Thread: Is Zizek in favor of animal rights?

Results 101 to 120 of 121

  1. #101
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Ok, but your 4 points above validate the criticism of veganism, as a political choice, as being unradical lifestyleism.

    If X can be anything, then I think people who use plastic are worse than animal-eaters because fossil fuels might destroy plankton in the ocean. Eat animals, just don't use plastic, electricity or drive. If you use electricity you are complicit in the destruction of the oceans, climate change, Putin and the Iraq war.

    This is moralism, not something that will further the chance for revolution.

    We have more actual power over meat production by organizing fast food workers, trucking and logistic workers, meat plant and ag workers than we do by feeling morally ok by not being "complicit". Since processes that abuse animals undoubtedly subject humans to awful conditions, these workers can actually have an interest in, if we have to use meat, more humane and pleasant situation.

    If production is for profit, then any convo over the "best use" of land or eating animals or not is moot: production will be determined by whatever has the best return for the next quarter. If workers control all production and did so just to meet their own needs and wants them a whole range of other production possibilities, even the Democratic decision to ditch meat production, are all suddenly on the table.

    Workers will liberate nature from the regime of profit accumulation... some of those workers will be meat-eaters.
    I agree that it is indeed workers who can 'liberate' animals and under capitalism it is a near impossibility, and that just not eating meat will not solve the problem. But even if we look at it without living under capitalism or not, I think that even in total isolation it is wrong to cause suffering to an animal for my pleasure. So for example when I am in a remote area with more than enough plant foods but I feel like killing a deer because I like that taste, that is still morally wrong. I don't think because we live under capitalism now that therefore we should just buy anything and live any way we want, and respond to any criticism by just saying "its capitalism, not me". However we have to make a very clear distinction that accepting your role in a cruel industry and changing that role is not the same as bringing about communist revolution. Like the quote in my signature says, it costs you nothing to not eat animals, if you don't animals you are not suddenly blocking yourself from communist agitation.

    About your electricity point. My whole point is that eating animals offers us no benefit i.e we have no improved living conditions because of it and it is actually dangerous to our health. Electricity is obviously a great contribution to our well-being and I don't think we can lump electricity and the animal industry in the same basket.

    Your point about production being for profit and not best use is very well-taken and i completely agree that worker liberation comes before any animal issue IF we have to choose. But I think both is possible and worth pursuing.

    Mainly, could you address my point about the scenario where you don't live under any system. So why is it wrong to kill an animal for no reason in some secluded area, but it is okay when you live under capitalism?
    "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. The Following User Says Thank You to IbelieveInanarchy For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 534
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    Meat tastes better than some pile of shit dressed as the new foodie craze. Communists don't give a fuck about "unethical" standards. This is just fascist garbage peddled under the guise of "animal liberation", an impossibility.
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Antiochus For This Useful Post:


  5. #103
    Join Date Jan 2002
    Location Ireland,Cork City.
    Posts 3,441
    Organisation
    Independant Workers Union
    Rep Power 50

    Default

    Meat tastes better than some pile of shit dressed as the new foodie craze. Communists don't give a fuck about "unethical" standards. This is just fascist garbage peddled under the guise of "animal liberation", an impossibility.
    As someone who (sorry to repeat guys) worked as a butcher, why do you think this?
    "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. " - Buenaventura Durutti

    "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth." - Ernesto Che Guevara.

    "Its Called the American dream, because you gotta be asleep to believe it". - George Carlin

    Tone ~ Emmet ~ Larkin ~ Connolly ~ O Donnell


    www.union.ie


  6. #104
    Join Date Jan 2002
    Location Ireland,Cork City.
    Posts 3,441
    Organisation
    Independant Workers Union
    Rep Power 50

    Default

    Anyway, As someone who eats meat but also as someone who respects the veggies.....Eating a more plant-based diet is right. Im not arguing ethically but logically. My parents had meat once-a-week and this was a treat if they were lucky.

    Now we eat meat every day and IMO thats not right, but I carried on anyway due to my job.

    I lost a lot of weight on a veggie diet and felt fantastic. I didn't feel sluggish (I always feel sluggish). After 1 week of veggies I went back to normal.....more energy straight away. I'm not anti-meat consuming, im just saying try it from the other side for a week. Otherwise fuck-off because you dont know what you are talking about - Signing-out - Man who earned right to eat what he killed.
    "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. " - Buenaventura Durutti

    "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth." - Ernesto Che Guevara.

