you had said about me.

[Vanguard1917]

I explained what i meant to my friend who posted it on cc when i found out what you had said about me.

Maybe you can explain it to me as well. If AIDS does indeed play a purpose (that of 'population control'), should we really seek to eradicate it completely?

Also, can you explain to me why you believe that human life is no more important than the lives of cats and insects?

[careyprice31]

Maybe you can explain it to me as well. If AIDS does indeed play a purpose (that of 'population control'), should we really seek to eradicate it completely?

Also, can you explain to me why you believe that human life is no more important than the lives of cats and insects?

why? when i posted a little about what i thought i was misunderstood and labeled a 'reactionary '

and i was never spoken to nor asked what am I talking about, and no one ever made an attempt to get to know me (am I really a reactionary) i was simply judged. Im sorry, but that is just offensive.

I am honestly afraid to discuss my beliefs now. Sorry. I stick to discussing Russian history now. At least there no one minds what I believe about the USSR/Russia.

[Dros]

I am so against speciesism. I don't believe that humans are 'better' than other species. I do not feel my life is worth more than my cat's life. We are all equally important in this world, and we should be treated equally.

No life has inherent importance. This kind of religious argument is silly. We have importance only insofar as others/we perseve ourselves to be important. Independent of that, we are sacks of dancing chemical reactions and electronic signals being propagated by more chemical reactions.

Does your deserve freedom? If it does, then why is is your cat? Why don't you let it free instead of keeping it enslaved?

After the revolution, do think it should have the right to vote? Join the party? Serve in public office like Caligula's horse did?


Humans can make atom bombs and technologies but that does not make us any better.

Noone gives a flying fuck about whether or not we are "better". That's arbitrary moralistic garbage.


remember that various animal species have abilities to do things that we humans can only dream of.

The sun has the ability to generate massive amounts of light. I can't generate massive amounts of light. Does that mean we should let the sun vote to?

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Human life must always be on a higher priority. Animal liberation ideology is like telling a child who is starving not to eat because it "harms and animal". Humans cannot be subject to further exploitation for the purpose of "liberating animals". That aside, animals provide humans with nutrition. Human survival should not be less important than that of animals, and it is absurd to even propose such a question of which is more important when human beings are exploited and therefore cannot always have the option.

[Cryotank Screams]

Obviously the AIDS virus needs to be kept in check and its been shown the harm it has done. But I do not believe in making anything even an aids virus suffer while we kill it. Even an aids virus has a reason for existing, as a means of population control. All predators have a reason for existing.

Bullshit, there is no 'reason' for anything existing, it just exists and in regards to the AIDS virus it's existence is highly destructive towards humanity and it should be eliminated as quickly as possible just as any sickness should be eliminated as quickly as possible.


They dont enjoy suffering. They still kill as fast as they can with as little pain for the victim as possible. They cannot be compared to the harm that humans do.


I don’t think the people that slaughter animals for meat get some weird sadistic pleasure out of doing so, they are just doing their job as we do our jobs and I would assume that meat factories kill the animals as quickly as possible.

[careyprice31]

I never said i think animals are more important than humans because i dont believe in speciesism. Speciesism says one species is superior to another and I dont believe that.

"No life has inherent importance. This kind of religious argument is silly. We have importance only insofar as others/we perseve ourselves to be important. Independent of that, we are sacks of dancing chemical reactions and electronic signals being propagated by more chemical reactions."

I'm not religious. I say things like Oh my god, for god's sake, gods green earth, stuff like that, but it doesnt mean i believe in god.

"Does your deserve freedom? If it does, then why is is your cat? Why don't you let it free instead of keeping it enslaved?"

I adopted my cat but she is not property , a 'thing' like a table or a chair. She's a living being. So I dsont even call myself an 'owner' I call myself as her guardian. It is the government who claim that lving beings are just 'things'

Actually most people want animals to be moved out of the status of 'things' with an increase in the punishments for animal abusers and such. There was a discussion and a row about it here in canada after some animal abusers were caught. But the senate which is not elected by the people, struck the bill to strengthen the punishments for animal abusers even though it has passed in all other areas of government.

If my Princess or my Puss (that is her brother's name and they live with us, two of them so I have two cats) were viciously attacked, covered with hairspray and set on fire (true story btw , actor Matthew McCaunehey , I cant spell his last name, , rescued a cat from some youths who were going to do just that the ones who attacked them would never get the punishment they truely deserve.



She is free, she is an outdoor/indoor cat and she goes outside whenever she wants. She could leave any time. She chose to stay with us. I know a lot about cats, and cats are so intelligent that they will not hang around with human beings they don't like.


People who work in slaughter houses. There is evidence that over time they can become numbed to the smell of blood, the killing, and so on and they start to approach it like stapling boxes. Some of them start to torment the animals on purpose. The slaughter house is one area where I believe in reform and not revolution. The PETA and Earth First buncha fuckers would have you believe that giving up meat is the answer. So too with the seal hunt banning crowd They believe that banning eating meat and legitimate hunting is somehow the way to save wildlife. But they are based more upon emotion that scientific and biological realities.

I am fromNewfoundland, where the seal hunt goes on, here in Atlantic Canada, and I know for a fact that they tell lies and spread propaganda. But people are believing them, cause seal products are getting banned in Europe.

I believe that species are equal but I support technology, am not a primitivist, and eat meat like every day. Taking care of nature and not spoiling the earth can only be progressive for human kind, as humans cant progress if nature and animals are not taken care of, in fact we wouldnt be here, if the earth is destroyed we die too, and there goes the end of any chance of progression.

So imho, Marxist must be environmentalists, at least up to a point.

[careyprice31]

perhaps I should explain why im reformist and not revolutionary on the subject of slaughter houses (so the members of the cc can know me better when they vote as I know there is a topic on me)

because I know everyone here believes in revolution.

revolution would be to close them down, shut all doors, and give up eating meat. That would be an extreme and total transformation, aka, revolution.
Reform would be just to make the killing of the animals for milk, meat and eggs and so on more humane so that death happens quickly, there is little suffering for the animals. Properly done, slaughtering animals for meat can be quicker than is done in nature. Some are already doing it. Just a shot of compressed air through the head and the animal is dead. No suffering, nothing.

