DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Animals, being vegan, etc.

359 posts / 0 new
Last post
ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Aug 14 2013 04:06
Animals, being vegan, etc.

Split from a thread that was being derailed by this tangent, and thought I should prevent it from derailing further. I'm splitting from comment 74, but it really began here at #61: http://libcom.org/forums/general/things-lib-communists-say-you-hate-hearing-all-time-08082013?page=1#comment-521340

Mike S. wrote:
Kureigo-San wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
Anarcho vegan fundamentalist diatribes against the evil that is eating pizza, milk, eggs, fish etc. I don't want communism if there's no free pizza with real cheese on it. I don't consider chickens my "comrades". Anything Derrick Jensen says. Not a fan of Brian Dominick either.

This certainly isn't going to help me fit in judging by the generous 9 up votes you got for that, but when you say: "I don't consider chickens my "comrades"" It isn't half as relevant as you seem to think. For the simple reason that you don't have to consider someone your comrade or even like them in order to disapprove of their violent death.

OK, go! Call me names.

A chicken isn't a "someone. I don't care about liberating chickens I care about liberating the human working class. Some of, no, most all of you go as far as to attack animal testing for medical science as well. About 95% is done on lab rats. AIDS research on small monkeys. Opposition to medical testing is wrapped in pseudoscience and "direct action" as far as setting livestock free, attacking livestock transport trucks, blowing up medical labs, destroying the medical research, setting the mice free, threatening lab technicians, scientists, butchers, farmers and generally anyone directly involved with the meat industry will gain my scorn as will preaching to me about meat eating being the source of class society while comparing it to the NAZI holocaust. The core argument comes down to the silly position that field mice hold the same value as human life. Be a vegan, go ahead, but when vegans turn into "anarchist" Jimmy Swaggart's I can't help but hold my nose.

I wanted to avoid a debate, but I can't in good conscience sit by and let this type of shit be said unchallenged.

Animals, like humans, are capable of both physical pleasure and physical pain. And like humans, they are capable of both emotional pleasure and emotional pain. Therefore, they should not be forced by us to live in horrible conditions which deprive them of physical and emotional pleasure, and subject them to physical and emotional suffering. Most especially not when for entirely trivial purposes, such as providing food that it is unnecessary for a healthy human diet.

You don't have to think an animal is as important as a human to recognize that an animal is way more important than a human's desire for a steak or cheese.

The conditions which farmed animals live under are some of the most horrendous and torturous you can imagine. (Watch the 12 minute "Meet Your Meat" video on YouTube if you have any doubt.) And they are deprived of the happy life they could otherwise have.

Animals aren't as smart as humans, but that doesn't mean their capacity for pain, pleasure, distress, or joy are any less intense. Baby humans aren't very smart, but they're capable of pain, pleasure, distress, and joy. It's less complex, sure, but that doesn't make it less deeply felt. (If you've ever lived with a cat or dog, you'll know that animals are capable of negative and positive emotions.)

If you don't care about the suffering and wellbeing of other creatures, just because those creatures aren't human, that's some tragically cold-hearted shit. But it's not a big surprise. People's ideas about what's right and wrong are largely shaped by their culture. Otherwise decent, good-hearted people can support some really evil shit if that's the norm in their surrounding culture. Like back when the majority of white people used to think slavery was fine. Most weren't evil, most were decent folks, but they supported something evil. (Before you go accusing me of comparing animals and human slaves, I'm not, what I'm comparing is the way our ideas of right and wrong are shaped.) There are numerous other historical and contemporary examples.

I understand many people think that veganism is merely consumer politics and doesn't impact any real change. I don't have illusions about the extent to which veganism will make a difference within capitalism. The hopes I have for animals are cast on the other side of revolution. But it will still take a strong animal rights movement in the future anarchist society. The more we can do to build an animal rights consciousness now, the better - and that's a good reason to be a vegan.