    "Its Called the American dream, because you gotta be asleep to believe it". - George Carlin

    Tone ~ Emmet ~ Larkin ~ Connolly ~ O Donnell


    www.union.ie


  7. #105
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location The Upside Down
    Posts 11,469
    Rep Power 195

    Default

    Meat tastes better than some pile of shit dressed as the new foodie craze. Communists don't give a fuck about "unethical" standards. This is just fascist garbage peddled under the guise of "animal liberation", an impossibility.
    lol you don't eat fruits and vegetables that's pretty dumb anyways in what way has what's been posted in this thread been fascist?
    Last edited by Ele'ill; 9th August 2017 at 06:02.
    "whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

    http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ele'ill For This Useful Post:


  9. #106
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,003
    Rep Power 162

    Default

    Mainly, could you address my point about the scenario where you don't live under any system. So why is it wrong to kill an animal for no reason in some secluded area, but it is okay when you live under capitalism?
    Sorry I missed or misunderstood this point where you mentioned it earlier.

    To me the difference is that unlike some sport-hunter, someone who buys a burger does not wake up and decide that they are going to create a fast-food chain, raise cattle, slaughter the cattle, make meat patties and freeze them etc.

    I am not a moral person, morality does not motivate me. I am kind of agnostic about the concept of eating meat in general. I don't give a lot of weight to evolution driving modern behaviors, but I think food and sex are probably the two main things that are "programmed" into us by evolutionary pressures. Humans who cooked meat thrived and that's why people like BBQ and no other animals like charred food. Humans also enjoy sex, men and women are designed to enjoy sexual stimulation in any manner imaginable.

    But human taste is also flexible so we can live in different environments. So eating meat, in the abstract can become a choice, given abundance.

    However I do not think contemporary people choose to eat meat out of laziness or ignorance... just like Americans don't eat sugar and carbs out of gluttony or whatever other moral-failure upper-class Americans decide. It's because people A) have 0 control over production and distribution B) Americans are overworked and the grocery store business model in the US makes finding access to food difficult unless you are a suburban car driver or live in a rich urban neighborhood. There are at least 10 fast food places between my apartment an the nearest supermarket. Hmm, why do I see fast food containers on the ground everywhere?

    People are going to gravitate to meat and carbs because their lives suck and that's why people crave meat or sugars... it keeps them going or makes them feel momentary comfort.

    So for most people there is a "use" in eating meat. Even if it's just that it helps them feel good or cope with busy lives with little enjoyment.

    This is why I think moralistic appeals just cause defensiveness or hostility. If people felt satisfied with their lives then likely there would be less attraction to seek satisfaction through a steak, comfort food, cigarettes, porn or any number of things that in the abstract are not necessary or logical for immediate survival on a biological level and have or could have harmful effects.
  10. #107
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location The Upside Down
    Posts 11,469
    Rep Power 195

    Default

    Humans who cooked meat thrived and that's why people like BBQ and no other animals like charred food.
    Humans who cooked meat often perished, i can't stand anything bbq and i don't even like the smell, and i'm pretty sure i can think of at least a thousand animals that would eat charred food not including the domesticated animals that i've seen eat charred food.

    humans, sex, etc
    Who cares

    People are going to gravitate to meat and carbs because their lives suck and that's why people crave meat or sugars... it keeps them going or makes them feel momentary comfort.

    So for most people there is a "use" in eating meat. Even if it's just that it helps them feel good or cope with busy lives with little enjoyment.This is why I think moralistic appeals just cause defensiveness or hostility. If people felt satisfied with their lives then likely there would be less attraction to seek satisfaction through a steak, comfort food, cigarettes, porn or any number of things that in the abstract are not necessary or logical for immediate survival on a biological level and have or could have harmful effects.
    I agree that it isn't exactly a fault and moralistic appeals are stupid but from your perspective what of their returning to social comforts of the current order, snitch culture, racism, anti-union etc.. and what about being within a severe ecological collapse scenario right now, is it a good idea to be blowing some of this stuff off so casually?
    Last edited by Ele'ill; 12th August 2017 at 05:29.
    "whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

    http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
  11. #108
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,003
    Rep Power 162

    Default Is Zizek in favor of animal rights?


