"Performance Artist" eats fox in protest against h

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Dec 6 2004 15:25
Jack wrote:
Do you think anything/one can be liberated without self emancipation, then?

you mean like patients in mental hospitals can't be "liberated" or other people who are not in a position of self organising and emansipation?

Like wendal said, you leave the fuckers alone they do what they do, thats enough animal liberation to me. What would you call removing oppressive structures and culture then even if the change was initiated by the oppressor?

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:30

Well yeah then I agree with JDMF. Maybe not all animals are capable of self-emancipation (new word grin ) but they can be liberated. If you think otherwise then thats like saying people in jail can't be liberated isn't it? Factory farm animals basically are in jail.. on death row.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:35

No thats bollocks. Following the same logic you could say only women can work towards womens liberation and black liberation can't involve whites..

You can't just say "the difference is they're humans". Thats irrelevant.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:42
Jack wrote:
3rdseason wrote:
No thats bollocks. Following the same logic you could say only women can work towards womens liberation and black liberation can't involve whites..

You can't just say "the difference is they're humans". Thats irrelevant.

Are you saying you think men can liberate women, and whites can liberate blacks, then?

No, but I think that womens struggles should ideally involve men and black struggles should ideally involve whites.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:44

Anyway whats wrong with the term animal liberation anyway?

Like I was saying liberation is different from this self-emancipation malarky.

Most animals can't liberate themselves but they can be liberated by humans.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:49

No ideas about the 'special' status of humans and their 'right' to do pretty much whatever they want to animals are very much ideological constructs and there are some parallels between the way predjudice against blacks or women are constructed.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:51
revol68 wrote:
whilst we all know that animals welfare is largely dependent on humans and how we interact with other species and their habitats.

erm yeah well on in so far as humans need to leave them alone. Its not as if animals cant get by without humans.

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:54

surely animal liberation just implies that you let them wander around eating grass/killing pigeons etc., as nature intended, as opposed to controlling them in anyway other than building fences to stop the fuckers eating your food sources/peeing in your drinking water? which is different from animal welfare, as welfare implies that society continues to breed animals to be killed for food/product testing, just doesn't pack them together in vile conditions. which can be connected to human liberation, rightly or wrongly, if you make the arguement that as humans are an advanced species capable of high abstract thought such as empathy with creatures not of the same species as us, then if you have society treating other animals as a simple resource that lays some psychological foundation for the re-emergence of hierarchy.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 15:59

Its simple you leave them alone by

* not confining them

* not eating them

* not destroying their habitat

obviously no one can follow all this 100% and its not a religious code but its easy to follow these general principles.

Its not about how intelligent they are. Its not about whether a baby cow can do maths or post on enrager its about whether it has emotions and suffers when it is kept in darkness 22 hours a day in stalls so small it can not turn round and deprived of essential foodtypes etc.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Dec 6 2004 16:01

somehow animal issues, as simple as they really are faced with the industrial animal production at the moment, always tend to get the wannabe philosophers out to fuck every comma (sorry, saying in my own language which doesn't translate well).

What revol is saying is that there is no difference between concepts of liberation and self-emancipation, and i dont agree with that, so the differences in opinion are about concepts, not the issue (though i suspect revol disagrees with the issues as well).

Similarly like GT pointed out the concept of animal welfare implies the use and abuse of animals by humans, but taking steps which improve the conditions of the animals, longer chains, bigger cages, stuff like that, much like bosses are giving us crumbs and pointing out to these reforms.

Animals do fight back, constantly for their lives, but we are so superior as species and have means in our disposal to control and abuse animals in ways which leave no space for non-human animals to fight back - of course this is not organised in a way humans do it, but there is a clear desire of a living sentient being to avoid suffering, pain and death.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 16:01
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

Arguing over what is "natural" is bullshit. Nothings natural or everythings natural. Its a fucking meaningless word.

You eat meat (I assume). I dont eat meat. Is one of us being unnatural? No cos its a meaningless term. Its not unnatural for humans to pollute the planet and mass slaughter other animals.

Its just a bad idea for humans to do that IMO.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 16:05
JDMF wrote:

[We] have means in our disposal to control and abuse animals in ways which leave no space for non-human animals to fight back - of course this is not organised in a way humans do it, but there is a clear desire of a living sentient being to avoid suffering, pain and death.