If animals are provided with a happy life, then I don't see a problem with gathering eggs and milk from them. But animals must be allowed to live those happy lives until their natural end (or euthanized once they're very old and sick and suffering). The whole "happy butcher" thing is a perversion of kindness. If a creature is having a happy life, then what an awful thing to cut that happy life short.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 14 2013 05:40

Very good post and I am in complete sympathy with the sentiments. Politically I believe it goes further than this - inefficiency of production etc.
My post concerning this on the other thread was pretty flippant and I feel a bit of a wanker after reading this. There was truth in it though as my main motivation for smashing windows was the pleasure throwing bricks afforded me.
I do like animals, have a pet dog that I like better than most humans and I keep chickens which are great fun and provide me with eggs but like most people my head separates the food on my plate with its method of production. This is not a reasonable justification, it's just the truth.
Another aspect of this is that poor nutrition impairs brain function and is not conducive to good mental well being and making the best choices. The revolution will be fuelled by green smoothies!!!

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 08:28
Quote:
providing food that it is unnecessary for a healthy human diet

Hmm...I don't know Ultraviolet. There's a lot of food that's unnecessary for a healthy diet that I absolutely love. Human don't really need chocolate or coffee or sesame oil to sustain a healthy diet. So I know this might sound a bit semantic, but I think if that's the criteria, your critique would have go a lot deeper then animal products.

Also, I don't think anyone on libcom would defend factory farms. I think we all agree that animal production of any sort should be done as humanely as possible. However, I don't particularly think it makes me cold hearted if I think my desire for cheese trumps a cow's desire not to be milked. I mean, I'm a lazy vegetarian myself (mostly for health reasons and I do eat seafood). But, to be blunt, I think discussion of animal 'rights' basically distorts an already problematic term into meaninglessness.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 06:26

I think you will find that Vegetarian/Vegans are well above the norm on libcom. Its just not something that people necessarily see as some sort of 'prefigurative' position to take re anarchism/communism. Having said that I think the consumption of meat and other things from animals that have caused them a level of pain for our enjoyment unacceptable, and so have been a vegan for many decades. But I can understand peoples piss taking, AR did have a almost cult like behaviour and hold in the anarchist subcultures and rather it being something to argue about occasionally down the pub became yet something else to 'be' before you would be accepted. There is still quite a lot of anger about that.

As for the rant about the ALF, you some of the stuff they do is good, some of it is mental. Not eating meat/animal products is a no brainer. Testing on cosmetics not acceptable, testing on medicines that have been testing ad-neusuem unacceptable. Though I would say that a very small amount of animal testing does need to happen. Sadly and Ive thought about this alot over the years computers just don't cut it compared with animals as a model. And faced with a terminal disease I would pretty much say yes to anything rather than die, even if it was accepting operations/medications that have been honed by way
of causing pain to other sentient beings.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 06:37

People saying veganism not being relevant to the derailing of capitalism was always a strawman, anyway. It's relevant to animal exploitation abolitionism.

Here is a link to a leading healthcare provider in the states issuing a call to physicians to advocate for a plant-based diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Business interests have noted the sagging sales of animal products and a lot of these capitalists are turning their attention toward imitation meat, this stuff is also unhealthy but at least animals will be fucked with less - (I will try to find the link)

Things are most certainly changing - and if the cynical rush to give two fingers to vegans because it's not FOR THE REVOLUTION means someone can't see that, then that's a shame.

Mike S' irrational contempt for the concept is commonplace. He tries to pass a field mouse having less value than human life as self-evident, and moves on with his rant that I've heard a thousand alterations of. Well congratulations for the ruthlessly speciesist position, most people aren't quite so honest as that. Why did you go with field mouse though? Wouldn't a rhinoceros have served the same function in your argument? I am thinking that you think the fact that it is small makes it evidently less valuable. Have you read Mutual Aid? Even a few pages of that is sufficient to observe that animals have rather complicated lives amongst each other.

