Thread: Is Zizek in favor of animal rights?

Results 21 to 40 of 121

  1. #21
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    There's no reason to do such things or be so frustrated. Earlier in the thread, IbelieveInanarchy wrote, "It should be clear that I think liberation of labor goes above animal liberation.". I think you should take them at their word in this case.

    I'm of the opinion that the agricultural industry and the food industry in general are, obviously, run in capitalism on a profit-basis and thus have practices that are both harmful to the environment as a whole and inherently wasteful and excessive. But change in these industries can only come through the sort of collective planning and organisation of society that will only be possible in communism. I give the benefit of the doubt and think IbelieveInanarchy understands this - if they have differing ideas of what that 'change' will be is irrelevant when taking into account the realisation that it can only happen once capitalism has been destroyed. Maybe I'm just being too charitable or whatever but regardless there's no need to castigate them, perhaps
    Yes, it is obvious animal liberation can never occur under capitalism. We must liberate labor in order to liberate animals, there is no other way around it. The whole praxis of capitalism is made to suppress freedom of anything and anyone that can be exploited for profit, and this is what we must vehemently oppose.

    But i think treating animals with respect should be a constant behavior, it should not 'wait' till we liberated labor. Because it does not impede the progress towards liberated labor, i think it helps the progress, but at the very least it does not impede. Just like i think we should buy fair trade goods, people suffer in this system to, it is not enough to live a mass-consumer life and claim that you are actually a communist, that is not genuine.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  2. #22
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 761
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    There's no reason to do such things or be so frustrated. Earlier in the thread, IbelieveInanarchy wrote, "It should be clear that I think liberation of labor goes above animal liberation.". I think you should take them at their word in this case.

    I'm of the opinion that the agricultural industry and the food industry in general are, obviously, run in capitalism on a profit-basis and thus have practices that are both harmful to the environment as a whole and inherently wasteful and excessive. But change in these industries can only come through the sort of collective planning and organisation of society that will only be possible in communism. I give the benefit of the doubt and think IbelieveInanarchy understands this - if they have differing ideas of what that 'change' will be is irrelevant when taking into account the realisation that it can only happen once capitalism has been destroyed. Maybe I'm just being too charitable or whatever but regardless there's no need to castigate them, perhaps
    Yeah you're right I'm probably just in a bad mood, I think its the whole orientalism and new ageism aspects of veganism that gets me
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to willowtooth For This Useful Post:


  4. #23
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Yeah you're right I'm probably just in a bad mood, I think its the whole orientalism and new ageism aspects of veganism that gets me
    Why do you think its new age? Did i say we all should go vegan, get ourselves a man bun and only eat organic advocado with quinoa? You seem to just have a perception of veganism and project this on any vegan. I dont see what you base this on. Its just about treating animals with some decency, i'm not asking you to cut off a testicle, why does it provoke such a strong reaction?
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  5. #24
    Join Date Jun 2014
    Location Canada
    Posts 871
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    why does it provoke such a strong reaction?
    Because he is a reactionary.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
  6. #25
    Join Date Jul 2016
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    Again you miss the fucking point entirely, first because no one said that the current conditions of animals in factory farming aren’t deplorable. The wrath that veganism incurs on this forum has little to do with animals themselves and their conditions, as former debates have made patently clear for any reader that doesn't read only what he wants to read from a text.
    The quote's reference to animals is incidental (he, however, like anyone else, recognizes the conditions of factory farming), he's merely making a point about fetishistic disavowal, about how people decide to "forget" or "not know" what they don't want to know. Which funnily enough could be applied to you two cretins: I know veganism doesn't do shit for animals or the environment but I don't want to know that I know this, so I pretend not to know (so I can keep feeling better about myself without doing shit). And this is just one example.
    Of course people fucking prefer not to know where what they eat comes from, but it applies to all kinds of food: they don't want to know about animal farming just as they don't want to know about the slave labor for Bangladeshi tea, or the child labor of cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire. Same applies for commodities such as blood diamonds and the raw materials necessary for electronic parts.
    The point is that nothing escapes this under the capitalist mode of production, and obviously people (in the face of the fact there is no organized emancipatory alternative in the horizon), in order to be able to function normally, to be able to cope, feel the need to un-know.
    Even following the flawed idea that people just "could not consume meat" if they didn't pretend not to know these conditions, the real point would then be that they could not consume anything at all! If you really think that factory farming, as deplorable and inhuman (see what I did there?) as it is, is the worst capitalism has to offer, you haven't seen anything.
    Consumption under capitalism can aspire at best only to be
    "less-unethical".

    Secondly, and anyone more versed on Žižek than me is free to correct me:
    Did you even fucking watch the video? Or did you just hear Žižek quoting animal rights activists and then heard him say “man” and “monster” and your vegan “natural” “animal” brain tried to fill in the gaps? Are you really that desperate to resort to this type of misrepresentation?
    Even the description explains quite clearly what he is talking about: Here, he talks about a rarely-discussed facet of animal rights- the experience of the animals themselves. He avoids the tendency to discuss animals as being more innocent to ourselves, and instead talks about the unique quality of unfettered freedom that mankind's own capacity for destruction has.
    Žižek has expressed his hostility to the liberal notion human "rights", what do you expect he thinks about animal "rights"?
    Žižek is talking in a context of philosophical discussion and he uses words in a very specific meaning derived from very specific traditions. Just as when he uses the word “pervert” he doesn’t refer to, say, a peeping tom, when he speaks of “monstrosity” he’s not making a moral judgment, Žižek’s use of “monster” for instance, in “The Monstrosity of Christ” refers to the monstrum (Latin: Omen, sign, monster; note that monere means “to warn”): that is the exceptional that cannot be accounted for in rational terms alone and is, paradoxically, that on which the rational itself rests. And what are humans if not the exception to the animal which cannot be accounted for in rational terms (How the hell did humans became human? How did the social dimension emerge?) and, paradoxically, rationality itself rests on its hands. This is why we are "monsters" in the animal's gaze. We are un-animal animals, thus we cannot consider ourselves proper animals as such. We are freaks of "nature".
    The monster is thus that which, to the observer (such as the animal when it looks back at us), is something so foreign, so different, operating on such a distant level it breaks with the norm in way that it appears even “monstrous”, it cannot be understood. Hence the “monstrosity” of early Christians to the eyes of their contemporary Jews. Christ was a thoroughly "un-jewish" jew, the break was so deep in fact, that as we know today, Christianity is inconceivable as part of the Jewish religion.

    I dont see what you base this on. Its just about treating animals with some decency, i'm not asking you to cut off a testicle, why does it provoke such a strong reaction?
    What a fucking dishonest manipulative little shit you are. Who here has opposed to treating animals with "some decency"? Nobody and you know it, this has already been addressed in the past. You have no fucking excuse.
    As said before, this has never been and will never be the crux of the problem of veganism. Veganism is not about treating animals "with some decency", you don't have the monopoly on that, and in fact you do a pretty shitty job about it. Do you think we don't notice these disgusting tactics? Your emotional blackmail might work with the nutritionally deficient morons you usually mingle with but people here can see right through this bullshit.
    I am convinced most of us here treat animals with more "decency" individually than all vegans in the world put together. Why is that you ask? Because we "coldly" treat them as the animals they are, without pathetic sentimentalities, we know what are their basic necessities (food, climate, physical exercise, etc.) and satisfy them accordingly, without anthropomorphizing them, without fetishizing them.
    Many animal "lovers" do love their pets and animals, and that's the problem, this "love" is extremely perverse: They overfeed them, they entertain their unstable behavior (possessiveness, aggressiveness...) and even reinforce it in their fear of "hurting" their "person(!)ality" or "feelings", they treat them as equal or above family members and friends, they feel pity for them when they are scared or anxious instead of actually helping them, etc.
    You keep trying to preach that crap and despite your pretensions to the contrary you are not a leftist (much less a revolutionary one) and no one is drinking your Kool Aid except for mr. shit for brains down here, why don’t you just fuck off to a vegan forum already so you can pat each other on the back for your contributions to the green crusade?