    I agree that it isn't exactly a fault and moralistic appeals are stupid but from your perspective what of their returning to social comforts of the current order, snitch culture, racism, anti-union etc.. and what about being within a severe ecological collapse scenario right now, is it a good idea to be blowing some of this stuff off so casually?
    I am not blowing stuff off casually when it comes to ecological threats. My perspective is just that all of this is meaningless unless workers can organize and take control of production, democratically dismantle and or repurpose production which would also necessarily mean large coordinated projects to try and slow, stop, and maybe reverse large scale environmental problems.

    Snitiching, scanning, racism, etc are all direct barriers to class consciousness. Eating meat is not. Insisting that workers who do are complicit in capitalism's destruction, like the middle class liberals in the Bay Area who use to blame drivers for the Iraq war, can just become moralism which is not productive for building class consciousness. Workers get moralized about their "bad behaviors" enough.

    It's also not even effective on it's own terms. If we all stopped eating meat tomorrow, capitalism would still destroy individual and whole species of animals through development, pollution, displacement, and more generally through climate change.

    You don't like BBQ, cool don't eat it. I live in an immigrant neighborhood where people turn the sidewalk into BBQs and use it for illegal taco stands. IMO cool for them too, it's one of the few opportunities neighbors get to socialize with each other.

    The cops come and site my ex-rural neighbors from southern Mexico for keeping chickens. Workers don't need revolutionaries to be food cops telling them not to eat meat since liberals already blame them for obesity and junk food and many other problems.

    There are also the higher lead levels in the soil here than in the water in Detroit. So it's not like workers don't have a stake in what happens with the environment. But street tacos and BBQs are part of the social/community life here. I want all harmful (to humans, animals, and environment) production for profit to stop, I don't think insisting on a specific diet for everyone really fits with that goal since I don't think consumerist approaches understand how capitalism works and are therefore largely unsuccessful.

    And I'm talking generalities here, not how the vegan folks here act. But let's be clear, I grew up at a time when most of both environmentalists and animal rights people (these were mostly liberals) were openly hostile towards workers and saw them as part of the problem.
  12. #109
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Posts 1
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    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.
    How far does this idea go? Opposition to all forms of animal ownership if not for personal gain, i.e guard dog? Do you shame those who would then use sex dolls? A child playing with an action figure, is this perverse? Is this perversion inherently wrong?

    Is it only perverse when the object is alive? Why?
    Last edited by RevolutionaryCannonFodder; 13th August 2017 at 03:37.
  13. #110
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location The Upside Down
    Posts 11,469
    Rep Power 195

    Default

    I am not blowing stuff off casually when it comes to ecological threats. My perspective is just that all of this is meaningless unless workers can organize and take control of production, democratically dismantle and or repurpose production which would also necessarily mean large coordinated projects to try and slow, stop, and maybe reverse large scale environmental problems.
    There are a lot of us not in an essential industry/sector of the economy, I think organizing in the work place becomes synonymous with comfortable politics, waiting for a moment that exists now, it's failed to escalate because it operates and is a part of what its being told to destroy, it lacks a vision outside of what exists, although i think it's great when those ruptures have happened and will into the future but i think they're part of a different trajectory.

    Snitiching, scanning, racism, etc are all direct barriers to class consciousness. Eating meat is not.
    But 'eating meat' is being used here as a soft-cover phrase for 'a large number of industrial practices that are destroying the planet' and harboring ignorance to the reality of human activity in relation to the health of the planet is a barrier to 'class consciousness' or whatever.

    Insisting that workers who do are complicit in capitalism's destruction, like the middle class liberals in the Bay Area who use to blame drivers for the Iraq war, can just become moralism which is not productive for building class consciousness. Workers get moralized about their "bad behaviors" enough.]It's also not even effective on it's own terms. If we all stopped eating meat tomorrow, capitalism would still destroy individual and whole species of animals through development, pollution, displacement, and more generally through climate change.
    We are already facing serious ecological situations because of human activity, i think recognizing this is a huge part of making a logical break from one world to the other.

    You don't like BBQ, cool don't eat it. I live in an immigrant neighborhood where people turn the sidewalk into BBQs and use it for illegal taco stands. IMO cool for them too, it's one of the few opportunities neighbors get to socialize with each other.