When some vegans compare the current state of animal affairs to the nazi holocaust, they are referring to the attitude of it being self-evident that it is the animals' duty to die - the attitude that brokers no consideration of whether an animal has its own interest to live. Additionally, the argument that because we have derived certain benefits from their exploitation makes that exploitation morally correct, makes no sense. If I shank my granny it's all very sad yes but she was planning on taking me out of her will - so it's OK? Animal rights can only be animal rights when we have to go without some benefit that they would have provided - the gain that we miss out on is irrelevant, otherwise their supposed rights are meaningless when they can just be turned off when we say that we need something. It's similar to that bit Chomsky likes to say 'If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people saying things you hate, then you don't believe in freedom of speech'. If you don't believe in animal rights when it benefits you to ignore them, then you don't believe in animal rights.

This world was most certainly not made for only humans, and Mike needs to stop believing that it is.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Aug 14 2013 07:00

Ultaviolet, I agree with some of what you said, but most importantly agree that this is not something that can be solved until we have a rational economy. However, I don't think we should cut down on meat consumption for moralistic reasons, but for environmental reasons. In the mean time, I'm not sure how being a vegan or vegetarian now is a step towards making that happen?

Just with everything else, realistically we need to look at the collective self-interest of the working class. Not eating meat will have a positive impact on the environment, so I don't think we need an animal "rights" movement to make that happen. I just tend to find that moral arguments for things are far less effective or useful than material arguments.

So I eat meat at the moment because I'm not sure there's any positive impact in me not eating meat, and it's a pain in the arse to be veggie in the country I'm living in, but when we get the Full Communism I reckon we should save eating meat for christmas and stuff like that.

EDIT: just saw the above post. Speciesism? wall

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 08:48

Speciesism

Noun
The assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 07:14
commieprincess wrote:
EDIT: just saw the above post. Speciesism? wall

Though I cringe a little with the term speciesism, I do find it strange that people who accept evolution don't also accept that animals who have travelled down similar evolutionary trajectories as our good selves wouldn't feel the same quality of pain, there are very good evolutionary reasons for them to feel excruciating pain. That to me its pretty obvious. And I think to deny it or only seeing meat consumption from an environmental standpoint rather misses this fundamental point.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Aug 14 2013 07:19

Wow, it's always amazing to see the correlation between animal rights folk and rude, anti-social folk in action.

You didn't stutter, you just used a term which I find non-sensical. Any definition I've seen in the past has included the fact that humans "discriminate" against animals - presumably comparible to discrimination against black people, women, disabled people etc? Because those forms of discrimination can only be combatted effectively when framed within the class struggle. How do we frame animal rights within the class struggle? How is it in the self-interest of the working class to take a moral stance on animals?

EDIT: cross-post with Mr Jolly. Good post, will have to reply later

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 07:44
Kureigo-San wrote:
People saying veganism not being relevant to the derailing of capitalism was always a strawman, anyway. It's relevant to animal exploitation abolitionism.

"Veganarchist" theory attaches "animal liberation" to the struggle against capitalism. As a matter of theory even suggests the domination of animals led to humans dominating humans.

Kureigo-San wrote:
Here is a link to a leading healthcare provider in the states issuing a call to physicians to advocate for a plant-based diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

So what? Some people eat too much sugar, meat and dairy products. Yes, that is unhealthy.

Kureigo-San wrote:
Business interests have noted the sagging sales of animal products and a lot of these capitalists are turning their attention toward imitation meat, this stuff is also unhealthy but at least animals will be fucked with less - (I will try to find the link)

Global meat production and consumption has been on the rise over the last decade. This is what's driven so many to take "direct action". Because the guilt trip moralizing you're doing right now has been ineffective.

Kureigo-San wrote:
Things are most certainly changing - and if the cynical rush to give two fingers to vegans because it's not FOR THE REVOLUTION means someone can't see that, then that's a shame.

Nothing is changing. Global meat production and consumption is on the rise.

Kureigo-San wrote:
Mike S' irrational contempt for the concept is commonplace. He tries to pass a field mouse having less value than human life as self-evident, and moves on with his rant that I've heard a thousand alterations of. Well congratulations for the ruthlessly speciesist position, most people aren't quite so honest as that. Why did you go with field mouse though? Wouldn't a rhinoceros have served the same function in your argument? I am thinking that you think the fact that it is small makes it evidently less valuable. Have you read Mutual Aid? Even a few pages of that is sufficient to observe that animals have rather complicated lives amongst each other.