    Because he is a reactionary.
    Leaving aside the fucking irony of you accusing people of being reactionaries for a moment...No you fucking dolt, he is angry because, irregardless in what mood he might be in, he actually takes this shit seriously even if you will not. And anyone who takes the vile shit you spew seriously would be fucking disgusted.
    As said in the veganism thread, we take your positions even more seriously than yourselves, we follow them through (not literally but as intellectual exercise) and take them to their logical conclusions, just as we follow them to their ideological roots (Romanticism and the völkish movement for starters).
    Not only that but your crass dishonesty is so fucking in the open for all to see that even if we were to ignore the problematic political implications we'd still be left with passive aggressive moral judgements, appeals to emotion, strawmen fallacies, misrepresentation and an overall self-aggrandizing pretentiousness. Not to mention the comparison of rape victims to artificially inseminated pigs. Try saying that to one in their face, you fucking cowards.
    You are scum and I hope you are driven out, for the sake of this board and it's standards. Shame on the admins for letting this degeneration go on.
    Here's the thing: whether you realize it or not you don't want to own up to your "ideas", to your eco-fetishism. But as long as you keep peddling that crap here, you'll be forced to.
    Last edited by Radical Atom; 9th March 2017 at 19:10.
  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Radical Atom For This Useful Post:


  8. #26
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Again you miss the fucking point entirely, first because no one said that the current conditions of animals in factory farming aren’t deplorable. The wrath that veganism incurs on this forum has little to do with animals themselves and their conditions, as former debates have made patently clear for any reader that doesn't read only what he wants to read from a text.
    The quote's reference to animals is incidental (he, however, like anyone else, recognizes the conditions of factory farming), he's merely making a point about fetishistic disavowal, about how people decide to "forget" or "not know" what they don't want to know. Which funnily enough could be applied to you two cretins: I know veganism doesn't do shit for animals or the environment but I don't want to know that I know this, so I pretend not to know (so I can keep feeling better about myself without doing shit). And this is just one example.
    Of course people fucking prefer not to know where what they eat comes from, but it applies to all kinds of food: they don't want to know about animal farming just as they don't want to know about the slave labor for Bangladeshi tea, or the child labor of cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire. Same applies for commodities such as blood diamonds and the raw materials necessary for electronic parts.
    The point is that nothing escapes this under the capitalist mode of production, and obviously people (in the face of the fact there is no organized emancipatory alternative in the horizon), in order to be able to function normally, to be able to cope, feel the need to un-know.
    Even following the flawed idea that people just "could not consume meat" if they didn't pretend not to know these conditions, the real point would then be that they could not consume anything at all! If you really think that factory farming, as deplorable and inhuman (see what I did there?) as it is, is the worst capitalism has to offer, you haven't seen anything.
    Consumption under capitalism can aspire at best only to be
    "less-unethical".

    Secondly, and anyone more versed on Žižek than me is free to correct me:
    Did you even fucking watch the video? Or did you just hear Žižek quoting animal rights activists and then heard him say “man” and “monster” and your vegan “natural” “animal” brain tried to fill in the gaps? Are you really that desperate to resort to this type of misrepresentation?
    Even the description explains quite clearly what he is talking about: Here, he talks about a rarely-discussed facet of animal rights- the experience of the animals themselves. He avoids the tendency to discuss animals as being more innocent to ourselves, and instead talks about the unique quality of unfettered freedom that mankind's own capacity for destruction has.
    Žižek has expressed his hostility to the liberal notion human "rights", what do you expect he thinks about animal "rights"?
    Žižek is talking in a context of philosophical discussion and he uses words in a very specific meaning derived from very specific traditions. Just as when he uses the word “pervert” he doesn’t refer to, say, a peeping tom, when he speaks of “monstrosity” he’s not making a moral judgment, Žižek’s use of “monster” for instance, in “The Monstrosity of Christ” refers to the monstrum (Latin: Omen, sign, monster; note that monere means “to warn”): that is the exceptional that cannot be accounted for in rational terms alone and is, paradoxically, that on which the rational itself rests. And what are humans if not the exception to the animal which cannot be accounted for in rational terms (How the hell did humans became human? How did the social dimension emerge?) and, paradoxically, rationality itself rests on its hands. This is why we are "monsters" in the animal's gaze. We are un-animal animals, thus we cannot consider ourselves proper animals as such. We are freaks of "nature".
    The monster is thus that which, to the observer (such as the animal when it looks back at us), is something so foreign, so different, operating on such a distant level it breaks with the norm in way that it appears even “monstrous”, it cannot be understood. Hence the “monstrosity” of early Christians to the eyes of their contemporary Jews. Christ was a thoroughly "un-jewish" jew, the break was so deep in fact, that as we know today, Christianity is inconceivable as part of the Jewish religion.

    What a fucking dishonest manipulative little shit you are. Who here has opposed to treating animals with "some decency"? Nobody and you know it, this has already been addressed in the past. You have no fucking excuse.
    As said before, this has never been and will never be the crux of the problem of veganism. Veganism is not about treating animals "with some decency", you don't have the monopoly on that, and in fact you do a pretty shitty job about it. Do you think we don't notice these disgusting tactics? Your emotional blackmail might work with the nutritionally deficient morons you usually mingle with but people here can see right through this bullshit.
    I am convinced most of us here treat animals with more "decency" individually than all vegans in the world put together.
    You keep trying to preach that crap and despite your pretensions to the contrary you are not a leftist (much less a revolutionary one) and no one is drinking your Kool Aid except for mr. shit for brains down here, why don’t you just fuck off to a vegan forum already so you can pat each other on the back for your contributions to the green crusade?

    Leaving aside the fucking irony of you accusing people of being reactionaries for a moment...No you fucking dolt, he is angry because, irregardless in what mood he might be in, he actually takes this shit seriously even if you will not. And anyone who takes the vile shit you spew seriously would be fucking disgusted..As said in the veganism thread, we take your positions even more seriously than yourselves, we follow them through (not literally but as intellectual exercise) and take them to their logical conclusions, just as we follow them to their ideological roots (Romanticism and the völkish movement for starters).
    Not only that but your crass dishonesty is so fucking in the open for all to see that even if we were to ignore the problematic political implications we'd still be left with passive aggressive moral judgements, appeals to emotion, strawmen fallacies, misrepresentation and an overall self-aggrandizing pretentiousness. Not to mention the comparison of rape victims to artificially inseminated pigs. Try saying that to one in their face, you fucking cowards.
    You are scum and I hope you are driven out, for the sake of this board and it's standards. Shame on the admins for letting this degeneration go on.
    Here's the thing: whether you realize it or not you don't want to own up to your "ideas", to your eco-fetishism. But as long as you keep peddling that crap here, you'll be forced to.
    Thanks for actually attending to the topic i set, I started this thread to get some more information on what zizek his views were and what sources people had for that. Of course it is very clear that he meant it as an analogy for fetishistic disavowal, so thanks for pointing that out. And i appreciate you explaining what exactly he meant with the words he used.
    It is obvious capitalism can only, as you say it, produce less unethical. I never said that capitalism can solve the issue of animal cruelty, or whatever you want to call it. However, my point is that hurting animals for no other reason than a sensation in your taste buds is categorically wrong. If your only objection to veganism is that it is bourgeouise eco-fetishism, what is the argument against veganism if we would live in communism?

    Your point about "nobody is opposed to treating people with some decency", obviously people are opposed to it when they go buy a product which they know is the direct cause of treating animals without decency. Just exclaiming that you are against animal cruelty and then directly supporting it by spending money on animal cruelty does not work. And you might accuse me of consumerism, but what people buy obviously has effects on what is produced. Unless you think capitalism is just a machine which keeps producing even when it receives negative feedback in the form of lower sales.
    What do you mean you treat animals with more decency than vegans? could you maybe give an example?

    Also what your objection about consumerism is infantile, there is no point in screaming we should have communism, and then doing absolutely nothing which shows your ideals.
    I am against hurting animals, so i try to hurt animals as little as I can and not buy their dead bodies.
    I am against human trafficking so i dont go to prostitutes.
    I am against slave labor, so i don't buy products made by slave labor.
    Just exclaiming "this slave labor is the cause of capitalism, this is why we need communism" is theoretically correct. But then immediately after saying this you go and buy slave labor products will make you a hypocrite. Its the same for any product from an immoral industry, like meat. So yes, pick the less unethical option.
    Last edited by IbelieveInanarchy; 22nd February 2017 at 23:00.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  9. #27
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,002
    Rep Power 162

    Default


    But i think treating animals with respect should be a constant behavior, it should not 'wait' till we liberated labor. Because it does not impede the progress towards liberated labor, i think it helps the progress, but at the very least it does not impede. Just like i think we should buy fair trade goods, people suffer in this system to, it is not enough to live a mass-consumer life and claim that you are actually a communist, that is not genuine.
    Um, sure it is. Most have no choice in the matter. I have a job, I am actively enriching capitalists and helping them increase their power so that I can make rent. but at the same time I work to end this exploitation.

    I think the disagreement in this thread is not over animals as much as it is a moral approach to politics vs a political approach.