    The cops come and site my ex-rural neighbors from southern Mexico for keeping chickens. Workers don't need revolutionaries to be food cops telling them not to eat meat since liberals already blame them for obesity and junk food and many other problems. There are also the higher lead levels in the soil here than in the water in Detroit. So it's not like workers don't have a stake in what happens with the environment. But street tacos and BBQs are part of the social/community life here. I want all harmful (to humans, animals, and environment) production for profit to stop, I don't think insisting on a specific diet for everyone really fits with that goal since I don't think consumerist approaches understand how capitalism works and are therefore largely unsuccessful.
    Okay but the stuff you said in the previous post is still bullshit.


    And I'm talking generalities here, not how the vegan folks here act. But let's be clear, I grew up at a time when most of both environmentalists and animal rights people (these were mostly liberals) were openly hostile towards workers and saw them as part of the problem.
    Surely you're not saying that the ideas workers have can't be problematic?
    Last edited by Ele'ill; 13th August 2017 at 08:24.
    "whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

    http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
  14. #111
    Join Date Oct 2014
    Location USA unfortunately
    Posts 303
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    The Nazis were big on animals...while actual human beings were being murdered and starved to death.

    Seriously guys, we're communists - there are plenty of groups out there to worry about the animals. Let's free and feed Africa first, then we can worry about our furry friends.
  15. #112
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location The Upside Down
    Posts 11,469
    Rep Power 195

    Default

    The Nazis were big on animals...while actual human beings were being murdered and starved to death.

    Seriously guys, we're communists - there are plenty of groups out there to worry about the animals. Let's free and feed Africa first, then we can worry about our furry friends.
    Where in the thread has anyone advocated fascism or advocated starvation?
    "whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

    http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
  16. #113
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,834
    Rep Power 49

    Default

    The Nazis were big on animals...while actual human beings were being murdered and starved to death.

    Seriously guys, we're communists - there are plenty of groups out there to worry about the animals. Let's free and feed Africa first, then we can worry about our furry friends.
    Communism involves an inherent, lived break from current reality.
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  17. #114
    Join Date Feb 2015
    Posts 534
    Rep Power 9

    Default

    After this post I won't bother commenting in the thread again since it goes without saying that no meaningful reply will be given. There are, in this thread, 3 types of individuals. The first type involves the ecological fetishists; There are Communists; and then there are, like in every scenario, the opportunists, who cowardly keep one foot in dry land and the other in the water, not willing to commit to either so they may have a fait accompli for both. This thread is merely a rehashing of a 'debate' that has existed in this board for the better part of 2 years and it always runs the exact same course. Before I even get into that, let me summarize the positions of each.

    The ecological fascists/fetishists hold that animals deserve "inalienable rights", the in the same manner humans do within the prism of 'natural rights'. They claim that the killing of animals for food is an extension of "oppression", that while perhaps it is a lesser degree of "exploitation" than exploiting humans under Capitalism, it is nevertheless homologous to it. Now, the problem is not that they believe this, but these monkeys have the temerity to proclaim themselves to be Communists, simultaneously while holding these positions. It isn't even a 'have your cake and eat it too' situation, it is that of someone actively fighting against a movement demanding that he be recognized as its vanguard. The 1000+ arguments shitting down their throats go unanswered. They are utterly ignored. A formula that is reminiscent to a short computer program is followed by these degenerates:

    1) State a general position based on a weak aphorism or a highly tenuous demarcated condition that is wholly arbitrary to the point of being comical ("If animals feel pain, they are moral agents").
    2) Get refuted again and again ad naseum in lengthy, thorough posts.
    3) #Repeat 1) without any shame, waiting for the page number to change.