I believe in the latter, not the former.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing nature to help us with progression. Eating meat is one of them. Using trees for wood is another.

PETA is just a bunch of sick fucks for believing the way that they do.

I think i know why now I was questioned by some with a topic in the cc. You seem to think that advocating for the equality of all species inevidably miust mean a primitivist, anti technology, non progressive, reactionary type of thing. Try being more open minded to the idea that not all of us are like that. I certainly do not believe in that primitivist anti technology yadda yadda stuff. That is bad stuff.

[PsciStudent]

It seems to me that we have just stumbled onto the tip of the iceberg of animal rights arguments.

Let me preface the following with some info about me: I am a proud carnivore son of a chef. So understand that this is not necessarily my view per se, but I am just pointing out the fact that the views of the most educated animal rights activists are more sophisticated than most people believe.

First I want to point out the fact that from a purely materialistic point of view (and pretty much all leftists have to say that they are committed to materialism on principle since this is the basis for Marxism and its offshoots), people are made up of complex carbon chains, fatty acids, water, and so on just like animals are. If we are no different physically, then why do we refrain from eating other people? Is it because we merely look human? Is it because we have a soul? Or is it because we are better than animals?

The first two points are usually rejected because of the harlequin baby example (a deformed human baby that doesnt look human at all is still considered a human and we wouldnt eat it) and the disbelief of materialists in the concept of a soul.

However, the third point doesnt hold much promise either. Being better than an animal does not entail that we use it for our purposes. That is a logical non-sequiter. An example may suffice, I may be more talented, smarter, and better looking than another person but that does not entail that I should use that person in any way I see fit. This, I think, is the most forceful argument against the use of animals as food.

Other arguments can be made on utilitarian grounds, but that is for another day.

Any comments?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Humans have certain inherent and exclusive traits though, for example the ability to reason in ways that no other animal can as well as verbal communication.

The barriers between humans and animals are quite simply much, much greater than the barriers between humans and humans - by an order of magnitude.

Furthermore, animals are inherently incapable of understanding human-made law and therefore cannot respect it, so to treat animals as being equal to humans under the law would be absurd.

[PsciStudent]

Ah, but this argument is essentially a rewording of point 3: humans should eat animals because humans are better.

In this case, better means that we are smarter and can govern ourselves. Or that we are moral beings and that gives us superiority. Whatever it is, you mean that humans are better than animals in some aspect, probably mental, and that gives us the right to use them as we will.

At this point, most animal rights proponents would say that plenty of animals can exhibit rationality and communication skills, or have social structures that resemble a society. And that may in part be true. But lets say that they are wrong and that every animal is as smart and skilled as cattle.

This would still not give us the right to use them as food. Because the mere fact that we are superior to something does not give us complete control over that thing.

Compare normal people to handicapped vegetables. Vegetables still deserve to be treated with dignity (regardless of whether you believe in euthanization), and we cant use vegetables as food even though they can't communicate or exhibit higher mental functions.

The principle still stands. We may be better but how does that justify our domination of a lesser thing?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think the question comes down to how far rights extend. The only reason we don't/can't eat humans is because humans have a right not to be eaten (or rather, a right to life and to bodily integrity). This is because humans, through their ability to reason and through their emotional and mental capacities, have come to cherish life and bodily integrity. As humans we believe it is wrong to harm others.

Animals, however, lack the mental and emotional capacity for such reasoning. An animal will not stop to think of the consequences of its actions. It will not consider the rights of its victim, or the ethical or social consequences of its act. So in general, animals cannot possibly perform the duties expected of them by human society.

Nor do animals have sufficient mental capacity to cherish life or bodily integrity. There will not be outrage in the squirrel community if one of their kind gets run over. Animals generally don't give a shit.

For these reason, animals do not have rights in the same way as humans have them.

[PsciStudent]

You bring in some interesting philosophical baggage when you mention rights. However, the only thing that I will say is that perhaps we should look into the possibility that rights are arbitrary anthro-centric measures that by definition exclude animals from consideration of its protection. Why do we have rights? You say its because we have a moral community of some sort that involves human dignity, and this is enabled by our superior mental capacities over that of the lesser animals.

Animals dont have rights because they are not part of the same moral level as people. But animals are by nature unable to be on the same moral level as people since they don't have those mental capacities that humans have. Coming up with a definition of rights that excludes them on the basis of the arbitrary value of "being part of a moral community" is not fair is it? Why does being part of a moral community matter? Isn't it arbitrary to use it as the criterion for which you define superiority and justify the exploitation of animals?

Furthermore, this is still the same argument that you made before. You have not addressed why the very fact that we are superior in ANY way NECESSARILY justifies our behavior towards any lesser being.

An example of necessity is the clause, "If I am 18, then I can drive". In this example, the ability to drive is necessarily entailed by you being 18 because being 18 is sufficient for being able to drive. These are objective legal truths that cannot be denied.

Where is the necessity in the statement of the clause "If one being is better than another, it can eat the lesser being"? There is no objective truth that says that being better than one thing allows us to treat lesser things as we wish. It is an arbitrary thing to value human lives over the lives of animals given that animals are not as smart or empathetic as we are.

Well, what you are seeings is the product of 4 years of arguing with people. I wonder if I can use this skill in life LOL.

[Raúl Duke]

I think the reason I wouldn't eat a deformed baby is because it's freaky looking...

0_0

Well, maybe the whole reason why we don't eat other humans is some sort of socialization that just makes us not like the idea of eating another human. In actuallity I don't think there's much reason why or why not to eat another person (and people have done so in extreme situation) except in what seems to be a socialized preference.

However, I only came here to comment about the deformed baby ( :p ) so I won't be back to this thread to comment more.

[careyprice31]

also I think that what is 'good' or 'bad' is purely from a human point of view and not necessarily bad as nature or the planet would see it.

I'll explain. Only from a human point of view is the bee which pollinates the rose bush more valuable than the aphid which sucks its juices.