    On a personal note, it's hard to get behind moralism because in rural or suburban areas it tends to be moralism of middle class Christianity, while in my area it is the lifestyle moralism of middle class "ethical capitalism": buy local, ride a bike to work, shop fair trade, eat slow-food/vegan/some other holier than thou expensive diet.

    Lifestyle policing is just too tied to p. Bourgeois policing and victim blaming towards workers and the poor for me to get behind. The San Francisco middle class show their privilege not through conspicuous consumption, but through conspicuous leisure and conspicuous ethical anti-consumption.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  11. #28
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Um, sure it is. Most have no choice in the matter. I have a job, I am actively enriching capitalists and helping them increase their power so that I can make rent. but at the same time I work to end this exploitation.

    I think the disagreement in this thread is not over animals as much as it is a moral approach to politics vs a political approach.

    On a personal note, it's hard to get behind moralism because in rural or suburban areas it tends to be moralism of middle class Christianity, while in my area it is the lifestyle moralism of middle class "ethical capitalism": buy local, ride a bike to work, shop fair trade, eat slow-food/vegan/some other holier than thou expensive diet.

    Lifestyle policing is just too tied to p. Bourgeois policing and victim blaming towards workers and the poor for me to get behind. The San Francisco middle class show their privilege not through conspicuous consumption, but through conspicuous leisure and conspicuous ethical anti-consumption.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    These are all rather valid points, and i never advocate this kind of organic living which you seem to be against. I don't see why you call veganism an expensive holier than thou diet, its literally eating beans instead of some animal part. And yes often lifestyle-ism is very much tied to petty bourgeoisie activism and i refrain from any acts which blame for example, laborers in slaughterhouses. It is very clear that these people are not evil animal killers, they are just working men working under deplorable conditions. Anger about animal cruelty should be aimed at the bourgeois profiting from it, just as much as we should aim our anger at any bourgeois.
    It should be very clear that I do not blame the poor for eating meat, since it is necessary for their sustenance. However, in a situation where resources are abundant, there is to me no moral justification for killing an animal to eat it, I don't think this is moralism as in the sense of christian doctrine.

    Your first sentence is really interesting though. Do you think you would choose to work in a collectively owned factory under capitalism? And would doing this work towards ending exploitation by bourgeois owned factories?
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to IbelieveInanarchy For This Useful Post:


  13. #29
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,002
    Rep Power 162

    Default

    These are all rather valid points, and i never advocate this kind of organic living which you seem to be against.
    personally I'm not against it as a choice, (or slow food or bikes as a choice) but i don't like the preeching and moralizing that is common in my area. I don't mind if people like eating meat either and I'm sure it would be annoying if I lived near Chicago and conservatives thought of red meat as some kind of political statement.

    And yes often lifestyle-ism is very much tied to petty bourgeoisie activism and i refrain from any acts which blame for example, laborers in slaughterhouses. It is very clear that these people are not evil animal killers, they are just working men working under deplorable conditions. Anger about animal cruelty should be aimed at the bourgeois profiting from it, just as much as we should aim our anger at any bourgeois.
    re: expensive diet - there are many faddish expensive vegan restaurants in the Bay Area. I really have nothing against veganism or any diet in the abstract as a choice. I also am not intending to make any sweeping characterization of vegans. I was speaking more about those and the middle class culture around it which is less "I care about animals" than it is, "I'm a good person for not eating animals" and so veganism is not necessarily anything that will forward a political anti-capitalist agenda... and if used that way, it could end up just being a lifestyle sect to elevate this above everything else and blame meat-eaters for the horrible conditions of factory-farming.

    (Just to be clear about not blaming the activity itself with p. Bourgeois moralism: I listen to a lot of older or obscure music, but also dislike the culture around music which is similarly made off-putting due to middle-class lifestyle snobbery. I like this music because I like it and not because I can't also appreciate well-made pop music or care if someone likes Beyoncé more than classic soul music or more underground contemporary music. I don't feel superior for listening to one kind of music over another... This is about the snobbery of middle class lifestyles, obviously no mp3s are crammed into small cages to make an album.)

    But, to me, politically the real food-issue is if people control their own food production or if it's privately owned for a quarterly or annual profit. This inevitably leads to horrible conditions for any animals involved, the workers who also suffer in these environments, and the larger population who have to consume food produced to maximize the yield of meet or vegetables at the risk of the eater's health, new diseases for animals or crops, pollution of water and air, destruction of fertile land.

    When people have cooperative control over these processes, then I think they will have to argue about what to produce. They will likely decide that there are much healthier and humane ways to satisfy basic needs... but I don't think it's my place to decide what people should eat. People love, say, McDonald's fries... will they decide it's still worth it when they know how it's made and do actual studies, not paid propaganda studies designed by companies to muddy the waters of what "healthy" means.

    Your first sentence is really interesting though. Do you think you would choose to work in a collectively owned factory under capitalism? And would doing this work towards ending exploitation by bourgeois owned factories?
    If I did, it would be more based on personal considerations, not for moral or political reasons. If I thought it was a good environment where I would have decent hours--of course. If people expected me to spend my off-time helping out and treated this as a political priority or moral imperative, then i'd be like, nope, I'm going to try and build an immigrant defense network or listen to this Al Green album.

    But that's mostly informed by my feeling that there just can't be islands of non-capitalism within capitalism for a sustained period of time. If a workplace was collectively managed but still has to turn a profit and deal with bank loans etc, then it's an alternative to standard management under capitalism. If it's some place squatted or given to people to manage with no profit involved, it will eventually just dwindle or go into debt and turn to making profits or taken by the banks and forced to turn a profit under new non-collective management.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmie Higgins For This Useful Post:


  15. #30
    Join Date Jun 2014
    Location Canada
    Posts 871
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Radical atom.

    "Hes not a reactionary shit you are!" Spews a paragraph of verbal diarrhea that pertains to NO arguments made and presents no alternative argument to those made.

    You say you take animal exploration more seriously then us yet argue against the end of Animal exploitation for... no reason presented besides that you dont like us.
    Crass dishonesty... Like what? What was I dishonest about? I did not lie in any of my statements; Nor are my statements any more based in morality then my arguments against human exploitation.
    You simply dont agree with them. You provide no argument that animals are not exploited so your argument is not that we are not exploiting animals but instead that you simply want to exploit them for your gain and hate us because we are willing to call you on your reactionary Bullshit.

    Fact is your words are less then meaningless; all reactionary thought is.
    Despite your reaction to progress we will continue to fight against exploitation in all forms for all animal life.
    "It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches." ~Peter Kropotkin
    "Let us fight to free the world - to do away with national barriers - to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness. Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!" ~Charles Chaplin
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."
  16. The Following User Says Thank You to (A) For This Useful Post:


  17. #31
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 761
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    We should do another "Do you eat meat poll" this one seems a little outdated http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...t-meat-Poll-VI
  18. #32
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 284
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Scientists scientifically separate life into two groups. Plants and Animals. Vegans argue it is wrong to exploit animals for the same reasons it is wrong to exploit humans.
    Vegetarians say its wrong to eat animals for the same reason it is wrong to eat humans. Only Vegetarianism is Dietary. Veganism is not dietary but a struggle against all animal oppression; Hence Vegan-Anarchism. And if you where not so ignorant of science you would realize it is also very simple to define what is Animal. Your argument is really fucking stupid actually.

    I mean this with complete sincerity: could perhaps bother to think before you decide to post stupid shit like this? There are so many threads on this -- threads that INCLUDE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU. No, sorry -- the demarcation line isn't bestowed upon us meager humans by the omnipotent wisdom of our experts of natural science. This stupidity is ridiculous, and you should cease calling yourself a communist if this is the line of reasoning you use. Willowtooth is correct: why draw the line at animals? Why is it any more wrong to cut up and eat a cow, or a pig, or any other animal, than it is to do this to a piece of broccoli? Why does your fetishism of the natural only extend to those bits of life that move around and display seemingly human characteristics that you can empathize with and sanctify? Does your empathy lie with all those animals who happen to be Mammals, whose characteristics and behavior-patters seem to vaguely resemble a human's without the 'negative' consequences of humanity? Or do you extend this empathy, this sacredness of life, to animals in general? If no, why draw the line here? If yes -- OK, so then why does your empathy for a cow or a pig not extend to an amoeba or the millions of bacteria living on your finger? Where do you draw the line between what animals to sanctify, and which to regard as nothing more than a stupid nuisance, no more important than a rock?


