Watch the careful hypocrisy of the bourgeois state. Michael Vick is the worst guy since judas for making animals fight animals, but making animals fight people (lets give them a fucking medal).
Results 121 to 140 of 171
An interesting article I just stumbled across on the Huffpost.
Eliminate animal fats from your diet.
Watch the careful hypocrisy of the bourgeois state. Michael Vick is the worst guy since judas for making animals fight animals, but making animals fight people (lets give them a fucking medal).
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
If an animal is not given the equivalent recompense to the value of their 'labour', then that's technically exploitation, right? But i'm saying that's a ridiculous idea.
Also, I would be interested in seeing some of the sources of information in the article you posted.
I agree with its general premise - that stuff like bacon, butter and other meat products high in saturated animal fat content serves no dietary purpose -, but i'm not sure I believe that skinless chicken breast, for example, takes 23% of its calories from saturated fat. In fact, looking at the wording of the article, it's been very sneaky. It just refers to 'fat'. Mono-unsaturated fats, even from animal sources, are qualitatively different in dietary function from saturated fats. He's cherry-picking evidence to fit his argument; there is no scientifically sound argument to put lean chicken breast, for example (or poached eggs, or turkey breast, or many other animal food products) in the same health or dietary category as foods like bacon.
Of course, if you change his conclusion slightly from 'avoid animal products', to 'avoid animal products that are high in saturated fat and reduce consumption of animal products across the board', then you would have a sensible article. As it is, however, the article is not really factually sound and is somewhat mis-leading; meat products like chicken breast have no causal link to high cholesterol and heart disease. To suggest so is just wrong.
That could possibly be described as a Marxian definition, but it's not the literal definition of exploitation. Money doesn't have to be involved in order for it to be exploitation -- in a literal sense at least.
Yes, it is probably worth doing a little more research. The basic premise of his article i.e. animal fat is unhealthy, should be what we take away from it though.
But I think the point is that all animal fat has high volumes of saturated fat, and I don't think that's a particularly difficult thesis to prove. Doing a cursory Google search, the Google nutritional value calculator says that 13g of chicken has 17% of your daily allowance of saturated fat. That seems pretty high to me, no matter how you approach this.
I was of the understanding that some users here were incorporating the exploitation of animals into a class strugglist worldview. All we have to do is substitute money for some other medium of compensation. I'm saying that, money or other form of compensation, it's a ridiculous notion that animals are, in a Marxist sense, exploited.
That's close but a bit simplistic. A certain amount of fats are necessary, though these are best derived from non-animal sources. A certain amount of animal fat is satisfactory. There is a qualitative, and of course quantitative, difference to one's nutritional intake and its impact on health between, say, not cutting the skin off a roast chicken breast, and adding 2 rashers of butter-fried bacon to your eggs every morning. The latter is reckless and hugely unhealthy, the former by itself probably won't have any substantial impact on your health, ceteris paribus.
Roast chicken legs, or fried chicken, perhaps. But, as I was saying before, using parts of the chicken like the breast, and using healthier methods of cooking such as grilling, without the skin, means that you are avoiding such levels of animal fat. 100g of skinless chicken breast has a minimal amount of fat in. It's not unhealthy.
You said you had wool products and that that wasn't exploitive use of animal products because sheep need to get sheered.
That was one of the reasons why I asked that question. Because as you correctly say:
I did not respond to anybody. I wrote a contribution to the thread. You responded to me and I answered....so yeah. I am not sure what you are trying to say about learning what people have said before you respond....you were the one responding.
But the animal liberationist arguments always unfailingly boil down to moralism against people who are none vegan and inherently animal liberation is in itself an ethical and moral argument....more often than not tantamount to emotional blackmail.
Especially in the context of the fact that you are always unable to eliminate animal products or products that directly contribute to the destruction of habitats and extinction of species.....you know....like some biofuels. What a fucking scam that was.
I don't think it is possible to not be free from humans and not be exploited. We have bred animals for production purposes in greater and greater numbers. These animals can not survive without humans....we have bred the ultimate slaves. They are depended on our continued care and exploitation.
But that is not my entire point. What animal liberatinists always forget....the sheer amount of animals we currently have will hugely impact the habitats and survival chances of those we do not have.....if we do not regularly maintain their numbers...in other words...if we don't kill them.
We have 1.3 billion cows on this planet. Cows have an average life span of 15 years...and produce 1-2 offspring a year. Do the math.