In nature animals behave not for actions or motives which are 'good' or 'bad' but for its survival or what is dictated to it from instinct and thousands of years of evolution.

Its funny too that the animal can be 'good' one moment and then 'bad' the next, like the family pet dog who fends off a burglar and then bites the mail deliverer.

Do creatures such as the aids virus and the aphid (one deadly to humans , the other potentially deadly to plants) have a purpose? I guess in a sense you could say that at one point in history they served a purpose as population controllers as its a known fact that a population too big for its environment can create chaos (and this would be anti progression in the eyes of leftists). If we somehow can control populations by ourselves with our brains, then predators, their use, would probably obsolete.

[MarxSchmarx]

Svetlana, I must admit you are at least consistent in your points. But explain to me this. If you



...believe that species are equal but I support technology, am not a primitivist, and eat meat like every day. then why is it morally justifiable to kill, say, cows or seals for food but not other humans for, say, fishing bait?

I think our intuitions tell us it is not acceptable to kill a human child to feed your cat, the way it might be ok to kill lamb to feed the same cat. This strikes me as specieism. And frankly I am perfectly comfortable with such specieism.

Also pscistdnt,

It is an arbitrary thing to value human lives over the lives of animals given that animals are not as smart or empathetic as we are.
Well, if they are not as empathetic, then by definition an animal won't respect my desire to remain uneaten. Therefore, it seems reasonable that they forfeit whatever slue of rights they presumably started out with.

I think the difference with humans is that people basically universally have the capacity for empathy, and therefore empathy and respecting each other's rights can be taught even to those psychotics. I don't think it can be taught for animals.

But I concede your point about "necessity". Nevertheless, all morality is in the sense you're describing "arbitrary". This arbitrariness doesn't keep me up at night.

[PsciStudent]

Bingo MarxSchmarx


"But I concede your point about "necessity". Nevertheless, all morality is in the sense you're describing "arbitrary". This arbitrariness doesn't keep me up at night."
This is the correct answer. Human values are arbitrary in the cosmological sense. We're just molecules bumping around, nothing sacred there under the microscope!

And what I meant by empathy is the ability to feel for one another. Its actually pretty intuitive to grant that animals are empathetic towards one another, just like humans are. Animals care for each other and seem to get angry or sad when one of their own dies. Look at wolfpacks.

But as I see it, the argument is over. Human values are indeed arbitrary. This does not admit of relativism, however, because there are certain things that humans consider to be good despite the subjective criteria we use to deem them good.

This is all I got.

[Obnoxious]

speceism today is treated like racism and and sexism were not so very long ago. Suggest to your average 'leftist' male 100 years ago that womyn should have the right to vote, and they'd have laughed in your face. Suggest to your 'friendly' slave owners that black people should not be slaves and they'd have laughed in your face.

suggest to the average lefty today that animals should not be slaves and objects of human domination, and they laugh in your face.

why? we have brought up in a society where eating meat is the norm, just like racism and sexism were (and to an extent still are). a century ago a womon could expect to walk down the street and have her father ignore her, because to accknowledge his own daughter in public was frowned upon. this sounds stupid to us now, but then it was just the norm. This is like speceism today. people just do what they are used to, and are often fear thinking about it to much so they shrug it off.

we treat animals as our slaves, when they are living things like you and i. the human->non human relationship is like that of white->black, womon>man, gay->straight, ruling class->working class. it is built into all of us as out selfish side comes out, the thought that we are more important than everything and everyone else.

if domination over fellow humans is to end, our domination over animals and the environment should be equally important. we are part of the environment, not here to destroy it. the argument made by so called lefties that humon welfare should come first is just like the argument used by racists that white welfare should come first, or that of sexists that male welfare should come first. would you ever hear a lefty say that? no, it would be ridiculous. it's time that we 'radical thinkers' and 'libertators' start thinking about the weakest and most oppresed group of all: the non-humon animals.

[Bilan]

speceism today is treated like racism and and sexism were not so very long ago. Suggest to your average 'leftist' male 100 years ago that womyn should have the right to vote, and they'd have laughed in your face. Suggest to your 'friendly' slave owners that black people should not be slaves and they'd have laughed in your face.

You know that 100 years ago, women were given universal suffrage in Australia and NZ (for example), and that was in bourgeois capitalist states, right?
And slave owners, like all bosses, are never going to agree, or support the emancipation of 'their subjects'. That's why they, the workers, slaves, etc. all advocate revolution, and not the bosses.

Revolutionaries, socialist revolutionaries, have always advocated both (Except perhaps not universal suffrage, as in bourgeois political systems, the vote is useless - obviously not all socialists agree, and the ones that don't would support the vote for all).
That argument falls flat on its face.
I think you're getting caught up on language, rather than what was actually being said.
Like Marx using "man" alot.



if domination over fellow humans is to end, our domination over animals and the environment should be equally important.bollocks! the liberation of 'animals' and the environment is meaningless before the over throwal of capitalism.
and after...?



we are part of the environment, not here to destroy it. the argument made by so called lefties that humon welfare should come first is just like the argument used by racists that white welfare should come first, or that of sexists that male welfare should come first.
No, it isn't. It's completely different.



would you ever hear a lefty say that? no, it would be ridiculous. it's time that we 'radical thinkers' and 'libertators' start thinking about the weakest and most oppresed group of all: the non-humon animals.(Why are you spelling human with an 'o'?)
No, it's not. It's about time we start organizing to destroy capitalism, and the commodity system.
For no human or non-human animal can be liberated while it still exists.

[Obnoxious]

i think your chattin brown Tea, lol. obviously it was up to the ruling classes to bring about suffrage to the masses, but are you trying to say that the working class valued this suffrage long before it came about? of course they didn't. and the children brought into familys with slaves didn't know any different, and many of them actually condemned it once they were educated about the fact that it was obviously wrong. when your brought up believing something then you aren't going to really know any different unless you're extremly intelligent or hear about ideas from others.

and no its not completly different, and you know it.

and yes i agree we need to fight capitalism and the commodity system, and the only way we can do this is LIBERATION AND THE END OF DOMINATION FOR EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING. or else it is meaningless.

just because your fighting for the rights of people, it doesnt mean you have to partake in the oppression of animals.

i know you dont, which is why its weird that you should be arguing the opposite.