Yes, I've read Mutual Aid and it wasn't written to guilt trip people into not eating meat. My "ruthlessly speciesist position" is if experimenting on a rat, monkey or even rhinoceros (not likely to happen) is necessary for the advancement of medical science, as in, to save human lives then so be it. You on the other hand will conjure up all manner of pseudoscience to back up your pious morality.

Kureigo-San wrote:
When some vegans compare the current state of animal affairs to the nazi holocaust, they are referring to the attitude of it being self-evident that it is the animals' duty to die - the attitude that brokers no consideration of whether an animal has its own interest to live. Additionally, the argument that because we have derived certain benefits from their exploitation makes that exploitation morally correct, makes no sense. If I shank my granny it's all very sad yes but she was planning on taking me out of her will - so it's OK?

Your granny is a human being. No that wouldn't be OK. When I spray a roach with roach spray should I face the same consequences as a person who murders a human being? Insects feel pain as well. Anyhow, Gary Yourofsky here, a leading vegan activist, likes to directly compare the two (NAZI holocaust and "animal holocaust"):

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAnimalHolocaust

Kureigo-San wrote:

Animal rights can only be animal rights when we have to go without some benefit that they would have provided - the gain that we miss out on is irrelevant, otherwise their supposed rights are meaningless when they can just be turned off when we say that we need something. It's similar to that bit Chomsky likes to say 'If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people saying things you hate, then you don't believe in freedom of speech'. If you don't believe in animal rights when it benefits you to ignore them, then you don't believe in animal rights.

Animal rights and liberation are two separate things. No, I don't advocate animal liberation. I advocate humane treatment of livestock and humane slaughter. Gary up there in that video (and you) will say "how can there be humane slaughter?". You'll once again take the Buddhist/idealist position that all life is sentient and deserves the same treatment. I eat chicken. I drink milk with cereal. I eat honey. I eat fish, pizza and bread/cake products made with eggs. I'm also a communist as are countless other communists who eat animal products. We're concerned with human liberation and even that at the moment is a daunting task. You go worry about the chickens and I'll stick with worrying about the millions of human who are dying each year from starvation, the common flu, treatable diseases and such. The time and effort you people spend on liberating hamsters would be better spent trying to liberate humanity.

Kureigo-San wrote:
This world was most certainly not made for only humans, and Mike needs to stop believing that it is.

As do the majority of posters on this forum who also eat animal products and support animal testing for medical science. The difference with me is, as with other issues, I'm not afraid to speak my mind. I'm not going to capitulate and cower down to your idealist moral arguments. Especially when you make this about "Mike". And this is a perfect example of why you people annoy the living shit out of me which was the original purpose for bringing the topic up in the other thread.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 07:37
Webby wrote:
I have a pet dog

Species traitor.

commieprincess wrote:
Christmas

Class traitor.

Kur, I have 100% confidence in saying my life is a whole hell of a lot more important than a field mouse or hippo. Simarly, the existance of humanity trumps the existence of any other species on the planet.

Regarding working class ethics, if anything the working class has more of a moral duty to support things like animal testing as it improves the lives of humans in a material way. Now, I'm not in favor of putting shampoo in the eyes of helpless cute little bunnies, but I don't care a lick how many monkeys have to die to cure aids or how many rats have to die to cure cancer.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 07:42
Mike S. wrote:
Rant rant rant.

You sound as mad as the maddest AR fundie.

*** Edit you redeemed yourself a little further down the rant ***

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 08:19
Kur wrote:
It's similar to that bit Chomsky likes to say 'If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people saying things you hate, then you don't believe in freedom of speech'.

I don't care if Chomsky said this, it's f*cking stupid. No platform for fascists and I have no problem using force to prevent their 'freedom' or speech and assembly.

Also, it's a ridiculous and not even remotely analagous to compare free speech (something that can only done by humans) to animal rights.

What's next, the right of dogs to bark all night and keep up the neighbors? Direct action to defend the right to free barking!