    There is no such thing as animal oppression, because oppression is a human category (and specifically, a social one).You don't oppress a chicken through factory-farming -- even in the most deplorable, Monsanto-esque conditions -- any more than you oppress the ants you happen to step on in your walk in the park, or the horrific genocide of those billions of poor, innocent bacteria that die upon using hand sanitizer. If you're going to bring animals to the level of humans (or, in reality -- if you're going to bring humans down to the level of animals), at least be consistent about it and extend the same sensibilities to the next mosquito that lands on your arm. Humans, unlike animals, make history because we have that which animals lack: subjectivity. Unlike animals, we do not have a definite, predetermined, stable relationship to an environment that we merely "fit in" to. Contrarily, man is the most ruthless exploiter of nature, the great manipulator of natural phenomena. If you want to renounce this "evil," so be it. Throw out your clothes, retreat from society, and consign yourself to being a Luddite in the woods. The very room you sit in is a testament to the power of man over 'nature', a conquest of the "natural" cold or exposure you'd experience outside. You cannot arbitrarily draw the line and decide what belongs to sacred Mother Nature and what does not.


    This lumping together of the exploitation of man and the "exploitation of animals" into the same category is outright disgusting -- you are not bringing animals to the level of man, but in fact, you are bringing man down to the level of animals.You are trivializing exploitation, you are trivializing real oppression and real suffering, when you equate the caged chicken at Monstanto to the caged Jew at Auschwitz. The humanization of animals is nothing more than the animalization of man -- this ecologist-fetishist trash I thought was done away with months ago. Perhaps you have not realized it, but so long as you spout this proto-fascist garbage, you are not on our side.


    Because scientifically Humans are Animals.

    Except no, humans precisely are not animals. To reduce humans to the level of animals is precisely reactionary, for what you are doing is naturalizing capitalism, you are naturalizing all those social ills you profess yourself to be in solidarity of and which you seek to extend to our animal brethren. Again, there are so many fucking threads already related to this and which already involve the fellows who insinuate the same beaten-down garbage, so you may as well be trolling when the same shit reemerges just weeks after its been discussed thoroughly. To paraphrase the arguments which have already been said time and time again: if human beings are "just another animal," then WHY is it that we must consciously assert and "prove" our own animality? What space allows us to assert our own animality? Is it God? "Da Scientistz" (who are also nothing more than human beings -- by your qualifications, animals)? What?

    The point is that man is distinguished from the rest of the animal kingdom insofar that his existence is historical. What separates history from natural history is that human beings are not simply ecologically-determined robots which elicit different responses to different stimuli. We have ancestry in the animal kingdom, of course -- only a fool would deny this -- but the point is that it is the development of human subjectivity, of consciousness, that marks our departure from the great apes. How this developed is ambiguous, and isn't important for this discussion: what is important, however, is this very clear demarcation line between Man and Beast. What had its basis in the natural (i.e., that consciousness emerged out of natural processes) has superseded it. It makes no difference that consciousness is facilitated through our physiology (i.e., through the brain) -- the point is that it is ultimately irreducible to merely physical natural processes. Consciousness has its basis in physiology, in our actual physical, biological being, but is irreducible to it and ultimately supersedes it in the same manner that the biological has its basis in and reproduces the chemical, which has its basis in and reproduces the atomic, and so on. It is not hard to understand: what separates us from animal becomes clear when you ask: "What is it that allows me to assert my alleged animality?" It is a social (or symbolic) order that is the domain which man exclusively occupies, which allows one the space to ask questions, to ponder things, to separate oneself from the rest of the animals in-practice. Unlike animals, humans have agency. Unlike animals, humans have history. Unlike animals, humans can understand things (which concerns reason -- something that lies in a social/symbolic order which human beings both constitute and are constituted by). In trying to state and prove your own animality, you are already refuting the notion.

    The obsession and identification with animals (or anything -- from dolls to cartoons, whatever) that resemble human beings is nothing more than the most heightened and profound expression of alienation. What you want is coffee without caffeine -- you want the superficial traits of man without the essential core of what it means to be a human, that which reminds you of the 'sweet' things in subjects without all the nasty, brutish realities that are immanent to subjectivity itself. You want "subjects that won't talk back, which cannot resist the objects of your fantasy." The same pathology here (that boils down to an objectification of subjects) is the exact same pathology that underlies pedophilia or other depravities. To paraphrase Zizek: love is a radical incompleteness, and to love objects which cannot by their very nature love back (be it animals, toys, etc.) is pathologically identical to pedophilia. You cannot love an animal, and an animal cannot love you back. Sorry, end of story. This is not the first time this has been discussed, anyways.

    To be a vegan for reasons that pertain to your health is perfectly fine. Perhaps there are health benefits to not eating meat, who cares. The problem is when such a dietary preference has its basis in some alleged sacredness of animal life, when one *literally* comes out and says plainly that the "struggle against animal cruelty is just another facet of the class struggle." You are not just trivializing what oppression and exploitation mean, you are not just trivializing the very meaning of Communism -- you are naturalizing the world as it is by illustrating man as being "just another animal." For this, you are an outright reactionary whose 'communism' simply "da struggle for da stateless and classless society witout any borderz." But hey, I suppose this was already a given considering your signature:
    "Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital."

    It's when you probe at these issues -- on ecology, the family, the state, etc. -- its here where you can easily discern whether one is a communist or not.
  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Jacob Cliff For This Useful Post:


  20. #33
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I mean this with complete sincerity: could perhaps bother to think before you decide to post stupid shit like this? There are so many threads on this -- threads that INCLUDE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU. No, sorry -- the demarcation line isn't bestowed upon us meager humans by the omnipotent wisdom of our experts of natural science. This stupidity is ridiculous, and you should cease calling yourself a communist if this is the line of reasoning you use. Willowtooth is correct: why draw the line at animals? Why is it any more wrong to cut up and eat a cow, or a pig, or any other animal, than it is to do this to a piece of broccoli? Why does your fetishism of the natural only extend to those bits of life that move around and display seemingly human characteristics that you can empathize with and sanctify? Does your empathy lie with all those animals who happen to be Mammals, whose characteristics and behavior-patters seem to vaguely resemble a human's without the 'negative' consequences of humanity? Or do you extend this empathy, this sacredness of life, to animals in general? If no, why draw the line here? If yes -- OK, so then why does your empathy for a cow or a pig not extend to an amoeba or the millions of bacteria living on your finger? Where do you draw the line between what animals to sanctify, and which to regard as nothing more than a stupid nuisance, no more important than a rock?


    There is no such thing as animal oppression, because oppression is a human category (and specifically, a social one).You don't oppress a chicken through factory-farming -- even in the most deplorable, Monsanto-esque conditions -- any more than you oppress the ants you happen to step on in your walk in the park, or the horrific genocide of those billions of poor, innocent bacteria that die upon using hand sanitizer. If you're going to bring animals to the level of humans (or, in reality -- if you're going to bring humans down to the level of animals), at least be consistent about it and extend the same sensibilities to the next mosquito that lands on your arm. Humans, unlike animals, make history because we have that which animals lack: subjectivity. Unlike animals, we do not have a definite, predetermined, stable relationship to an environment that we merely "fit in" to. Contrarily, man is the most ruthless exploiter of nature, the great manipulator of natural phenomena. If you want to renounce this "evil," so be it. Throw out your clothes, retreat from society, and consign yourself to being a Luddite in the woods. The very room you sit in is a testament to the power of man over 'nature', a conquest of the "natural" cold or exposure you'd experience outside. You cannot arbitrarily draw the line and decide what belongs to sacred Mother Nature and what does not.


    This lumping together of the exploitation of man and the "exploitation of animals" into the same category is outright disgusting -- you are not bringing animals to the level of man, but in fact, you are bringing man down to the level of animals.You are trivializing exploitation, you are trivializing real oppression and real suffering, when you equate the caged chicken at Monstanto to the caged Jew at Auschwitz. The humanization of animals is nothing more than the animalization of man -- this ecologist-fetishist trash I thought was done away with months ago. Perhaps you have not realized it, but so long as you spout this proto-fascist garbage, you are not on our side.





    Except no, humans precisely are not animals. To reduce humans to the level of animals is precisely reactionary, for what you are doing is naturalizing capitalism, you are naturalizing all those social ills you profess yourself to be in solidarity of and which you seek to extend to our animal brethren. Again, there are so many fucking threads already related to this and which already involve the fellows who insinuate the same beaten-down garbage, so you may as well be trolling when the same shit reemerges just weeks after its been discussed thoroughly. To paraphrase the arguments which have already been said time and time again: if human beings are "just another animal," then WHY is it that we must consciously assert and "prove" our own animality? What space allows us to assert our own animality? Is it God? "Da Scientistz" (who are also nothing more than human beings -- by your qualifications, animals)? What?