[Black-Star]

arguing over something that minute is petty at best. Thats like saying overthrowing capitalism is more important than eliminating racism and sexism. Why does everything need a heirachy of importance? cant everything be treated as being equally important? There all oppressive dichotomies that need to be removed, so why cant they all be eliminated at once?

[Bilan]

i think your chattin brown Tea, lol.

Haha, I'm so confused by that.



obviously it was up to the ruling classes to bring about suffrage to the masses,

...?
Not at all. The ruling class were pressured into it, much like the 8 hour day.
I'm pretty sure with the Australian example, Western Australia and South Australia were going to pull out of the federation if it did not have universal suffrage, as women already had the vote there before federation.
Might point was, even the bourgeoisie had the principles of universal suffrage.
Since the French revolution, no?




but are you trying to say that the working class valued this suffrage long before it came about?

Working class revolutionaries certainly did.



of course they didn't. and the children brought into familys with slaves didn't know any different, and many of them actually condemned it once they were educated about the fact that it was obviously wrong.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here?
Children of slaves were against women voting? or slaves voting?



when your brought up believing something then you aren't going to really know any different unless you're extremly intelligent or hear about ideas from others.

The latter being the correct one, and which is was common in those times. "Universal Suffrage" is not something that came about, or was advocated, soley in the post 60s-era. Its from long before that.
Did not the USSR have universal suffrage at the beginning?



and no its not completly different, and you know it.

I don't know this.
How was a baseless scientific analysis, which assumes superiority through biological myths (i.e. race), the same to using non-human animals as means of subsistence?



and yes i agree we need to fight capitalism and the commodity system, and the only way we can do this is LIBERATION AND THE END OF DOMINATION FOR EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING. or else it is meaningless.

I think you'd find Marx often supported the dominance of humans over nature, harnessing nature so that it could be used for the benefit of humanity - essentially, freeing humanity from the irrationality and chaos of nature.
The Liberation of humanity is all or nothing.
But animals don't necessarily fit into this equation. They can, but I don't believe that they do.



just because your fighting for the rights of people, it doesnt mean you have to partake in the oppression of animals.

I'm not fighting for the rights of people, I'm fighting for the liberation of humanity, the abolishment of capitalism.



i know you dont, which is why its weird that you should be arguing the opposite.

?:confused:

[Obnoxious]

ok well i cant remember half of what you said, but you said working class revolutionaries believed in universal suffrage? well yes but thats like saying vegetarians and vegans believe in liberation of animals. you can't base this on the population as a whole. i know you were around in the 19th century and conducted surveys but still...

anyway that's irrelevant. basically you're just agruing for arguments sake, there are no benefits to the exploitation of animals and anyone who truelly values freedom would value the freedom of animals too. and i know marx said that, but then and again marx is a bit out dated wouldn't you say? and as you've mentioned before, he reffered to humankind as 'man'.

also i think your being a bit pedantic with that last sentance.

[Bilan]

ok well i cant remember half of what you said,


To see what people have posted like that, click "quote" and then it will come up.
To directly respond put it in quotations.
Like
[ quote ]
[ / quote ]

(but without the spaces)
:)



but you said working class revolutionaries believed in universal suffrage? well yes but thats like saying vegetarians and vegans believe in liberation of animals. you can't base this on the population as a whole. i know you were around in the 19th century and conducted surveys but still...Well, I think thats largely different, as working class revolutionaries have their basis in the proletariat, and as revolutionaries, would uphold class struggle politics, as well be struggling forward (i.e. to socialism, democracy, etc.) not backward (feudalism, etc).
It's not necessarily true for all revolutionaries, but for the most part, we'd assume so, or we couldn't call them revolutionary.




anyway that's irrelevant. basically you're just agruing for arguments sake,Not at all!



there are no benefits to the exploitation of animals and anyone who truelly values freedom would value the freedom of animals too.What about when it comes to health?
There are comrades out there who cannot be vegans or vegetarians because of their dietary requirements, naturally related to them personally.

On top of that, what about for people who can't afford vegan food?
I do have comrades, once again, who are in that situation, who can neither afford vegan products (not vegetables, obviously, but 'soysages', etc) and who don't have the time to buy and find such things.
That is the reality of alot of working people under capitalism.

It's not always a question of morals, or whatever, but of the conditions relating to you.



and i know marx said that, but then and again marx is a bit out dated wouldn't you say? and as you've mentioned before, he reffered to humankind as 'man'.I think some is outdated, and some not. I think that's hardly the point!



also i think your being a bit pedantic with that last sentance.
How so?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

anyway that's irrelevant. basically you're just agruing for arguments sake, there are no benefits to the exploitation of animals

Wrong. I have a rather nice pair of leather boots and have enjoyed many meals that included meat.


and anyone who truelly values freedom would value the freedom of animals too.

"freedom" doesn't mean much to beings that can't even grasp the concept. Does it really matter if a sheep is eaten by a predator in the wild or is slaughtered by a human for mutton?


and i know marx said that, but then and again marx is a bit out dated wouldn't you say? and as you've mentioned before, he reffered to humankind as 'man'.

Just because Marx used a phrase that is anachronistic today does not mean everything he says is invalid.