    Since this group is composed of people like Bixx, Ibelieveinanarchy and a few others at the beginning of this thread, those are the "positions" that must be addressed. They revolve around two parallel 'arguments'. The first is a highly bizarre and quite possibly schizophrenic one that states that because animals "feel pain", they are "moral agents". Then a negation of this is retorted "rufl ur a nihilist xd". To them, the fact that they have set a totally arbitrary neurochemical mechanism as the requirement for something that could only ever be explicated by human consciousness and which has 0, I mean fucking 0 organic links to the neurochemical pathway of "pain", is to put it slightly, shocking. Let me explain what I mean. Imagine that I claim that any organism capable of engaging in sexual reproduction can "love" and I would then tie it to the inherently human sociological concept of love, would you not think of me in the same contemptuous way we think of the scum above? I think you would. Now, imagine, for one second, that I tried to liken this "love" and followed with a (vulgar) logical conclusion. Say that I argued that since a pig can 'love', I can therefore 'love' him/her. Now imagine I started some bizarre movement (veganism is a cult) and I started telling people that fucking an animal is like fucking a human. That bestiality is actually a repressed feature of homosexuality. Does that not make me a purely reactionary ideologue? No. Ok. And before you say I've taken the argument down the most ridiculous possible avenue, remember that IbelieveinCapitalism literally made a thread about how cattle prodding is rape in the "oppressed" category, along with you know similar topics like spousal abuse, war rape etc... (no joke).

    Now, that side of the "debate" is the stranger kind, but yes, that is literally all its been reduced to. The other side of the debate is, I suppose, of the more nuanced sort. It takes many forms: Pleading to the fact that civilization faces a collapse as a result of ecological disaster; "scientific" regurgitation of facts relating to meat consumption or to "prove" that humans are animals; and finally "proof" that animals feel "pain/love/anal warts" whatever. Despite the fact that several users already stated it ad naseum thousands of times and despite the fact that it is never addressed, I'll start by saying that physical science has no business at all in this debate, which is grounded entirely upon the social aspect of "ecology". No one here has ever debated that humans are taxonomically animals, because this would be pointless and not even part of the debate. What the imbeciles in the thread fail to realize is the logical extension of their "arguments" that humans are merely "more developed" or "different" animals. This is precisely why they are castigated by us as the reactionary scum they are, not because we enjoy insulting them. If humans are "merely" animals, GREAT! It must then follow that the only differences between humans and animals are reducible (meaning exclusive) to the physiological domain, ok. Now, do you for one second realize what you are even advocating for, what you are 'saying'? Do you even posses the decency to do so? Because if the current differences between a human and an animal are physiological, if we are oppressing 'fellow animals', then the differences between myself and a Black man when it comes to IQ, are also reducible to the physiological. I could then cite numerous tables, graphs and scientific studies (as you are meaninglessly doing) illustrating that even when you hold all variables constant, IQ is correlated to race. You don't have the balls to accept that. Your internal Starbucks liberal will allow you to make all sorts of claims about animals, but it won't do that. In that way, you command less respect than those subhumans marching in Charlottesville, at least they have the decency to wear the uniform of the enemy. The rest of the garbage about how we can feed more people if we all become vegetarians is, again, totally meaningless. To a Communist there is nothing holy. If tomorrow all our "food" were made in a laboratory using synthetic compounds and flavored with additives; equaling or surpassing the nutritive content of 'real food', no one would make a thread hailing the collapse of humanity. It just doesn't mean much. Humans already produce far more food than needed. Food scarcity lies entirely outside the domain of food production in the 21st century, maybe if you made the argument in 1316 or whatever, you would have a point.

    And really, the most abominable part of it all are the admins and moderators. I don't know the internal workings of the forum, but Chikautsu (sorry if I spelled the name wrong, too lazy to look it up) said in another thread that I should stop using the term reactionary carte blanche , saying that he handles "real" reactionaries (citing an Osama Bin Laden supporter). Well, good good, thank God we've finally weeded out those Al-Qaeda Salafists from our ranks. That is the standard. Another member (Ele'ill) stated somewhere in this thread that he/she believed that all human actions were equivalent to animalistic impulses, that we are "biological automata", just like we claimed animals were. Great. Since this forum allows such a "wide range" of views, I ask that we stop banning rape advocates from the forum or restricting them. Rape is, after all, merely the human term for sexual coercion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion), and since these are reducible to physiological components of our being. Meaning "animals can get raped too".
  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Antiochus For This Useful Post:


  19. #115
    Join Date Jan 2005
    Location The Upside Down
    Posts 11,469
    Rep Power 195

    Default

    Another member (Ele'ill) stated somewhere in this thread that he/she believed that all human actions were equivalent to animalistic impulses, that we are "biological automata", just like we claimed animals were.

    where?