I have every clue of what I am talking about but you fail to see the obvious....you can't. We are not rabbits....we don't just eat grass. There is NO omnivorous animal on this planet which doesn't need meat to sustain itself.
It depends on body structure and activity levels what your daily doses is. Also if you were to count all the recommended nutrition values....you could just about eat two apples (yeah I know I am exaggerating...but the point is the recommended daily doses is never near enough for actual sustenance)
Most foods contain ridiculous amounts of unhealthy micro nutrition though...not just meat.
Plus of course....a well balanced vegetarian diet is also unhealthy....lacking in vitamine D and zinc etc.
But animals are literally exploited. Whether people are incorporating that into a class worldview, it remains a fact.
Yes, all things are different by degree. Nevertheless, the premise that animal fat is unhealthy isn't disproved. Even if we ruled chicken out, other meats that produce fats irrespective of how they're cooked, remain unhealthy.
Anyway, it was just an article I saw that was sort of relevant to this discussion. I'm not here to make a particularly emphatic defence of it.
This just strikes me as pedantry to be honest. In the grand scheme of things, is it really that important whether 100g of skinless chicken breast grilled is healthier than other forms of cooking chicken when we look at all meats?
[QUOTE]Not all of this is related to the eating of meat, of course.
The point I was making is that there are animal products, in particular poultry, that can be used in a way that they are a positive addition to a human's diet.
I think it's important in a debate on vegetarianism vs eating meat, in the sense that one of the key arguments against eating meat is that it is unhealthy because of the link between excessive consumption of animal fats and negative health consequences for humans. We can see, actually, that there are some meats that are worth consuming as they are good for us, depending on what part of the animal we use and how we cook it. Chicken, Turkey etc. belong to this group - they are an excellent low fat source of protein.
Provided that the animal's conditions while alive meets a high standard of welfare, i.e. are attendant to its species needs (by which I mean what kind of food is available to it, what kind of shelter, what kind of socialisation and so on), and provided that the method of killing is as quick and painless as is practicable, then I'm ok with that. In the wild, animals are at risk of all kinds of injury, disease and predation, and easily of slow and painful death.
Capitalism? Capitalism is a social and economic system in which the earth, its resources and the productive forces dependent upon them, are coercively monopolised by the capitalist class for their maximised benefit, facilitating the alienation and exploitation of everyone else who must work for the owning class or suffer the consequences.
There is not real argument in health when it comes to diet...seeing as diet is very depending on the individual and both meat and non meat diets pose their risks to health.
There is also no real argument in exploitation when it comes to meat...seeing as all the factors combined would not pose a solution to this problem nor is it limited to meat eating. And we have already established that right now...it is pretty much impossible to eliminate exploitative or destructive products from our daily lives.
Nor is the argument against meat eating found in any form of moralism...since pretty much the whole exploitation of animals is a crossover field not limited to the meat industry...in fact...it even crosses over in the the environmentalist camps as well as several bio products are directly responsible for the destruction of, imbalance in and encroaching on habitats and species sustainability.
So then the only thing left is to realize that there is no possible way to eliminate animal exploitation at this very moment...unless we adopt notions and accept implications akin to primitivism: less people.
Eliminating meat from our diets is simply shifting the balance. It would require fast amount of fields for production of plant food sources (which would then raise the question previously raised about specieism) which would encroach and destroy fast amounts of habitats and wild life...and would basically render huge tracks of the earth infertile.
Which leaves the question of how to treat animals more or less a moral one...which comes down to: "what does it cost us if we treat them better and find alternatives." or better said: "Why aren't we treating them better?"
I don't know how successful they are but I'm aware of attempts to 'grow' meat in vats. It's not impossible that, once perfected, consumption of 'animal flesh' will no longer involve actual living animals.
Capitalism? Capitalism is a social and economic system in which the earth, its resources and the productive forces dependent upon them, are coercively monopolised by the capitalist class for their maximised benefit, facilitating the alienation and exploitation of everyone else who must work for the owning class or suffer the consequences.
Those specific wool products aren't. Here is what I actually said:
These sheep are cleaned, fed, and kept in safe, “happy” conditions. The relationship is symbiotic, not oppressive.
You responded to a thread, dumbass. That's what the “reply” button does- it allows you to type out a message in response to the other points made in the thread. Now, seeing as you apparently read none of the thread, maybe you shouldn't be responding.
Prove it.
Why does that idea that we can't mean that we shouldn't try? As an example:
So what, because we can't solve problem we may as well make it worse? If we apply that logic to slavery then we get some very fucked up results.