[Obnoxious]

ok i don't understand how so many anti-capitalists can get so sucked into the commodity system. owning animals for no oher reason than profit is no different to the ownership of slaves, they also reckoned that slaves were inferior to white people which we know today is certainly not true. the domination over the life of another does not fit into the ideal of liberation and equality amongst all. what happened to 'property is theft'? you say that land, factories, shops etc. should not be owned by anyone but you don't care that people exploit animals to squeeze profit out of them? chickens are fed their own feathers in order to save money, BSE (mad cow disease) started when cows were forced into cannibalism to cut down on expenditure! are you saying that these exploitative, profit-driven capitalists who have no value for any life apart from their own should be given a big pat on the back because they're feeding the masses who can't see beyond their dinner plate?

and what about the workers in the abbatoirs? a majority of them are actually immigrants who can't get other work, and they work in the harshest conditions. the hooks constantly go past them and they are forced by their bosses to have an animal on every hook else they face the sack. this is why 1) the animals are usually still alive when they are skinned and bled, and 2) why there are so many head and limb injuries to people from the kicking animals scared to death on the hooks. the whole industry exploits both animal and worker, and i don't know how you can brush it aside for your won selfish taste and comfort! i'm sure the chinese children working in sweatshop make some ccomfortable shoes and tasty food too, are you suggesting this should continue just because theres profit and comfort involved? its the same thing and you can't deny it. i'm sure those kids don't know any different either, all they know is that they're living in discomfort and facing a not so promising future.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

owning animals for no oher reason than profit is no different to the ownership of slaves, they also reckoned that slaves were inferior to white people which we know today is certainly not true.

Slaves were human beings, and were inherently capable of all the things that free human beings are capable of. Animals have displayed none of the important traits that differentiate humans (the only known sapient species) from other animals, such as culture, abstract thought, or civilisation.

Therefore, while an animal is capable of being tortured, as pain is a trait almost all higher animals possess, an animal cannot be oppressed as human slaves are because they incapable of realising such abstract concepts as "freedom" and "oppression".


the domination over the life of another does not fit into the ideal of liberation and equality amongst all.

What is the point of "liberating" something that cannot even comprehend the term "liberation"?


what happened to 'property is theft'? you say that land, factories, shops etc. should not be owned by anyone but you don't care that people exploit animals to squeeze profit out of them?

People will want meat, no matter what economic system is in place. Therefore animals will be exploited as a source of meat. Pre-capitalist societies ate meat, therefore eating meat is not an inherently capitalist activity.


hickens are fed their own feathers in order to save money, BSE (mad cow disease) started when cows were forced into cannibalism to cut down on expenditure!

And that's a fault of capitalism. Such practices are intended to drive down production costs, and similar practices are carried out in a wide variety of industries.


are you saying that these exploitative, profit-driven capitalists who have no value for any life apart from their own should be given a big pat on the back because they're feeding the masses who can't see beyond their dinner plate?

No more than they should be given a pat on the pack for every other advance that has improved the general quality of life of the worker. The problem is not that such improvements exist, but that such improvements are not universally enjoyed.


and what about the workers in the abbatoirs? a majority of them are actually immigrants who can't get other work, and they work in the harshest conditions. the hooks constantly go past them and they are forced by their bosses to have an animal on every hook else they face the sack. this is why 1) the animals are usually still alive when they are skinned and bled, and 2) why there are so many head and limb injuries to people from the kicking animals scared to death on the hooks. the whole industry exploits both animal and worker, and i don't know how you can brush it aside for your won selfish taste and comfort!

Because it's not a special case. Other industries have practices that are just as harmful and injust to their workers, and I see no reason to single out meat production over any others.


i'm sure the chinese children working in sweatshop make some ccomfortable shoes and tasty food too, are you suggesting this should continue just because theres profit and comfort involved?

Of course not, but the answer is not to stop wearing shoes and sweaters, it to campaign for improvement in worker's conditions and ultimately work towards the elimination of capitalism.


its the same thing and you can't deny it. i'm sure those kids don't know any different either, all they know is that they're living in discomfort and facing a not so promising future.

Those kids could be A) getting a decent education and B) enjoying their childhood while it lasts. Can you educate a sheep?

[Bilan]

ok i don't understand how so many anti-capitalists can get so sucked into the commodity system.

:confused:



owning animals for no oher reason than profit is no different to the ownership of slaves,

It's not for profit.
Post-capitalist 'ownership', or use of animals as a means of subsistence, is not the same as 'owning animals' under a capitalist, commodity based system.
The two are substantially different.



they also reckoned that slaves were inferior to white people which we know today is certainly not true.

Noting slaves aren't necessarily not-white. There have been white slaves in history.
And this is wholly different.



what happened to 'property is theft'? you say that land, factories, shops etc. should not be owned by anyone but you don't care that people exploit animals to squeeze profit out of them?

Again, these two are completely different.
The means of production (as in the former), i.e. the means of subsistance, comfort, etc. of society as a whole being owned, and controlled by the capitalist class, is an entirely seperate, and non-related issue to non-human animals being used as a means of subsistence.
The fact of the matter is, before the abolishment of capitalism, animal liberation means squat.



chickens are fed their own feathers in order to save money, BSE (mad cow disease) started when cows were forced into cannibalism to cut down on expenditure![ are you saying that these exploitative, profit-driven capitalists who have no value for any life apart from their own should be given a big pat on the back because they're feeding the masses who can't see beyond their dinner plate?

Those are definitely extreme examples, and come back to one major thing: the driving force; profit.
What is the objective? It's gaining the largest amount of product possible for the lowest price.
That is capitalism, and something unavoidable under capitalism. But is not inherent in the meat and dairy industry, especially under a socialist system.



and what about the workers in the abbatoirs? a majority of them are actually immigrants who can't get other work, and they work in the harshest conditions. the hooks constantly go past them and they are forced by their bosses to have an animal on every hook else they face the sack. this is why 1) the animals are usually still alive when they are skinned and bled, and 2) why there are so many head and limb injuries to people from the kicking animals scared to death on the hooks. the whole industry exploits both animal and worker, and i don't know how you can brush it aside for your won selfish taste and comfort! i'm sure the chinese children working in sweatshop make some ccomfortable shoes and tasty food too, are you suggesting this should continue just because theres profit and comfort involved? its the same thing and you can't deny it. i'm sure those kids don't know any different either, all they know is that they're living in discomfort and facing a not so promising future.

All industries exploit the workers. It's not just the animal industry.
Are you suggesting we should just boycott companies, regardless of the repercussions for the workers?