    Great. Since this forum allows such a "wide range" of views, I ask that we stop banning rape advocates from the forum or restricting them. Rape is, after all, merely the human term for sexual coercion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion), and since these are reducible to physiological components of our being. Meaning "animals can get raped too".

    what?

    Can you stop posting like rafiq it's really obnoxious.
    "whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"

    http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
  20. #116
    Join Date Oct 2014
    Location USA unfortunately
    Posts 303
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Communism involves an inherent, lived break from current reality.
    Communism as a movement involves no such thing. The fact is that "an inherent, lived break from current reality" is a luxury only the privileged can afford. For those brutalized by fascists, assaulted/murdered by cops, and downtrodden by institutional injustice, there is no break from reality. They live in reality and for them there is no escaping it. They know all too well the reality of burying a black family member; or the reality of having your country occupied by westerners; or the reality of putting your children to bed with hungry bellies. The reality of the oppressed is the only reality communists should concern ourselves with.

    Such abstract notions of morality are the playground of the bourgeoisie. People who have so much time on their hands because they've never done a day's work in their entire lives or produced even one thing of actual value. They virtue signal all over the place and join in these movements and lifestyles because it makes them feel as though they're good people and have some kind of purpose, a just cause, beyond sitting on their asses growing fat on the sweat of others. This is why there are so many liberals in gated white communities, and why Hollywood is infested with them. If religion is the opium of the masses, then liberalism is the opium of the oppressors: just as common people go to church so they won't feel so guilty about whatever "sin" they commit, the bourgeois types embrace veganism, "save the whales", and other shit so as not to feel so guilty about their comparatively lavish lifestyles.

    As communists we cannot allow ourselves to become sidetracked, nor our movement co-opted. Even if some among our ranks have that luxury, the people for whom (and with whom) we fight do not.
    Last edited by GLF; 15th August 2017 at 13:12.
  21. #117
    Join Date Oct 2016
    Posts 381
    Rep Power 1

    Default


    remember that IbelieveinCapitalism literally made a thread about how cattle prodding is rape in the "oppressed" category, along with you know similar topics like spousal abuse, war rape etc... (no joke).
    I never said putting your hands into an animal just so you can impregnate it and then drink its milk is literally the same and has the same implications as human rape. I posed it hyperbolically in the thread title and intro. However I do think its sexually violating an animal for no other reason than pleasure. Obviously it does not have the same impact as doing it to a human, but it still is an inherently pointless sexual violation of an animal. Unless you think its impossible to sexually violate an animal, of course.

    The rest of your post was just some false analogy and fabrication making it look like we think animals can love animals. You never addressed the main argument behind veganism"which is the following: "Its proponents hold that if human infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled have direct moral status, animals must have a similar status, since there is no known morally relevant ability that those marginal-case humans have that animals lack. "Moral status" may refer to a right not to be killed or made to suffer, or to a general moral requirement to be treated in a certain way."

    "Consider a cow. We ask why it is acceptable to kill this cow for food – we might claim, for example, that the cow has no concept of self and therefore it cannot be wrong to kill it. However, many young children may also lack this same concept of "self".[3] So if we accept the self-concept criterion, then we must also accept that killing children is acceptable in addition to killing cows, which is considered a reductio ad absurdum. So the concept of self cannot be our criterion." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argume...marginal_cases
    Don't bother screaming "hurr durr you think handicapped humans are literally animals, facist!!!!" i am not saying that, and you know it. I am saying that even though they are handicapped they still have the same moral value than non-handicapped people. Because they still feel pain and can suffer, so it wrong to make them suffer even though they lack some other capacity.
    You can only address this argument by showing animals, or certain animals, cant suffer. You only do this by invoking Descartes, literally a christian apologist who said animals are automata but not humans because humans have souls while animals do not. He just tried to fit his argument with his biblical beliefs. Kind of like how you invoke any and every reason to justify hurting animals for fun.
    "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."
  22. #118
    Join Date Jan 2013
    Posts 2,834
    Rep Power 49