Just because they rely on us doesn't mean they are oppressed- is a child oppressed by a parent?
“Do the math” isn't an argument.
Do you think that they produced so many offspring before humans domesticated them? Cause if they did this problem would happen anyway. This means it's not natural for them to breed that much, so maybe we could limit their breeding?
We cam take care of them, and maybe have them breed less, or just take care of them and not try to make them breed (as is common). There are many solutions- saying “Do the math” sounds good but it really means you still have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
Can't tell if trolling... Or really fucking stupid.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
I am curious about this. I think it could prove very interesting.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
And, by extension, 'who is treating animals badly?' and therefore, 'why won't they stop?'
The responsibility for over-consumption, like it is across the capitalist production process, lies on the supply side. Firms use advertising, propaganda and pricing strategies to increase consumption of meat beyond what is necessary for sustenance and enjoyment, and for those of us who are concerned with the welfare of animals, beyond what is palatable. Only through a revolutionary change in the way that food in general is produced and distributed can we begin to make substantial and long-lasting improvements to the welfare of animals and the planet, in addition to improving some of the auxiliary concerns of over-consumption re: the health of individuals, healthcare provision and so on.
Capitalism? Capitalism is a social and economic system in which the earth, its resources and the productive forces dependent upon them, are coercively monopolised by the capitalist class for their maximised benefit, facilitating the alienation and exploitation of everyone else who must work for the owning class or suffer the consequences.
Right. I'll take your word for it. Next time maybe you should consider to specify that you are making an exception to these specific product...
Btw...You did use the word: primarily...which means you also use other wool products.
But that is not the point. Your sentence without the brackets is the main communicator...your primary assertion was sheep need sheering.
Yes...and I stand by what I said. The whole concept of animal liberation is moralistic and founded in ethics.
I don't need to prove it...you know it is a fact. Animal liberation is rooted purely in ethics and not in objectivism. Especially when it comes to our diets all arguments boil down to: living creature died for you to eat that. Hence why all the animal rights organisations make heavy use of showing excesses in the food industry and moralize that we could do without meat...failing to take into consideration that doing so would entail a huge rise in cost of living (as you yourself were kind enough to point out...which is why I told you I was baiting you)
Which...by the way if you have followed the thread yourself...you would have seen occurring more than once.
Slavery is very easily solved. It isn't necessary and there are no adverse effects of eliminating slavery...as opposed to liberating all animals and shutting down meat in our diets.
Animals rely on us for the simple fact we made sure they rely on us for their continued survival. We did that because we could more effectively use them for production. I never used the word oppressed in the part you quote. I said exploited. If you could provide me with an example of how we use children for food, clothing or ingredients...then yes....we are. But I haven't seen any lotions that are made from baby parts. So I don't know
The argument was quite clear and made by me before. Liberating the entire life stock would devastate the environment....or will be tantamount to mass genocide. It was quite clear. You focused on the last three words because you haven't found an argument on content.
An example....a few years ago...maybe decades. An animal liberation organisation freed hundreds of ferrets or minx...or whatever. As a direct result of that action....wildlife and free roaming life stock was devastated in the area and took years to recover. Most of those freed minx also died of starvation, dehydration and simply not being able to survive.
I do and we could. We could also reduce their population by eating them. Which is kind of the way nature goes.
I actually do...because your argument still hinges on us intervening with nature and their freedom. Which is by itself counter to the idea of liberation. And yes...I know the liberation movement is divided between total freedom advocates and limited freedom advocates.
Omnivores eat meat. Hence why they are called omnivores and not herbivores. They eat meat because they need it in their diet. Because, like it or not, there is no vegetarian equivalent for it...no matter how you are going to argue...without resorting to synthetic supplements. Which aren't natural.
If most omnivores are given the choice between veggies/fruit and meat....they will go for meat. Like apes. Which usually specifically hunt for monkeys, birds and other meat sources.
Exactly. I would even go further and say that because of capitalist exploitation of humans there is created an income division which necessitate the competition on meat production prices. In other words: solve income inequality and we will solve a lot of issues concerning over production of many things...but specifically meat.
There is also no objective reason to mistreat animals for meat production. There is no direct profit from it. Stomping on cows, hitting them, mutilating them all are not inherent to production of meat but rather much of these mistreatments are resulting from alienation of humans as in the Marxist view.
This would be a very interesting development. The question would be what the possible health risks are in the long run.