[Bilan]

Woops, sorry, Noxion, didn't realized you'd replied first. :blushing:

[Black-Star]

[quote=NoXion;1081754 What is the point of "liberating" something that cannot even comprehend the term "liberation"?
[/quote]
so if a disabled child/worker in a sweatshop cant comprehend the term liberation they should be considered subhuman to other sweatshop workers and shouldn't be granted better working conditions because they have the same chromosomes as a chimp?

Bickering over this is pointless.

[Obnoxious]

bickering is pointless. im not sure why your trying to demand explotation, wanting meat and needing meat are two different things. and yes we communicate differently than other animals but that doesnt make us superior. the superiority complex inherent in those people discriminating against other people is the same as that present in people discriminating against animals, your jsut trying to justify it to yourself. im sure the white supremesists on storm front have similar posts justifying their views on jewish people. and stop tearing what i say apart and quoting it it gets annoying.
" The fact of the matter is, before the abolishment of capitalism, animal liberation means squat."
As does racial, gender, sexuality etc. liberation then. so why bother trying?
animal liberation can still exist without capitalism, thats why people need to be educated now.

ps.
:marx::engles::ninja::che::castro::trotski:
lol at those emoticons

[Bilan]

so if a disabled child/worker in a sweatshop cant comprehend the term liberation they should be considered subhuman to other sweatshop workers and shouldn't be granted better working conditions because they have the same chromosomes as a chimp?

Bickering over this is pointless.

A disabled child/worker (I assume you mean mentally disabled, to the extent where its ability to comprehend and communicate with its environment, etc is severely diminished) could not work in a factory.

[Bilan]

bickering is pointless. im not sure why your trying to demand explotation, wanting meat and needing meat are two different things.

Is it?
Do not both require the industry to exist?



and yes we communicate differently than other animals but that doesnt make us superior.

It's more than communication.
Our level of consciouness is well beyond that of any other species on the planet; our ability to interpret, understand, and change our environment are something found in no other species on earth.
Humans are superior to non-human animals. Disagreeing with this is just being dishonest.
whether or not that superiority justifies exploitation is another question.



the superiority complex inherent in those people discriminating against other people is the same as that present in people discriminating against animals, your jsut trying to justify it to yourself.

How?



im sure the white supremesists on storm front have similar posts justifying their views on jewish people.

:glare:



" The fact of the matter is, before the abolishment of capitalism, animal liberation means squat."
As does racial, gender, sexuality etc. liberation then. so why bother trying?

Because the basis and means of changing those forms of oppression are vastly different to animals.

[Obnoxious]

this is getting repetitive - all im going to answer is, as an anarchist, you shouldn't believe in superiority. it kind of goes against the equality factor.

[Black-Star]

A disabled child/worker (I assume you mean mentally disabled, to the extent where its ability to comprehend and communicate with its environment, etc is severely diminished) could not work in a factory.
Not True! Many mentally disabled and intellectually disabled people have been put to work in the textile industry and other similar jobs. Its not that common in Australia i admit, but it is overseas.

[Obnoxious]

Tea thinks disabled people cant have jobs because they can't comprhend liberation and therefore are inferior :p

[Bilan]

Not True! Many mentally disabled and intellectually disabled people have been put to work in the textile industry and other similar jobs. Its not that common in Australia i admit, but it is overseas.

People who are mentally, or intellectually disabled, would have to be only to a minor degree if they were to be employed in an industry, particularly in a sweat shop (such a thing would be stupid on the hand of the employer, as it would not produce anywhere near as much, and the profits from would be much lower).

[Bilan]

this is getting repetitive - all im going to answer is, as an anarchist, you shouldn't believe in superiority. it kind of goes against the equality factor.

It's not a point of 'belief', but of fact. Humans, in the sense I outlined above, are superior.
I'm an anarchist for the future society I desire to struggle toward, and the means I wish to use to get there.

[Obnoxious]

and i believe that animals are members of the working class, in fact theyre lower because they dont go home at night and they are unpaid labourers.

[INDK]

I've two quick comments.


this is getting repetitive - all im going to answer is, as an anarchist, you shouldn't believe in superiority. it kind of goes against the equality factor.

Economic, political, and social equality are so different from natural and scientific equality I can't even fucking believe you said that.


and i believe that animals are members of the working class, in fact theyre lower because they dont go home at night and they are unpaid labourers.

Goodness, you are a dolt. How in the world is an animal a member of a social class?

[erupt]

I am against the unreasonable torture of animals, and the use of animal's fur for clothing unless absolutely necessary..but, if the animal is used as nutrition for human beings then what is the problem? I don't believe in social Darwinism, but I do believe in Darwinism on a scientific and global level...and so far we are the top of the food chain, fellow humans.

Unless we can feed ourselves with a pill and get all the necessary nutrition, then I'm still gonna' be gettin' my balanced diet. And, please, any vegans, please don't take this as an insult or as an ideology bashing rant, I'm merely putting my two cents in.

[Obnoxious]

i do get a balanced diet, ive never eaten meat and im pretty sure im not dead yet. proof its not really neccessary, and its just 'my taste buds are more important than another creatures life'.

"Economic, political, and social equality are so different from natural and scientific equality I can't even fucking believe you said that."
-dont get your knickers in a twist, jesus some of you people need to leave the house sometimes. and just because you dont think equality = equality, but equality = when it benefits you, it doesnt mean your right. ok?

also what the hell is a "dolt"? your a dolt.

[Bilan]

i do get a balanced diet, ive never eaten meat and im pretty sure im not dead yet. proof its not really neccessary, and its just 'my taste buds are more important than another creatures life'.

You eat dairy, then?

And I know countless people who've been hospitalised after going vegan and vegetarian.

Don't degrade people. Not all bodies, and needs are the same.



"Economic, political, and social equality are so different from natural and scientific equality I can't even fucking believe you said that."
-dont get your knickers in a twist, jesus some of you people need to leave the house sometimes. and just because you dont think equality = equality, but equality = when it benefits you, it doesnt mean your right. ok?