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 07:41

Mt Jolly. Ya, sure, I'm either mad or I'm being singled out as being some sort of fascist for eating meat. "People once supported Chattel slavery and thought it was normal". That sort of shit does piss me off. Yes.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 07:43

You redeemed yourself a little as your thought progressed. Getting that wound up is not good for your blood pressure which is ultimately not good for the animals.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 07:53

I haven't been trying to guilt trip you. I made it 'about' Mike S because Mike S holds the opinions I'm responding to. What are you talking about?

RE: Gary Yourofsky, Am I damned by association? He's engaging in propaganda speech - I'm sure if you asked him about the matter in private he would admit some nuance. The human's ability to remember more vividly the past and to fretfully fear the future would have added considerable dimensions to the nazi human holocaust that are absent from the current animal "holocaust", of course - but the essential character of genocide remains. Is it OK to call it that instead? If not, why not.
What are, in your mind, the essential characteristics of my granny that make her slaughter more of an atrocity than an animal's? (Hope my granny doesn't start using libcom today of all days). What you did here:

Quote:
Your granny is a human being. No that wouldn't be OK.

again was assume that superiority of human importance is self-evident. I don't know why I'm supposed to believe this in the first place, let alone how I'm supposed to accept it as the pretext to exploitation of animals.

edit: Mike, I don't think you're a bad person and never did.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 07:52
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Webby wrote:
I have a pet dog

Species traitor.

commieprincess wrote:
Christmas

Class traitor.

Kur, I have 100% confidence in saying my life is a whole hell of a lot more important than a field mouse or hippo. Simarly, the existance of humanity trumps the existence of any other species on the planet.

Regarding working class ethics, if anything the working class has more of a moral duty to support things like animal testing as it improves the lives of humans in a material way. Now, I'm not in favor of putting shampoo in the eyes of helpless cute little bunnies, but I don't care a lick how many monkeys have to die to cure aids or how many rats have to die to cure cancer.

Well it's quite normal and healthy to prioritise your own personal existence, but I'm not sure how you're extending that to 'animals are mine to use'. They're not synonymous.

The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it. Cancer is our most popular apology for animal experimentation but the answer has been growing on trees the whole time. I don't want to expend too much energy convincing you of this, I just recommend T Colin Campbell as an author to start with if you want. On AIDs I am less familiar

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 08:32

What I find antisocial and backwards is the even more extreme vegan anarchists such as Walter Bond who place more value on a chickens life than that of humanity. In order to "end civilization" how many people must die (to end the "chicken holocaust") ?

http://anarchistnews.org/content/back-primitive-walter-bond

I can make use of Godwins Law as well. Who else placed more value on a chickens life over that of a humans?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ5_EX-_Ymk

I can even play on emotions as you people try to do as well. Why don't we tell this little girl we need to end a large portion of research into leukemia because lab rats are being harmed?

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 07:57
Kureigo-San wrote:

The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it. Cancer is our most popular apology for animal experimentation but the answer has been growing on trees the whole time. I don't want to expend too much energy convincing you of this, I just recommend T Colin Campbell as an author to start with if you want. On AIDs I am less familiar

And here comes the pseudo science. All we need to do to reverse cancer is become vegan! And I'm being aggressive with you for singling me out as some anomaly thus making it some sort of personal thing.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 07:59
Kureigo-San wrote:
The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it. Cancer is our most popular apology for animal experimentation but the answer has been growing on trees the whole time. I don't want to expend too much energy convincing you of this, I just recommend T Colin Campbell as an author to start with if you want. On AIDs I am less familiar

You're in the realm of pseudo science here my friend.
You can spend a lifetime as a vegan eating chips and veggie-burgers and be as unhealthiest person on the planet.

I've been a vegan for 27 years and have to take cholesterol lowering medication. Im not over weight and have a uber healthy plant based diet and run 10 miles or so a week... genetics/bad luck innit.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Aug 14 2013 07:58
Mr. Jolly wrote:
commieprincess wrote:
EDIT: just saw the above post. Speciesism? wall

Though I cringe a little with the term speciesism, I do find it strange that people who accept evolution don't also accept that animals who have travelled down similar evolutionary trajectories as our good selves wouldn't feel the same quality of pain, there are very good evolutionary reasons for them to feel excruciating pain. That to me its pretty obvious. And I think to deny it or only seeing meat consumption from an environmental standpoint rather misses this fundamental point.