    The point is that man is distinguished from the rest of the animal kingdom insofar that his existence is historical. What separates history from natural history is that human beings are not simply ecologically-determined robots which elicit different responses to different stimuli. We have ancestry in the animal kingdom, of course -- only a fool would deny this -- but the point is that it is the development of human subjectivity, of consciousness, that marks our departure from the great apes. How this developed is ambiguous, and isn't important for this discussion: what is important, however, is this very clear demarcation line between Man and Beast. What had its basis in the natural (i.e., that consciousness emerged out of natural processes) has superseded it. It makes no difference that consciousness is facilitated through our physiology (i.e., through the brain) -- the point is that it is ultimately irreducible to merely physical natural processes. Consciousness has its basis in physiology, in our actual physical, biological being, but is irreducible to it and ultimately supersedes it in the same manner that the biological has its basis in and reproduces the chemical, which has its basis in and reproduces the atomic, and so on. It is not hard to understand: what separates us from animal becomes clear when you ask: "What is it that allows me to assert my alleged animality?" It is a social (or symbolic) order that is the domain which man exclusively occupies, which allows one the space to ask questions, to ponder things, to separate oneself from the rest of the animals in-practice. Unlike animals, humans have agency. Unlike animals, humans have history. Unlike animals, humans can understand things (which concerns reason -- something that lies in a social/symbolic order which human beings both constitute and are constituted by). In trying to state and prove your own animality, you are already refuting the notion.

    The obsession and identification with animals (or anything -- from dolls to cartoons, whatever) that resemble human beings is nothing more than the most heightened and profound expression of alienation. What you want is coffee without caffeine -- you want the superficial traits of man without the essential core of what it means to be a human, that which reminds you of the 'sweet' things in subjects without all the nasty, brutish realities that are immanent to subjectivity itself. You want "subjects that won't talk back, which cannot resist the objects of your fantasy." The same pathology here (that boils down to an objectification of subjects) is the exact same pathology that underlies pedophilia or other depravities. To paraphrase Zizek: love is a radical incompleteness, and to love objects which cannot by their very nature love back (be it animals, toys, etc.) is pathologically identical to pedophilia. You cannot love an animal, and an animal cannot love you back. Sorry, end of story. This is not the first time this has been discussed, anyways.

    To be a vegan for reasons that pertain to your health is perfectly fine. Perhaps there are health benefits to not eating meat, who cares. The problem is when such a dietary preference has its basis in some alleged sacredness of animal life, when one *literally* comes out and says plainly that the "struggle against animal cruelty is just another facet of the class struggle." You are not just trivializing what oppression and exploitation mean, you are not just trivializing the very meaning of Communism -- you are naturalizing the world as it is by illustrating man as being "just another animal." For this, you are an outright reactionary whose 'communism' simply "da struggle for da stateless and classless society witout any borderz." But hey, I suppose this was already a given considering your signature:


    It's when you probe at these issues -- on ecology, the family, the state, etc. -- its here where you can easily discern whether one is a communist or not.
    Thanks for writing such a long piece.
    Why draw the line at animals: because animals experience pain via the same routes as we experience pain. Apes have a central nervous system which reacts exactly the same to damage as our nervous system does. Bacteria or grass does not feel pain like this. Yes we are obviously more capable of reasoning and impacting our environment. I don't see why then it is okay to hurt an animal for your own pleasure. You will probably say that i am just picking one human-like trait and that im fetishizing this trai. However can you seriously tell me that you think its okay to step on puppies for pleasure? I doubt you will deny that this is somehow ethical, but at the same time i don't think you stand in horror when you see peole playing soccer on grass. You yourself draw the line at animals, unless of course you are just going to deny that playing soccer on a field of dogs/cats/pigs/cows is immoral.

    I, and i think this also counts for (A), never said that nature is holy or shit like that. We don't want universal suffrage or the right to a fair trial for pigs. We only propose that maybe we should not kill them for no other reason than a sensation of taste. I never said that animals are holy, that you should put their interests before yours. If an animal has to die for my life the choice is easy every time. If starving person kills a cow to eat it, he has every right to do that. However, just seeing animals as objects to be used and abused for your pleasure, is to me the same degenerate behavior of a pedophile.

    To your point about 'loving' animals, I don't particularly like/love animals. I don't melt inside when i see animals play or a puppy jumping around. However this does not mean that i should just ignore all their suffering. I don't particularly like most humans either, but i still want to stop their suffering.

    All your points about humans having history etc are of course well-taken but never disputed by me, so i can't really comment on that. I can only shortly say that yes we are unlike other animals, but i have yet to find a justification for then locking up millions of animals in cages where they obviously feel pain and stress, just because someone wants taste not survival.

    This all pertains just to the ethics of killing the an animal for pleasure of course. There are much more convincing arguments for not eating animal products, two of the most important being health of humans in general and impact on the environment. I hope you are not flat-out gonna deny that environmental damage is bad. The health part to me is also an ethical argument, since i personally find it unethical to convince people, who are ignorant on the issue,that some food, which will damage their health is somehow good to eat and to promote the consumption of said food.

    I hope i addressed many of your concerns/questions/objections, otherwise i would be glad to respond to specific ones.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  21. #34
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 284
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Why draw the line at animals: because animals experience pain via the same routes as we experience pain. Apes have a central nervous system which reacts exactly the same to damage as our nervous system does. Bacteria or grass does not feel pain like this. Yes we are obviously more capable of reasoning and impacting our environment. I don't see why then it is okay to hurt an animal for your own pleasure. You will probably say that i am just picking one human-like trait and that im fetishizing this trai. However can you seriously tell me that you think its okay to step on puppies for pleasure? I doubt you will deny that this is somehow ethical, but at the same time i don't think you stand in horror when you see peole playing soccer on grass. You yourself draw the line at animals, unless of course you are just going to deny that playing soccer on a field of dogs/cats/pigs/cows is immoral.
    Animals elicit responses to various stimuli, and are -- to paraphrase Descarte -- little more than biological automata. What is clear is that sympathy for a dying or hurt animal does not exist at the level of its "suffering" (this relates, again, to rationality -- i.e. the social domain), but at the level of its resemblance of actual human subjects. This is precisely why, yes, it IS a perversity to harm an animal for pleasure. A person who finds joy in torturing an animal, kicking around his dog, or whatever -- this IS disgusting, sadistic, etc. But why? It is precisely for the same reason that loving an animal is an obscenity: it is a projection onto an object those aspects of subjectivity that one finds "joyous," good, or whatever. It is coffee without caffeine, subjects without what is essential to subjectivity -- the sadist who takes pleasure in kicking around his pets is disgusting precisely because he is projecting his own misanthropic animosity towards actual, living human subjects onto objects. This is the level we should be dealing with here: people don't sympathize with animals, not even their pets, because they "feel pain just like us", but because they resemble human behavior and/or looks (but -- as one user said above -- are devoid of all the horrors we face, like racism, nuclear war, and so on).

    I, and i think this also counts for (A), never said that nature is holy or shit like that. We don't want universal suffrage or the right to a fair trial for pigs. We only propose that maybe we should not kill them for no other reason than a sensation of taste. I never said that animals are holy, that you should put their interests before yours. If an animal has to die for my life the choice is easy every time. If starving person kills a cow to eat it, he has every right to do that. However, just seeing animals as objects to be used and abused for your pleasure, is to me the same degenerate behavior of a pedophile.
    You and (A) do not say this, but this is a firmly entrenched ideological theme that is implicit in your posts. You do not want suffrage for pigs, OK, well and good -- you at the same time create a sacred space for them at the level of "rights. I am not sure anyone would deny that "animal abuse" and so on is a disgusting practice, but the level of differentiation (between communists and reactionaries) is how one approaches this. The way (A) had described it was thoroughly and completely reactionary -- equating animal rights with another facet of the class struggle. In fact, perhaps this is correct, if we take it to mean: those who are on the side of "animal rights" are on the side of the bourgeoisie in the class struggle.

    To abuse animals for pleasure is deeply disgusting, but this is not the obverse of a rejection (along communist lines) of so-called animal rights. The problem becomes when the basis for such rights (which involve: do not eat meat, factory-farming as cruelty, etc.) are in the relegation of man to the position of the rest of the animal kingdom. I should hope you can recognize this distinction, because a communist society -- one that would plan every facet of its existence, leaving nothing sacred in its ruthless manipulation of the world to the prerogatives of mankind, would indeed mean mass-extinctions, geo-engineering, the destruction of beautiful, green nature, and so on. This isn't "destruction for destruction's sake" any more than the advent of the light bulb was the ridding of dark for its own sake -- the point is that the defining feature of mankind is the ceaseless conquest of the natural world, the never-ending subjugation of those mysterious, hindering "laws of nature" to the world of man. If millions of previous Bambi's have to die for this or that prerogative, you should save your tears if you call yourself a communist. Something to recognize here is that there is a stark differentiation between the world of man and the 'natural world.' We are subjects -- deer, rabbits, dogs, whatever, are objects, at the level of importance no higher than that of a rock.