:rolleyes:
Well, first, you didn't actually disprove what s/he said.
Secondly, s/he did not say 'equality is not equality, but when it suits you' s/he said that economic, political and social equality are not the same as scientific equality, and that, such a comparison is bogus.



also what the hell is a "dolt"? your a dolt.

dolt /doʊlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dohlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun a dull, stupid person; blockhead.

[Obnoxious]

oh thanks, some kind people on here then? i think 'escape artist' must be mentally unhinged. im loving the gang mentality of people on here, and then resorting to insults, thats a bit low don't you think? when all im doing is sticking up for animals rights? how do you feel when you're sticking up for human rights and people tell you you're wrong because men/white people/rich people are superior and you should just accept it? of cause you don't accpet what they say so why should i.

also those people who were hospitalised obviously werent eating properly, and its a bit weird that you know several people who went to hospital after turning veg? maybe there was something in the tofu..

[apathy maybe]

"And I know countless people who've been hospitalised after going vegan and vegetarian."

I bet it was because they didn't know what the hell they were doing. You still have to eat a balanced diet, and that includes enough fat and protein. (Peanut butter!).

Everyone can live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet, if they know what they are doing. I'm not personally a vegan, but I was a vegetarian for over a year, and I didn't have any trouble at all. Of course, being a vegetarian it is easier to get your protein and relevant vitamins and minerals then if you are vegan, but it is still possible.

Speak to your nutritionist.

[Bilan]

I bet it was because they didn't know what the hell they were doing. You still have to eat a balanced diet, and that includes enough fat and protein. (Peanut butter!).

Both did.
One of which was a vegetarian for 3 years, and who, subsequently, became anemic. :(
Was hospitalized.
And when she went Vegan, well, she didn't last long.

Also, one of my vegan friends still has to take suppliments.

Infact, I have countless friends who have had to start eating fish, etc. because they got sick.




Speak to your nutritionist.

I did, and she said I'd be lucky if I didn't get sick.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

oh thanks, some kind people on here then? i think 'escape artist' must be mentally unhinged.

And what drives you to this conclusion?


im loving the gang mentality of people on here, and then resorting to insults, thats a bit low don't you think? when all im doing is sticking up for animals rights? how do you feel when you're sticking up for human rights and people tell you you're wrong because men/white people/rich people are superior and you should just accept it? of cause you don't accpet what they say so why should i.

People have only been insulting you because you're not being amenable to reason. You still, depsite numerous explainations to the contrary, think the exploitation of animals is equal to the exploitation of humans, when in fact it is more like the exploitation of minerals.

[Bilan]

oh thanks, some kind people on here then? i think 'escape artist' must be mentally unhinged. im loving the gang mentality of people on here, and then resorting to insults, thats a bit low don't you think?


every action has a reaction. ;)



when all im doing is sticking up for animals rights? how do you feel when you're sticking up for human rights and people tell you you're wrong because men/white people/rich people are superior and you should just accept it? of cause you don't accpet what they say so why should i.

You don't have to accept anything!
But you're not arguing logically and rationally, but are instead, producing bizarre counter arguments, and 'thats like what white supremacists say' and so on, as if that some how disproves anything.
You're not being victimized as such, but you are largely out numbered.



also those people who were hospitalised obviously werent eating properly, and its a bit weird that you know several people who went to hospital after turning veg? Well, one was from Melbourne (and is a charming girl, whom I adore) and is yet still a vegetarian; one was from a very bourgeois area in Sydney, Lindfield; two are punk-crustie squatter-types.
That''s off the top of my head.


maybe there was something in the tofu..:lol:

[Obnoxious]

ok to start with i havent been insulting anyone. did i insult anyone? if so please show me cause im pretty sure i didn't! and to call animals closer to minerals than humans is obviously an ignorant statement if ever I heard one, it sounds like the type of trash religious funamentalists spurt out when they're saying that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, and that god put animals on this earth for our benefits.

and yer if people turn veg from being a meat eater they're obviously going to go through certain difficulties, but if a veg turns into a carnivore they get very sick indeed! if i ate meat now im pretty sure i'd die. its what you're used to, not the died itself.

[lombas]

I was a vegetarian for two and a half years. Then I met my present girlfriend, went out more, and found out I was tired of always eating whatever salad the cook had decided was crowned "the vegetarian alternative".

I never stopped eating meat because I believed it was wrong or because I didn't want to support "an industry". I stopped because I care about animals. Even before I became a vegetarian, I had trouble eating meat. I still have, that's why I mostly don't eat most animals and only eat it when I'm in a restaurant, at my girlfriend's, ...

The whole discussion here, I find, is a bit weird.

[Jazzratt]

im loving the gang mentality of people on here

Lots of people disagreeing with your bullshit isn't a gang, get over yourself.

[Bilan]

ok to start with i havent been insulting anyone. did i insult anyone? if so please show me cause im pretty sure i didn't!

Just read the thread. :)



and to call animals closer to minerals than humans is obviously an ignorant statement if ever I heard one, it sounds like the type of trash religious funamentalists spurt out when they're saying that humans didn't evolve from monkeys, and that god put animals on this earth for our benefits.


What? That comparison is absurd!



and yer if people turn veg from being a meat eater they're obviously going to go through certain difficulties,

This is not difficulties: this is being hospitalized because one can't sustain the diet due to ones own needs (dietary) not being met by such a diet, and that said diet is not suitable to their economic situation, and health requirements.



but if a veg turns into a carnivore they get very sick indeed!

One goes through difficulties in becoming 'veg', but gets sick from going back?
:lol:



if i ate meat now im pretty sure i'd die. its what you're used to, not the died itself.


You would not die.
You would get sick, at worst.
Dairy, once given up for a long period of time, is more likely to have a negative impact on your health, but again, unlikely to kill you.
And it's not solely what you're used too.
That's just...unscientific rubbish.

[MarxSchmarx]

The whole discussion here, I find, is a bit weird.

Why?

It's not out of the ordinary. The plethora of "meat eating", "animal rights", etc... threads demonstrates that this reliably ellicists considerable passion among some posters in this forum.

[lombas]

Why?