I don't reject the fact that animals feel pain. Not at all. Of course I'm not into inflicting unnecessary pain. But this isn't the same as accepting that "speciesism" is a legitimate form of discrimination.

Also, I'm not sure how my being a vegan now is going to reduce animal pain? I'm also not sure how it relates to the class struggle? And if it doesn't, how exactly do people plan on ending meat eating?

On the other hand, I find it ahistorical and paternalistic that people think we can somehow selflessly "save" teh cute lambs as part of the class struggle. In reality, the struggle has to be fought for collective self-interest. It seems to me that the only collective self-interest we have in not eating lambs is an environmental one.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 08:17
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Kureigo-San wrote:
The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it. Cancer is our most popular apology for animal experimentation but the answer has been growing on trees the whole time. I don't want to expend too much energy convincing you of this, I just recommend T Colin Campbell as an author to start with if you want. On AIDs I am less familiar

You're in the realm of pseudo science here my friend.
You can spend a lifetime as a vegan eating chips and veggie-burgers and be as unhealthiest person on the planet.

I've been a vegan for 27 years and have to take cholesterol lowering medication. Im not over weight and have a uber healthy plant based diet and run 10 miles or so a week... genetics/bad luck innit.

Chips and veggie-burgers have lots of fat content and the plant parts of them aren't in their whole, unaltered state which is essential. My failure to communicate that. Most fruits have about 80% carbs, and 10% each for protein and fat. On the other hand, the fat profile for veggie burgers usually ranges between 20-30% and sometimes beyond. The point to always come back to is that plants in their normal state have everything just the way we need it.

Health-wise, it's not a question of, vegan, vegetarian or whatever. It's a question of whole plants vs everything else.

Genetics are not the be all end all, as they can have certain aspects of them activated or deactivated by factors in our environment, the most important of which being what goes inside us. Case in point: People in rural china are lean and free from heart disease, stroke and cancer - when these same people go to USA or UK they would usually adopt that nation's dietary practices, and it is at that point that they also adopt that nation's disease risks. It ain't all genetics

edit: but bloody hell I'm being drawn in. You might be able to find The China Study for free on pdf - the book references 750+ studies to support what I'm telling you, so take it up with those guys.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 08:16
Kureigo-San wrote:
Quote:
Your granny is a human being. No that wouldn't be OK.

again was assume that superiority of human importance is self-evident. I don't know why I'm supposed to believe this in the first place, let alone how I'm supposed to accept it as the pretext to exploitation of animals.

edit: Mike, I don't think you're a bad person and never did.

If there's no hierarchy between species then in your vegan utopia a person who squashes a bug is no different than a person who kills his grandmother out of some deranged anger for being cut out of the will. We can't all be the dalai lama....not all of us embrace slave morality.

No, you may not think I'm a bad person you might simply think I don't know any better. That this "holocaust" has been normalized in my eyes so eating meat, to me, is no different than crossing the street. Just as people once thought it was "normal" to own chattel slaves. Most vegan activists literally do see themselves in the same light as abolitionists. The John Browns of meat consumption. I'm an unrepentant "speciesist". Yes. I'll own that label.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 08:20
Mike S. wrote:
Kureigo-San wrote:
Quote:
Your granny is a human being. No that wouldn't be OK.

again was assume that superiority of human importance is self-evident. I don't know why I'm supposed to believe this in the first place, let alone how I'm supposed to accept it as the pretext to exploitation of animals.

edit: Mike, I don't think you're a bad person and never did.

If there's no hierarchy between species then in your vegan utopia a person who squashes a bug is no different than a person who kills his grandmother out of some deranged anger for being cut out of the will. We can't all be the dalai lama....not all of us embrace slave morality.