    This all pertains just to the ethics of killing the an animal for pleasure of course. There are much more convincing arguments for not eating animal products, two of the most important being health of humans in general and impact on the environment. I hope you are not flat-out gonna deny that environmental damage is bad. The health part to me is also an ethical argument, since i personally find it unethical to convince people, who are ignorant on the issue,that some food, which will damage their health is somehow good to eat and to promote the consumption of said food.
    As for the ethics of killing animals for pleasure, which has already been discussed above, I need to make another thing clear: by pleasure-killing, I am assuming you mean more than poaching and trophy-hunting (i.e., you also include here the consumption of meat as "pleasure"). As it concerns utilitarian motives, we could discuss that at the same level: I am well aware of those claims that concern the implications of directly using the grain that is used to feed cattle to instead feed actual people. Issues like this are not my concern. My concern is the justification for this: one should not have in mind some utopia where humans and animals will finally live in peace with one another, coexisting in rolling green pastures in some idyllic symbiosis. One shouldn't have in mind that factory-farming, that "killing animals for pleasure" (pleasure which, by the way, translates to the sustenance of human life at a bare minimum... the consumption of steak globally doesn't translate to a Rick Erwin's for every person), and so on, are horrible atrocities because "animals can feel too." Nonsense. I'm sorry to shock you here, but for the sake of provocation: "environmental damage" isn't bad. Not in and of itself. Of course, do not take this as: it's a good thing to endanger our own survival by burning up fossil fuels, or that I am rooting for the big oil companies that actually endanger our own existence. There IS an ecological crisis, certainly, but this crisis is not that we should save nature from humanity, but on the contrary, we should save humanity from nature. The solution to the ecological crisis is not to retreat into some stupid green ecology-fetishist bullshit, but on the contrary, to go further and "cut the roots" even more. "Damaging the environment" is bad when this translates to damaging man, but anything else is to make a sacred space of nature as it exists, which is to make sacred (as infallible, unchanging, eternal) the current ideological-space that creates this fetishism in the first place. It's been stated many, many times by other users before, but because it apparently remains unregistered: we should look to the Soviet avant-garde here, to carry on the project of modernity, in face of these problems. To retreat into ecology-peddling reaction is not only to resign the issue to the current decaffeinated-ideological constellation, but is also to resign oneself from communism.
  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jacob Cliff For This Useful Post:


  23. #35
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 534
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    And here it is ladies and gentlemen. The scum claim that to label them as neo-fascist trash is demeaning and untrue. But here it is in plain sight. This "vegan-anarchism" is nothing more than the conscience of Capitalism. At the very worst it just aims to lower humans to the level of animals to retroactively justify... anything.
    Hold on Veganism is a class struggle; you just dont acknowledge the class.
    Animals that we have breed are members of our society in the fact that they are sentient beings that serve a function in society just as we are.
    To the capitalist exploiting class
    By all mean, go see Nazi propaganda films about how Kosher butchering was evil and dehumanizing etc... Same crap these 2 idiots are spewing. A dietary choice is revolutionary, LOL. Hold on, let me start the revolution by eating this pear.



    The fact of the matter is, you "care" for a tiny, minuscule portion of animals. Specifically, the cute cuddly and furry ones. I mean, its amazing how fucking stupid ideology can make a person.
    Last edited by Antiochus; 2nd March 2017 at 03:30.
  24. #36
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Animals elicit responses to various stimuli, and are -- to paraphrase Descarte -- little more than biological automata. What is clear is that sympathy for a dying or hurt animal does not exist at the level of its "suffering" (this relates, again, to rationality -- i.e. the social domain), but at the level of its resemblance of actual human subjects. This is precisely why, yes, it IS a perversity to harm an animal for pleasure. A person who finds joy in torturing an animal, kicking around his dog, or whatever -- this IS disgusting, sadistic, etc. But why? It is precisely for the same reason that loving an animal is an obscenity: it is a projection onto an object those aspects of subjectivity that one finds "joyous," good, or whatever. It is coffee without caffeine, subjects without what is essential to subjectivity -- the sadist who takes pleasure in kicking around his pets is disgusting precisely because he is projecting his own misanthropic animosity towards actual, living human subjects onto objects. This is the level we should be dealing with here: people don't sympathize with animals, not even their pets, because they "feel pain just like us", but because they resemble human behavior and/or looks (but -- as one user said above -- are devoid of all the horrors we face, like racism, nuclear war, and so on).



    You and (A) do not say this, but this is a firmly entrenched ideological theme that is implicit in your posts. You do not want suffrage for pigs, OK, well and good -- you at the same time create a sacred space for them at the level of "rights. I am not sure anyone would deny that "animal abuse" and so on is a disgusting practice, but the level of differentiation (between communists and reactionaries) is how one approaches this. The way (A) had described it was thoroughly and completely reactionary -- equating animal rights with another facet of the class struggle. In fact, perhaps this is correct, if we take it to mean: those who are on the side of "animal rights" are on the side of the bourgeoisie in the class struggle.

    To abuse animals for pleasure is deeply disgusting, but this is not the obverse of a rejection (along communist lines) of so-called animal rights. The problem becomes when the basis for such rights (which involve: do not eat meat, factory-farming as cruelty, etc.) are in the relegation of man to the position of the rest of the animal kingdom. I should hope you can recognize this distinction, because a communist society -- one that would plan every facet of its existence, leaving nothing sacred in its ruthless manipulation of the world to the prerogatives of mankind, would indeed mean mass-extinctions, geo-engineering, the destruction of beautiful, green nature, and so on. This isn't "destruction for destruction's sake" any more than the advent of the light bulb was the ridding of dark for its own sake -- the point is that the defining feature of mankind is the ceaseless conquest of the natural world, the never-ending subjugation of those mysterious, hindering "laws of nature" to the world of man. If millions of previous Bambi's have to die for this or that prerogative, you should save your tears if you call yourself a communist. Something to recognize here is that there is a stark differentiation between the world of man and the 'natural world.' We are subjects -- deer, rabbits, dogs, whatever, are objects, at the level of importance no higher than that of a rock.



    As for the ethics of killing animals for pleasure, which has already been discussed above, I need to make another thing clear: by pleasure-killing, I am assuming you mean more than poaching and trophy-hunting (i.e., you also include here the consumption of meat as "pleasure"). As it concerns utilitarian motives, we could discuss that at the same level: I am well aware of those claims that concern the implications of directly using the grain that is used to feed cattle to instead feed actual people. Issues like this are not my concern. My concern is the justification for this: one should not have in mind some utopia where humans and animals will finally live in peace with one another, coexisting in rolling green pastures in some idyllic symbiosis. One shouldn't have in mind that factory-farming, that "killing animals for pleasure" (pleasure which, by the way, translates to the sustenance of human life at a bare minimum... the consumption of steak globally doesn't translate to a Rick Erwin's for every person), and so on, are horrible atrocities because "animals can feel too." Nonsense. I'm sorry to shock you here, but for the sake of provocation: "environmental damage" isn't bad. Not in and of itself. Of course, do not take this as: it's a good thing to endanger our own survival by burning up fossil fuels, or that I am rooting for the big oil companies that actually endanger our own existence. There IS an ecological crisis, certainly, but this crisis is not that we should save nature from humanity, but on the contrary, we should save humanity from nature. The solution to the ecological crisis is not to retreat into some stupid green ecology-fetishist bullshit, but on the contrary, to go further and "cut the roots" even more. "Damaging the environment" is bad when this translates to damaging man, but anything else is to make a sacred space of nature as it exists, which is to make sacred (as infallible, unchanging, eternal) the current ideological-space that creates this fetishism in the first place. It's been stated many, many times by other users before, but because it apparently remains unregistered: we should look to the Soviet avant-garde here, to carry on the project of modernity, in face of these problems. To retreat into ecology-peddling reaction is not only to resign the issue to the current decaffeinated-ideological constellation, but is also to resign oneself from communism.
    Right, animals developed their central nervous system through evolution the same as we did. The physiology of their nervous system is the same as us. When i put my hand on a hot stove i pull back my hand and scream, when a dog puts his paw on a hot stove he pulls back and yelps. When you see me pull back my hand you think "aha he is in pain!" but when you see the dog doing this you think "aha, this organism is just an automata". You know very well Descartes brought up the automata idea because he had to reconcile his mechanistic view of nature with his belief in christianity. Since a mechanistic view of nature makes it obvious that, since a human brain/nervous system and an animal brain/nervous system function the same, we both actually feel pain he had to come up with an excuse. So thats why he thought up the soul of people. Descartes, in shot, is a fucking idiot. Your idea that animals dont feel pain just like us is completely baseless and I challenge you to find a scientific source for your statement. And don't come with arguments like "they cant reason bla bla". We don't hurt handicapped people because they "cant reason like us" either. This excuse is a perversity.

    nature point; I hereby tell you that nature is NOT holy. However we should not hurt any being that can feel pain, also if they reason less well than us. Newton was obviously more capable of reasoning than his contemporaries, he has no right to impose anything he wants on other human beings because of their relative capacity to reason.