    Default

    Communism as a movement involves no such thing. The fact is that "an inherent, lived break from current reality" is a luxury only the privileged can afford. For those brutalized by fascists, assaulted/murdered by cops, and downtrodden by institutional injustice, there is no break from reality. They live in reality and for them there is no escaping it. They know all too well the reality of burying a black family member; or the reality of having your country occupied by westerners; or the reality of putting your children to bed with hungry bellies. The reality of the oppressed is the only reality communists should concern ourselves with.
    I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post but let me tell you, you have no idea what I've been through, or the things I've done. You think that conceiving of communism as a separation from capitalism (as it inherently has to be, or else it's just reformism) is ridiculous, a standpoint taken only by those who live lives of luxury? What's ridiculous to the people you talk about, the downtrodden, the brutalized, is the continuation of this nightmare. If you say that there is no such thing as a break from the domination of human beings you're saying that there is no communism, and that we ought to focus our energies on reformist bullshit (which seems to be something you're fond of anyway). To pretend this, the conception of communism as a break from current reality, is bougeois, shows your ignorance of afropessimism, queer negativity, communisation, and more importantly, human liberation.
    "I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
    Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
  23. The Following User Says Thank You to BIXX For This Useful Post:


  24. #119
    Join Date Jan 2002
    Location Ireland,Cork City.
    Posts 3,441
    Organisation
    Independant Workers Union
    Rep Power 50

    Default

    After this post I won't bother commenting in the thread again since it goes without saying that no meaningful reply will be given. There are, in this thread, 3 types of individuals. The first type involves the ecological fetishists; There are Communists; and then there are, like in every scenario, the opportunists, who cowardly keep one foot in dry land and the other in the water, not willing to commit to either so they may have a fait accompli for both. This thread is merely a rehashing of a 'debate' that has existed in this board for the better part of 2 years and it always runs the exact same course. Before I even get into that, let me summarize the positions of each.

    The ecological fascists/fetishists hold that animals deserve "inalienable rights", the in the same manner humans do within the prism of 'natural rights'. They claim that the killing of animals for food is an extension of "oppression", that while perhaps it is a lesser degree of "exploitation" than exploiting humans under Capitalism, it is nevertheless homologous to it. Now, the problem is not that they believe this, but these monkeys have the temerity to proclaim themselves to be Communists, simultaneously while holding these positions. It isn't even a 'have your cake and eat it too' situation, it is that of someone actively fighting against a movement demanding that he be recognized as its vanguard. The 1000+ arguments shitting down their throats go unanswered. They are utterly ignored. A formula that is reminiscent to a short computer program is followed by these degenerates:

    1) State a general position based on a weak aphorism or a highly tenuous demarcated condition that is wholly arbitrary to the point of being comical ("If animals feel pain, they are moral agents").
    2) Get refuted again and again ad naseum in lengthy, thorough posts.
    3) #Repeat 1) without any shame, waiting for the page number to change.

    Since this group is composed of people like Bixx, Ibelieveinanarchy and a few others at the beginning of this thread, those are the "positions" that must be addressed. They revolve around two parallel 'arguments'. The first is a highly bizarre and quite possibly schizophrenic one that states that because animals "feel pain", they are "moral agents". Then a negation of this is retorted "rufl ur a nihilist xd". To them, the fact that they have set a totally arbitrary neurochemical mechanism as the requirement for something that could only ever be explicated by human consciousness and which has 0, I mean fucking 0 organic links to the neurochemical pathway of "pain", is to put it slightly, shocking. Let me explain what I mean. Imagine that I claim that any organism capable of engaging in sexual reproduction can "love" and I would then tie it to the inherently human sociological concept of love, would you not think of me in the same contemptuous way we think of the scum above? I think you would. Now, imagine, for one second, that I tried to liken this "love" and followed with a (vulgar) logical conclusion. Say that I argued that since a pig can 'love', I can therefore 'love' him/her. Now imagine I started some bizarre movement (veganism is a cult) and I started telling people that fucking an animal is like fucking a human. That bestiality is actually a repressed feature of homosexuality. Does that not make me a purely reactionary ideologue? No. Ok. And before you say I've taken the argument down the most ridiculous possible avenue, remember that IbelieveinCapitalism literally made a thread about how cattle prodding is rape in the "oppressed" category, along with you know similar topics like spousal abuse, war rape etc... (no joke).