Exactly. Animals do fight back where and when they can. But their options are limited due to low intelligence/different physical attributes.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 16:09

Revol actually read the whole post next time. I

3rdseason wrote:

* not destroying their habitat

obviously no one can follow all this 100% and its not a religious code but its easy to follow these general principles.

...meaning I know some habitat destruction is inevitable. Im not suggesting everyone walks around dusting the ground infront of them so they dont step on anything... Im just saying we should minimise suffering. (Oh what a nutty animal rights concept!! roll eyes )

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 16:12
revol68 wrote:
3rdseason wrote:
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

Arguing over what is "natural" is bullshit. Nothings natural or everythings natural. Its a fucking meaningless word.

You eat meat (I assume). I dont eat meat. Is one of us being unnatural? No cos its a meaningless term. Its not unnatural for humans to pollute the planet and mass slaughter other animals.

Its just a bad idea for humans to do that IMO.

that was my fucking point u tard! roll eyes

No. You were saying its natural to kill and eat animals.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 16:16
revol68 wrote:

no i was saying that anything humans engage in is natural unless uve found someway of transcending the material realm! hence natural becomes a meaningless term

So your way of say of sayin that was to say...

Quote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

ok then! eek eek

Spartacus's picture
Spartacus
Offline
Joined: 20-09-03
Dec 6 2004 19:10
Quote:
Why is humans killling an animal any worse than a dog or lion killing one?

if they're in a tribe in a forest, then nothing. if they're in modern civilisation, which as a non-primitivist is how i imagine any future society to be closer to, then the difference is that a dog has not developed the technology and ethical system to survive without meat (although apparently according to dave douglass they can), whereas even if lions could cultivate soya bean fields and reached the high intellectual level of being able to feel distress at the death of not only a member of your own species but that of another species, i presume they are similar to cats and therefore would go blind if they go without meat. humans on the others hand have access to a wide variety of foods and nutrients, are perfectly able to survive healthy without consuming anything from another animal beyond accidently eating spiders in our sleep, and are capable of very high levels of thinking.

if anything i said before sounded like i was assuming wat was natural or not, then that's not what i meant, it was short hand for wandering around doing whatever it is they do, in the case of cows, eating grass, farting and then eating more grass, possibly with a break to stare blankly at a passing rambler. for instance near where i live when i'm in the uk, there's a big common that cows roam around on eating grass and pissing off golfers for my amusement, there's just some cattle grids to stop them getting into people's gardens. the way i understand animal liberation is that all animals would be able to do that or the equivalent, only without them being also used for milk and meat. that isn't welfare, because it implies the complete cesation of their use as a resource and lack of any control over them beyond stopping them eating our food. that's not an issue of welfare it's an issue of liberation, as i see it. if they want to oppress each other that's their affair until they learn to speak a human language and the cows ask us for help in overthrowing the oppressive sheep!

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 6 2004 20:45

Yeah basically what GT said. The bottom line is that humans can survive without meat and some animals can't.

Im not sure what the dictionary difference between liberation and welfare is but personally I would consider animals liberated if humans saw them as an end in themselves rather than as a means to an end (a biological resource for our use).

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 00:34
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

I disagree. I would rather say that our domesticating of animals is as natural as a nest making a bird or a rat killing a cat

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Dec 7 2004 10:02
Jack wrote:

Yea, that's fine, so long as you don't mind being wrong?

jack, your razor sharp argument leaves me stunned wink

regarding naturality: you can't have it both ways, both arguing how different humans with their culture are from other animals and then claiming that the current industrial animal abuse is as natural as a bird making a nest. Also i find it funny how people always want to compare themselves to a lion killing a deer, eventhough as humans we would be closer to a rat scacaging around and surviving on many different diets smile

What is natural anyway in our society - just an empty word used by everyone in any situation. If someone claims that it is natural to oppress non-human animals in factory farms, why would not other forms of oppression be natural as well? I think claiming something is natural and something is not in human society is a minefield...