    Your environment point; I agree, if this is what you mean, that protecting the environment should only be a goal if environmental damage is dangerous to us. However i add that this also counts for other sentient beings, IE its wrong to cut a forest where great apes live. However i don't think our goal should be to make perfect green nature where people are forbidden from going to. Nature protection only matters for stopping pain.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  25. #37
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    And here it is ladies and gentlemen. The scum claim that to label them as neo-fascist trash is demeaning and untrue. But here it is in plain sight. This "vegan-anarchism" is nothing more than the conscience of Capitalism. At the very worst it just aims to lower humans to the level of animals to retroactively justify... anything.


    By all mean, go see Nazi propaganda films about how Kosher butchering was evil and dehumanizing etc... Same crap these 2 idiots are spewing. A dietary choice is revolutionary, LOL. Hold on, let me start the revolution by eating this pear.



    The fact of the matter is, you "care" for a tiny, minuscule portion of animals. Specifically, the cute cuddly and furry ones. I mean, its amazing how fucking stupid ideology can make a person.
    Another masterpiece from you.
    Nazi propaganda was obviously specifically aimed at jews. I only claim that we should not hurt animals for no good reason PERIOD. Then you do anything to make up arguments to fit your standing point, instead of the other way around.

    And how does saying that "pain is always wrong" somehow justifiying.. well anything ? You just say that we should not care about pain in general, only if its pain for humans. Since we are comparing eachother to nazis let me make a comparison of myself: The nazis called the jews rats, this is precisely what you propose. If we are able to see humans as "just" animals its okay to hurt them. But i am saying that all animals matter no matter human or non-human. The "justifying anything" argument only makes sense because you have no regard for animals.

    And about your cool little chart, you only "care" for an even smaller tiny miniscule portion of animals. You only care for them because they belong to your species, not because they feel pain. I mean its fucking amazing how stupid eating meat can make you.
    "I am vegan because I have compassion for animals; I see them as beings possessed of value not unlike humans. I am an anarchist because I have that same compassion for humans, and because I refuse to settle for compromised perspectives, half-assed strategies and sold-out objectives. As a radical, my approach to animal and human liberation is without compromise: total freedom for all, or else."

    "It takes no more time to be a vegetarian than to eat animal flesh.... When non-vegetarians say ‘human problems come first’ I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for humans that compels them to continue to support the wasteful ruthless, exploitation of farm animals."
  26. #38
    Join Date Jun 2017
    Posts 38
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I haven't read a supposedly socialist rebuttal of veganism in this thread that I don't often hear from Trump supporters at bars; even the communists got that BigMeat Mouth.

    Also someone explain to me why Man is being upheld as some self evidently unique and privileged species on earth as if some divinity of man is a precept of communism. Why are there diehards talking like Rush Limbaugh and lamenting some devaluing of humankinds specialness? It smells Christian in the lowest and most right wing way

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also here's a good experiment: try and dismiss someone's humanity without using speciesist language. You will certainly find zero historical examples and on the street it always stumps people
    As long as I recall, I've been incarcerated;
    Starved and guarded in darkness,
    And burned by inquisitors that charged me with arson.
  27. #39
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 284
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    Why are you just now reviving this thread, after thoroughly getting your ass kicked around on this subject on more than one occasion? Are you a masochist? All of this has been addressed an ample number of times, yet you continue to blabber on about the exact same issues. It's as if these things fly over your head - you don't read them, you just crank out another response reiterating the same worn-down point. But why the fuck not, if you want to drag me back into this, so fucking be it.

    Right, animals developed their central nervous system through evolution the same as we did. The physiology of their nervous system is the same as us. When i put my hand on a hot stove i pull back my hand and scream, when a dog puts his paw on a hot stove he pulls back and yelps. When you see me pull back my hand you think "aha he is in pain!" but when you see the dog doing this you think "aha, this organism is just an automata". You know very well Descartes brought up the automata idea because he had to reconcile his mechanistic view of nature with his belief in christianity. Since a mechanistic view of nature makes it obvious that, since a human brain/nervous system and an animal brain/nervous system function the same, we both actually feel pain he had to come up with an excuse. So thats why he thought up the soul of people. Descartes, in shot, is a fucking idiot. Your idea that animals dont feel pain just like us is completely baseless and I challenge you to find a scientific source for your statement. And don't come with arguments like "they cant reason bla bla". We don't hurt handicapped people because they "cant reason like us" either. This excuse is a perversity.
    Okay? And? That a human being and a fucking dog both react to external processes - this is supposed to mean anything? The point isn't that animals lack sensory neurons, it's that pain itself is absolutely irreducible to the physiological stimulation of the nerves on your hand (in this example). Pain is completely subjective, i.e., it deals with one's subjectivity and the dissonance between it and its conditions of existence. When you burn your hand on a stove - the pain you feel is not simply the firing of neurons that signal an unpleasant feeling; pain as painful is found in the gap between the subject's imaginary relation to an object and its actuality of existence. So yes, frankly, animals are just automata - objects with the same meaning as a rock you might find on the side of a road. Animals lack subjectivity. What you miss is that, although both Man and Animal possess bodies, the latter is quite literally reducible to just that. Man differs insofar that his consciousness is purely social; how he relates to the 'external world' and his ability to separate himself as a subject from this same world is not the same as with animals, who have no such ability; who just 'are.' Man differs, in other word, in that each human body is a 'vessel' or a particular expression of the Reason within the social-symbolic order they are immersed in, which has its basis in the existence of human beings without being reducible to individuals. Like every other emotion under the sun (happiness, sadness, etc.), pain is rational; it follows an identifiable rationality that is ultimately de-corporealized and relates only to the disposition of the subject. When you insist on this false equivocation between the pain a human subject feels and one that a rabbit does, you are effectively animalizing man and trivializing what is precisely painful about pain. The response an animal that has been run over and left to die elicits is emphatically just that - areflexive response, elicited by something which you only feel sympathy with insofar that it vaguely resembles human subjects. You reject this? Then please explain to me why you don't share the same fucking sensibilities about a mosquito that you do for a dog. Is it because, you claim, the latter feels pain, while the former doesn't? Then we already have two major holes in your position: that the level of meaning for an animal (i.e. how you feel towards it, and whether or not it is deserving of 'humane' treatment) is determined by the abstract gauge of pain it can experience (how do we measure this?), and that pain itself is merely the sensuous, undifferentiated experience (in the animal's world) of a collection of cells reacting a specific way. You are spouting nothing but pure stupidity at this point. And despite your mockery of Descartes, the Christian conception of a human soul is infinitely closer to an acknowledgement of the social dimension that animistic scientism baselessly rejects (that human subjectivity can be broken down and reduced to the physiological existence of men and women; that we are 'just another animal'). That we DESCEND from the animal kingdom does not mean we are animals. What evolution, which is nothing but a serious of meaningless genetic catastrophes and accidents, gave birth to was a complete anomaly. Your very acknowledgment of the opposite is testament to the uniquely human propensity for consciousness - that you can even separate yourself from the world around you in thought (using language, using reason; which is social) is already to say that you are a purely social being.