It's not out of the ordinary. The plethora of "meat eating", "animal rights", etc... threads demonstrates that this reliably ellicists considerable passion among some posters in this forum.

'Weird', not 'irrelevant'.

I just consider it an personal choice. I always wonder why so many people make a fuzz about it. But then again, it's hard sometimes to follow other people's rhetoric, that's for sure.

:)

[apathy maybe]

The whole discussion here, I find, is a bit weird.
Personally I agree.

There are two extremes here, those who will always attack corpse eaters, and those who will always attack (and denigrate and insult the intelligence of) non-corpse eaters.

Personally, I am no longer a vegetarian (though I do eat very little meat), but I am much more sympathetic towards the non-corpse eaters in this sort of debate. Simply because of the aggressive nature of the debate.

If people could actually debate without insulting each other, or ranting about humans, and actually tried to establish a common ground, then maybe the debate would be useful.

But at the moment, there are two distinct view points, which are not-compatible, and no one is even trying to understand the other pov.

[Bilan]

Not that this is on topic, but anyway:
I think you'll find the reason for this is the attitude brought in by anti-speciests is always one of moral superiority, and (pseudo) intellectual superiority, of which much of the arguments are derived.
Essentially, they lack rationality (not to mention relevant comparisons!) and are very provocative and self-riteous.
Which is of course, not something that the speciests are not themselves; more, I think that such an attitude provokes the same response.
An equal reaction for the action!

[Obnoxious]

i can't be bothered with this it just makes me anrgy to see this hyporcricy and i didnt insult anyone for gods sake get over yourselves

oh and btw when 'anarchism' comes around then there will be NO-ONE TO STOP THE ALF!!


so HA!

[Bilan]

How is there any hypocracy?
You have to prove your claim, not just state it!

And I'll stop the fucking ALF.
Only a bunch of total morons would use the tactics of the ALF after the abolishment of capitalism to achieve their ends.
Naturally, using these tactics after the revolution would get the same result as if primtivists tried to destroy technology, or if capitalists tried to usurp power by force once more:

You'd be a sorry bunch of fuckers.

:)


So counter-Ha, motherfucker!

[Obnoxious]

mm hmm, so you and your croanies smashing police trucks and windows is different how?

[Bilan]

Are you suggesting after the revolution we'd smash police trucks, or did you not read what I actually said?

[Icon_Of_Chaos]

An equal reaction for the action! How true, so what would the reaction of an anarchist group assuming head of the state? Oh yeah thats right a bunch of people who are quite content with everything the way it is already regardless of how fucked it is. Majority of people only worry about having electricity and running water.


And I'll stop the fucking ALF.With what? You gonna hurl a brick at them? I'm sure a bunch of vegan/vegetarians crusties are going to be such a force to reckoned with!

[Bilan]

How true, so what would the reaction of an anarchist group assuming head of the state? Oh yeah thats right a bunch of people who are quite content with everything the way it is already regardless of how fucked it is. Majority of people only worry about having electricity and running water.

What the fuck are you talking about?



With what? You gonna hurl a brick at them? I'm sure a bunch of vegan/vegetarians crusties are going to be such a force to reckoned with!

What a perplexing statement.

[Black-Star]

i hope you can all see that this is going no where. And there is a very evident gang mentality going on here, so perhaps you should leave the high school bickering to the playground kiddies and grow the fuck up. You're obviously not going to agree so why dont you both stop insulting each other. Veganism and Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice, you either adopt it or not. However its fact that animals are being extremely mistreated and exploited for profit. If there was readily available fake meat alternatives which provided the same nutritional benefits as regular meat and tasted very similar, it would mean meat would become a redundant source of nutrition so what would be the point in eating it? especially when the amount of grain spent on fattening cows consumes over half the worlds grain whilst 800 million people starve, dont you think it would be more economically sustainable in that case to not eat meat?

[Icon_Of_Chaos]

Lots of people disagreeing with your bullshit isn't a gang, get over yourself.
So apparently everything Obnoxius has just said is bullshit? 'You have to prove your claim, not just state it!' Kudos to to Proper Tea is Theft for the quote. I think thats your opinion, maybe if you feel that Obnoxious is wrong you could explain as to why you think that, instead of just saying how bullshit Obnoxious' comments are. I thought this was a discussion? Hmm it does seem like a gang too me though, but isn't that how most of you achieve your ends?


What the fuck are you talking about?
You know at 4 in the morning it made sense, but not so much now that I'm awake. Meh.

I don't see why this topic has gone from speciesism to political ideals.


especially when the amount of grain spent on fattening cows consumes over half the worlds grain whilst 800 million people starve, dont you think it would be more economically sustainable in that case to not eat meat?
Logically that makes sense. But the problem of that is most people do not think logically. Besides I prefer the taste of meat to fake meat products, alright sometimes its all right but I would prefer the real thing to the fake. Fake bacon does not taste like bacon. :lol:

[Bilan]

i hope you can all see that this is going no where. And there is a very evident gang mentality going on here, so perhaps you should leave the high school bickering to the playground kiddies and grow the fuck up.

Comrade, it's not so much a 'gang mentality' as an over whelming majority who do not support the ideas of anti-speciest, and in this case, Obnoxious.



However its fact that animals are being extremely mistreated and exploited for profit.

Tell me what isn't?
That's the nature of capitalism. I know you know this. ;)



If there was readily available fake meat alternatives which provided the same nutritional benefits as regular meat and tasted very similar, it would mean meat would become a redundant source of nutrition so what would be the point in eating it?

Because that's not the case, and is infact, hypothetical.



especially when the amount of grain spent on fattening cows consumes over half the worlds grain whilst 800 million people starve, dont you think it would be more economically sustainable in that case to not eat meat?

Economically, or environmentally? ;)
In this circumstance, it doesn't matter.
If we all ate tofu, 800 million people would still starve, and some would be without employment. (As Tofu does not grow everywhere).

Until workers control the means of production; until the fruits of labor goes to the workers and society itself, for their own benefit, there will be no long term, or even really useful affect for anyone or anything (with the exception of the rich). If its not animals, it's resources and humans.