But then on the other hand, it is only natural for humans to have a diet which is sustainable and would benefit the existance of our species as widely as possible, and for this purpose vegan/vegetarian diet suits very well.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 11:52
Jack wrote:
Wendal wrote:
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

I disagree. I would rather say that our domesticating of animals is as natural as a nest making a bird or a rat killing a cat

Yea, that's fine, so long as you don't mind being wrong?

Oh, go eat a fox! smile

Quote:
no one is arguing that eating meat is natural

See quote above.

Quote:
but ultimately if animal rights are dependent upon human rationale then in no way can animals be said to be liberated in a coherent sense, and certainly welfare provides a much more accurate term.

Maybie a more corect word would be to say that the animals are released just lika a prisoner or a slave can be released. We can only talk about welfore as long as there are no enviromental posibilities for animal nationalism. If we stop the domestification of animals and there is not enough food for them in their habitat then we might have to suport them with welfare.

Pah!
Offline
Joined: 7-12-04
Dec 7 2004 12:15

I read some where (i forget where so i cant back this up) that parliment has spent 700hours debating fox hunting and it spent 7hours debating prior to attacking iraq.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 7 2004 12:19

It's because Wendel is Swedish. Swedish circle A 's just fucking rule?

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 7 2004 12:25
Jack wrote:
Yes, but having difficulty hating someone really disturbs me. :(

Look, I've tried it. Believe me, you can't hate the Swedes. I heard their Commies got around 20% of the vote in the last election.

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Dec 7 2004 14:49
Wendal wrote:
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

I disagree. I would rather say that our domesticating of animals is as natural as a nest making a bird or a rat killing a cat

I disagree with domestication of animals too..

but pleased dont use the word natural. Its a silly concept as at least 3 people in this thread have explained (see above).

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 15:47
revol68 wrote:
Wendal wrote:
Jack wrote:
Wendal wrote:
revol68 wrote:
our domesticating of animals is as natural as a bird making a nest or a cat killing a rat!

I disagree. I would rather say that our domesticating of animals is as natural as a nest making a bird or a rat killing a cat

Yea, that's fine, so long as you don't mind being wrong?

Oh, go eat a fox! smile

Quote:
no one is arguing that eating meat is natural

See quote above.

Quote:
but ultimately if animal rights are dependent upon human rationale then in no way can animals be said to be liberated in a coherent sense, and certainly welfare provides a much more accurate term.

Maybie a more corect word would be to say that the animals are released just lika a prisoner or a slave can be released. We can only talk about welfore as long as there are no enviromental posibilities for animal nationalism. If we stop the domestification of animals and there is not enough food for them in their habitat then we might have to suport them with welfare.

dear fucking christ the whole point of the "as natural as a bird making a nest" was to point out the absurdity of denoting any human activity as unnatural and hence the general meaninglessness of using some sort of primordial natural narrative that is usurped by tyrannical humans who upset the natural order of things!

Ok then i agree with you to some degree. I tought you were trying to make a point of what is "natural"(which works as a red blanket om me also by the way).

I still think that we are not build to be functional predators and we have to prepare meat to even be able to digest it(if you are not a fucked-up fox eating performance artist that is) so is say that there ar more proof that we are shaped for eating vegiterian than the other way around.

I agree with you that there is no such thing as 100% natural when it comes to humans tough.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 16:11
Jack wrote:
Wendal, why don't I despise you?

Jack tries realy hard to hate Wendal...why cant he do it? The propaganda and missguidance of the Capitalists and the Illuminaty has filled his whole body with a thick mud of anger towards the person who are realy the mesiah of the whole universe. Still somewhere deep inside a voice of reason is crying out. Oh yes! it all becomes crystal clear. The fog of false conciousnes is sweeping away from his eyes and he sees the world crystal clear. Tears is pouring down from his eyes. How could he have nown? Every word that Wendal had said was the total ontological truth about reality in its every form. - How could i be so folish, he asks himself time and time again. He falls to his knees, exshousted from the total enlightment, but for the first time in his life he is now realy, realy ready to rise.

smile

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 16:21

It would spoil the mood. Its something strange with using fucking and mesiah in the same sentence.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 16:34

grin

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Dec 7 2004 16:42

Your just saying that to all the boys.

Topic locked