    Now, that side of the "debate" is the stranger kind, but yes, that is literally all its been reduced to. The other side of the debate is, I suppose, of the more nuanced sort. It takes many forms: Pleading to the fact that civilization faces a collapse as a result of ecological disaster; "scientific" regurgitation of facts relating to meat consumption or to "prove" that humans are animals; and finally "proof" that animals feel "pain/love/anal warts" whatever. Despite the fact that several users already stated it ad naseum thousands of times and despite the fact that it is never addressed, I'll start by saying that physical science has no business at all in this debate, which is grounded entirely upon the social aspect of "ecology". No one here has ever debated that humans are taxonomically animals, because this would be pointless and not even part of the debate. What the imbeciles in the thread fail to realize is the logical extension of their "arguments" that humans are merely "more developed" or "different" animals. This is precisely why they are castigated by us as the reactionary scum they are, not because we enjoy insulting them. If humans are "merely" animals, GREAT! It must then follow that the only differences between humans and animals are reducible (meaning exclusive) to the physiological domain, ok. Now, do you for one second realize what you are even advocating for, what you are 'saying'? Do you even posses the decency to do so? Because if the current differences between a human and an animal are physiological, if we are oppressing 'fellow animals', then the differences between myself and a Black man when it comes to IQ, are also reducible to the physiological. I could then cite numerous tables, graphs and scientific studies (as you are meaninglessly doing) illustrating that even when you hold all variables constant, IQ is correlated to race. You don't have the balls to accept that. Your internal Starbucks liberal will allow you to make all sorts of claims about animals, but it won't do that. In that way, you command less respect than those subhumans marching in Charlottesville, at least they have the decency to wear the uniform of the enemy. The rest of the garbage about how we can feed more people if we all become vegetarians is, again, totally meaningless. To a Communist there is nothing holy. If tomorrow all our "food" were made in a laboratory using synthetic compounds and flavored with additives; equaling or surpassing the nutritive content of 'real food', no one would make a thread hailing the collapse of humanity. It just doesn't mean much. Humans already produce far more food than needed. Food scarcity lies entirely outside the domain of food production in the 21st century, maybe if you made the argument in 1316 or whatever, you would have a point.

    And really, the most abominable part of it all are the admins and moderators. I don't know the internal workings of the forum, but Chikautsu (sorry if I spelled the name wrong, too lazy to look it up) said in another thread that I should stop using the term reactionary carte blanche , saying that he handles "real" reactionaries (citing an Osama Bin Laden supporter). Well, good good, thank God we've finally weeded out those Al-Qaeda Salafists from our ranks. That is the standard. Another member (Ele'ill) stated somewhere in this thread that he/she believed that all human actions were equivalent to animalistic impulses, that we are "biological automata", just like we claimed animals were. Great. Since this forum allows such a "wide range" of views, I ask that we stop banning rape advocates from the forum or restricting them. Rape is, after all, merely the human term for sexual coercion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion), and since these are reducible to physiological components of our being. Meaning "animals can get raped too".

    Have you ever killed something and eaten it?
    "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. " - Buenaventura Durutti

    "The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on earth." - Ernesto Che Guevara.

    "Its Called the American dream, because you gotta be asleep to believe it". - George Carlin

    Tone ~ Emmet ~ Larkin ~ Connolly ~ O Donnell


    www.union.ie


  25. #120
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Location England, United Kingdom
    Posts 6
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I don't really have much to add here, but I think that Veganism should be the norm after the revolution. I consider myself a speciesist and aren't particularly fond of animals, but I cannot justify the potential pain they feel, for the taste of their flesh (whether they are autonoma seems improvable to me). Vegan advocacy within the current system isn't something I necessarily oppose, but I would encourage my comrades to focus upon raising class-conciousness and anti-capitalist action.

    I have noticed a lot of hostility in this thread towards the Vegans and it is both unnecessary and ridiculously transparent. If you want to eat meat, it just seems reasonable to me to be honest about it and not to paint Vegans as awful people, or to assume particular standards that they do not adhere to.

    I haven't really put a lot of thought into how we should treat animals as Communists, but my initial impulse is to just leave them alone. No pets, livestock etc., unless it was the case that they were necesarry. It has pretty much been proven that human beings can get sufficient nourishment from a plant-based diet and many diseases have been linked to the consumption of animal products. Just my thoughts, please inform me if I am being bourgeois or reactionary
  26. The Following User Says Thank You to I Am The Walrus 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