No, you may not think I'm a bad person you might simply think I don't know any better. That this "holocaust" has been normalized in my eyes so eating meat, to me, is no different than crossing the street. Just as people once thought it was "normal" to own chattel slaves. Most vegan activists literally do see themselves in the same light as abolitionists. The John Browns of meat consumption. I'm an unrepentant "speciesist". Yes. I'll own that label.

Well squashing the bug would be permissable if it was self-defence or an accident - it's not the same as what we're talking about because you didn't consider the bug your property.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 08:31
Kur wrote:
The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it.

You missed my point entirely. Besides, I think you'll find a huge percentage of cancers are caused by tobacco and alcohol, two products made from...you guessed it...plants.

Also, this absurdity about an animal "holocaust" or "genocide". I don't think any evolutionary biologist worth their salt would deny human developed to eat plants and animals. Furthermore, that animals eating other animals is normal, healthy behaviour for massive swarths of the animal kingdom.

In any case, I'm seconding Mike in calling out Godwin's law. You just lost the argument, my friend.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 10:24
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Kur wrote:
The thing about cancer is, that a plant-based diet has been shown over and over to halt cancer development and often reverses it.

You missed my point entirely. Besides, I think you'll find a huge percentage of cancers are caused by tobacco and alcohol, to products made from...you guessed it...plants.

Also, this absurdity about an animal "holocaust" or "genocide". I don't think any evolutionary biologist worth their salt would deny human developed to eat plants and animals. Furthermore, that animals eating other animals is normal, healthy behaviour for massive swarths of the animal kingdom.

In any case, I'm seconding Mike in calling out Godwin's law. You just lost the argument, my friend.

1) Tobacco (usually requires combustion and isn't food) and booze (fermentation) aren't whole unaltered plants.

2) You didn't challenge any of my main points.

TBH, people using Godwin's Law as a submission cue in lieu of substance is just as bad as Godwin's Law. Not to mention the fact that I already acknowledged that the nazi holocaust comparison is propaganda speak, which is a style of communication quite apart from honest discussion..more than that, it was never even mine own claim. Some other guy said it, if you care to remember. My claim is that it is genocide in its own right, not to realistically be compared with any other.

You guys say I'm supposed to be the implacable dogmatist here?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 14 2013 09:00

commieprincess, you should have quoted post number 7 in your response. Shit's been edited now.

I didn't challenge any of your points? Do you or do you not deny that animals evolved to eat both animals and plants? Do you or do you not deny that lots of other animals eat lots of other animals?

Surely, it should be pretty self-evident that a genocide - a human behaviour and a moral choice that serves no fundamental evolutionary purpose - is not the same thing as eating meat?

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 14 2013 10:52
commieprincess wrote:
Quote:
Though I cringe a little with the term speciesism, I do find it strange that people who accept evolution don't also accept that animals who have travelled down similar evolutionary trajectories as our good selves wouldn't feel the same quality of pain, there are very good evolutionary reasons for them to feel excruciating pain. That to me its pretty obvious. And I think to deny it or only seeing meat consumption from an environmental standpoint rather misses this fundamental point.

Quote:
I don't reject the fact that animals feel pain. Not at all. Of course I'm not into inflicting unnecessary pain. But this isn't the same as accepting that "speciesism" is a legitimate form of discrimination.

Sure and I dont like the term.

Quote:
Also, I'm not sure how my being a vegan now is going to reduce animal pain? I'm also not sure how it relates to the class struggle? And if it doesn't, how exactly do people plan on ending meat eating?

It has nothing to do with class struggle as I have said. But people are more than the class struggle, and I dont think that come some communist anarchist revolution would automatically reduce animal suffering.

There are things outside of the class struggle which you can be passionate about. As for what does being 'vegan' do. Well not alot, but I suppose in my case its a very deep visceral empathy with other animals I guess, I just cannot kill them I when Ive been say rabbiting as a kid I have cried my eyes out hearing the sounds they make caught in the net. So its a personal thing, with a hope that other people who also have empathy with animals (which I think in large part a pretty universal phenomenon) would consider qutting consumption of animals is a MORAL and compassionate thing to do. But ranting on about it endlessly making analogies to the holocaust, is in bad taste. Pain is only a very small part of death for humans (sure other animals grieve, but they ultimately arent 'faced with death' framed by it, like we humans are, not that we have any evidence for atm).