    I hereby tell you that nature is NOT holy. However we should not hurt any being that can feel pain, also if they reason less well than us. Newton was obviously more capable of reasoning than his contemporaries, he has no right to impose anything he wants on other human beings because of their relative capacity to reason.
    And thus the archetypal RevLeft shiteating troll proclaims his distance from ecology-fetishism, signaling that we are merely mistaken by the appearance of his reactionary stances. Honestly, what is this? It doesn't mean jack-shit that you claim to take a distance from the animistic nature-worship that has grown like a cancer in the petty-bourgeois left today - the fact you practice it, that such a holy space reserved for Mother Nature and its beautiful Bambi-esque Disney cartoon animals is secreted through the arguments you bring forward is enough to mark you above and beyond guilty. "I hereby tell you that nature is NOT holy"? I hereby tell you nobody gives a fuck; your stances betray the most reactionary sentiments imaginable and it is an absolute disgrace that you are even allowed on this forum in the first place. The very fact you equivocate the the genius of Newton vis-a-vis his contemporaries to man's treatment of animals is downright disgusting. You want to animalize man, in this way? We are just another animal, determined by our physiological existence; our thoughts the result of millions of years of evolutionary development? Then let's take this logic to its very conclusion: the present state of things is naturalized, for capitalism is just the natural evolution of man's social organization that is determined, unbehest to him, by processes within his physical brain. Furthermore - why not, then, assert the superiority and inferiority of certain populations, which have certainly been isolated from one another long enough to facilitate different cognitive skills? The conclusions you will reach if you bother to think your current premises through is nothing short of fascism. It is no wonder that, in the Nazi universe, there was such an obsessional fixation with not only ecology, but also with the harmony the Volk has within it (that we are just another animal whose harmonious existence has been troubled by the external intruder); not to mention, the pride modern fascist groups take in their love and respect for animals. If we are animals, reducible to operative physiological parts and processes, then we should certain maintain our own genetic hygiene, no? Do you see my point? The seemingly innocent claims you are making mask the most disgusting reemergence of a revived academic racism and neo-fascism, and your only refusal to assume such an explicitly reactionary position is owed to your refusal to take it to the end; no doubt sustained by the crutches of politically-correct polite society. And frankly it is not a giant leap - it is only a step away, and I have seen so many leftists abandon their farcical political allegiance to communism and renege to fascism that it is almost a cliche at this point. It isn't simply that animals are 'lower' than us: it's that animals are OBJECTS, they are PASSIVE OBJECTS that literally don't even exist on the same level as human subjectivity. If we could break down what we call 'life' to the simplest components, you would find that it can hardly be differentiated from any bit of matter you would normally consider non-living - the difference between choanocytes and choanoflagellates is virtually non-existent, and the meaningfulness and locomotion of organisms - be it a lamprey or your dog Fido - can be reduced to its physicality, to the processes guaranteeing its physical homeostasis. You cannot do this with men and women. You want to sentimentalize the existence of animals and equate them to humans based on the abstract notion of pain - regulation of which being the deciding factor as to what should be respected and left alone and what is up for manipulation by men and women. Yet the crime of such an equivocation can never account for the subjective dimension of pain, of hurt - which is far beyond and, in fact, not even connotative to physical harm; hence, emotional pain as a genuine pain that often far surpasses the physical stimulation of nerve cells. And it isn't that we humans simply possess a more sophisticated sense of pain, either - it's that pain itself does not translate to corporeality, even if it is expressed through the corporeal body. The intensity of pain is nothing more than the fundamental gap, the discrepancy, between the subjective imaginary and the real of one's physiological conditions of existence. That animals lack subjectivity - that they cannot separate themselves from the world around them; that they cannot understand, know; make cuts around abstracted elements of the Real and render things into conscious thought - is testament to their lack of pain, that they 'feel' nothing.

    There is literally no other way out of this. The only route you can take from accepting such horrific conclusions would be the absurd claim that, like humans, animals too possess subjectivity; something so patently fucking stupid I don't even think I need to waste my time with it... I'm going to hope to god your assertion of the supposed sentience of the Great Apes was a typo. If humans are animals, then it goes to follow that differences between populations is conditioned by their own differing genetic makeup (and furthermore, that we should prevent 'cross-contamination'... this fits well into your beautiful, multicultural idyllic society of humans and animals living together in harmony, no?).

    But furthermore, the crass stupidity exemplified by your sanctification of animal life (in all its disgusting actuality) becomes purely comical when you assert we "have no right" to impose our will on them. First of all, who is asserting we have no right? God? The immutable laws of nature? Your own ethics, which, according to your logic, is the natural result of evolutionary development? Precisely who must we ask permission from in order to manipulate animal life for our own reproduction? Can you lend us meager humans his phone number, so perhaps we can leave him a voicemail? If you're going to be consistent with your god-peddling trash, then you may as well ask what gives us the right to ruthlessly transform nature; to rearrange the atoms of 'natural' stuff in such a way that can be of use to human subjects and the reproduction of the social order that comprises them and which they comprise. Why stop at a prohibition for disturbing the environment of the Great Apes? Why not, then, also conserve the wildlife of cattle? What about rats, and any other rodent? Why not fucking insects at this point? Where exactly do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, between wrong and right (for whom?), when it comes to disturbing the habitats of all the creatures of nature? Your ridiculously stupid answer of "pain prevention" not only says absolutely nothing (going by your absolutely mistaken notion of what pain 'is', are we to count the fucking sensory neurons of each animal and judge whether or not their preservation is worth keeping?), but it elevates animals and the space they occupy to a sacred domain that simply cannot be touched by human beings, lest we disturb the eternal, immutable laws of nature and offend God himself. Where was the deluge facing the Soviet communists when they decidedly took the courageous leap towards rapid industrialization, an event that undoubtedly resulted in the destruction of vast swaths of nature's beautiful wildlife refuges? Who gave them permission?

    As far as the world goes - we are quite literally IT; there is nothing outside the infinite consciousness of mankind. All the animals and plants, the majestic elk and cute little bunnies, may as well perish - it would be no more meaningful than the paving of a road, or the construction of a dam. If you want an image of a communist future, imagine nothing less than the infinite conquest of the natural world by men and women; the never-ending manipulation of natural processes and the incessant 'artificialization' (i.e. subject to the will of Man) of all things, including the mass-production of human bodies themselves. The communism you fancy is nothing but a Utopian abstraction - an ideal society where man finally faces his equal in the eyes of a squirrel, who is afforded equal treatment and rights on the basis of their sharing of nerve-cells (not at all conducive to pain, mind you). One is tempted to quote Marx here, who spoke in regards to a different matter, but whose words nevertheless come to mind:

    "[T]hey subjugated man to external circumstances instead of elevating man to the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-developing social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalizing worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Kanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow."
    Just as with any putrid nature-worship, yours - which attempts to mask itself around the extension of universal human rights - remains as fetishistic and animistic as any other pseudo-oriental justification for the preservation of the existing state of things, effectively "restraining the human mind within the smallest possible compass and making it the unresistant tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules and depriving it of all grandeur and historical energies." In your reduction to mankind to just another animal in the tree of life, in your de-centering of Man from the very meaningless void he gives meaning to through his practice, you subordinate humanity to the natural processes that exist inevitably; which, proceeding only reasonably, include capitalism itself. The point of asserting the fundamental divide between mankind and animal life is not to give the pass towards the abuse and mistreatment of animals, which seems to be your only concern (i.e. their welfare, as measured through their endurance of what you perceive as pain). On the contrary, this can only appear a perversity; pathologically speaking, one only loves an animal for the same reason one abuses an animal, which is the transposition of human subjectivity onto an object that is devoid of all its nastier, grittier elements that come along as immanent to subjectivity itself. It is a perversity for precisely the same reason that pedophilia is a perversity: it is to love something that cannot love you back; to animistically breathe life into objects that resemble human beings and carry out one's misanthropic or pedophilic fantasies on that de-caffeinated representation of a subject, which remains unable to resist your desires.
  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacob Cliff For This Useful Post:


  29. #40
    Join Date Sep 2014
    Posts 284
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    someone explain to me why Man is being upheld as some self evidently unique and privileged species on earth as if some divinity of man is a precept of communism. Why are there diehards talking like Rush Limbaugh and lamenting some devaluing of humankinds specialness? It smells Christian in the lowest and most right wing way
    Tell me what it is that allows you to even type that sentence, to think that thought, and you will have already answered your question. Why we are unique is precisely because we are defined by consciousness, by our ability to divorce oneself from external reality and engage in the process of understanding (i.e. making radical cuts into the real and rearranging pieces into a rational form). This 'human exceptionalism' smells of Christianity, to you? Very well: we communists stand proudly by the legacy of Christianity, which can only find its rational form in the most radical atheism; only the most disgusting reactionaries can assert the animistic neo-pagan worship of nature and subjectification of animal life (i.e. the animalization of human life). This has been reiterated so many times it is nauseating: the moment you assert that human beings are just another animal, next to the chimpanzee and the raccoon; the minute you make the attempt at transforming human rights into animal rights, is the moment of capitulation before the God of capital. Lurking behind the ridiculously stupid hippie-communalist-kumbaya garbage is the most viscous rehabilitation of a normalized, 'scientific' racism and a naturalized state of man, embodied by modern capitalism.
  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jacob Cliff For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Communism: What Would the Utopia Look Like?
    By The_Marxie_Physicist in forum Learning
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 6th September 2015, 14:07
  2. Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
    By Counterculturalist in forum Cultural
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 18th August 2015, 18:07

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Website Security Test