Quote:
On the other hand, I find it ahistorical and paternalistic that people think we can somehow selflessly "save" teh cute lambs as part of the class struggle. In reality, the struggle has to be fought for collective self-interest. It seems to me that the only collective self-interest we have in not eating lambs is an environmental one.

Not necessarily theoretically science may well be able to come up with very green intensive livestock farming.

Kureigo-San's picture
Kureigo-San
Offline
Joined: 6-06-12
Aug 14 2013 09:23
Chilli Sauce wrote:
commieprincess, you should have quoted post number 7 in your response. Shit's been edited now.

I didn't challenge any of your points? Do you or do you not deny that animals evolved to eat both animals and plants? Do you or do you not deny that lots of other animals eat lots of other animals?

Surely, it should be pretty self-evident that a genocide - a human behaviour and a moral choice that serves no fundamental evolutionary purpose - is not the same thing as eating meat?

Yah I removed 'did I stutter?' in order to be less antagonistic. You got me, sheriff chilli.

Which animals are you talking about? It sounds like you're talking about every animal except us. Being able to eat meat without dying on the spot doesn't somehow mean we ought to be eating it (you could live on worms and cardboard for a few weeks if you had to), this doesn't illustrate that we're designed to do it but it does illustrate that the human body is fucking incredible. What we definitely do not want to do is conflate killing something and eating it when staring the prospect of starvation in the face, with the daily reality of most of us having access to shops or our own grown food.

I most certainly do not deny that other animals eat other animals, as if I ever did. Those animals do that because they're equipped for a carnivorous diet. Us on the other hand..

Humans vs. Carnivores
The following is an incomplete list of the major differences between humans and carnivorous creatures.
• Walking: We have two hands and two feet, and we walk erect. All of the carnivores have four feet and perform their locomotion using all fours.
• Tails: Carnivores have tails.
• Tongues: Only the truly carnivorous animals have rasping (rough) tongues. All other creatures have smooth tongues.
• Claws: Our lack of claws makes ripping skin or tough flesh extremely difficult. We possess much weaker, flat fingernails instead.
• Opposable thumbs: Our opposable thumbs make us extremely well equipped to collect a meal of fruit in a matter of a few seconds. Most people find the process effortless. All we have to do is pick it. The claws of allow them to catch their prey in a matter of seconds as well. We could no more catch and rip the skin or tough flesh of a deer or bear barehanded than a lion could pick mangos or bananas.
• Births: Humans usually have children one at a time. Carnivores typically give birth to litters.
• Colon formation: Our convoluted colons are quite different in design from the smooth colons of carnivorous animals.
• Intestinal length: Our intestinal tracts measure roughly times the length of our torsos (about 30 feet). This allows for the slow absorption of sugars and other water-borne nutrients from fruit. In contrast, the digestive tract of a carnivore is only 3 times the length of its torso. This is necessary to avoid rotting or decomposition of flesh inside the animal. The carnivore depends upon highly acidic secretions to facilitate rapid digestion and absorption in its very short tube. Still, the putrefaction of proteins and the rancidity of fats is evident in their feces.
• Mammary glands: The multiple teats on the abdomens of carnivores do not coincide with the pair of mammary glands on the chest of humans.
• Sleep: Humans spend roughly two thirds of every 24-hour cycle actively awake. Carnivores typically sleep and rest from 18 to 20 hours per day and sometimes more.
• Microbial tolerance: Most carnivores can digest microbes that would be deadly for humans, such as those that cause botulism.
• Perspiration: Humans sweat from pores on their entire body. Carnivores sweat from the tongues only.
• Vision: Our sense of vision responds to the full spectrum of color, making it possible to distinguish ripe from unripe fruit at a distance. Meat eaters do not typically see in full color.
• Meal size: Fruit is in scale to our food requirements. It our hands. A few pieces of fruit is enough to make a meal, leaving no waste. Carnivores typically eat the entire animal when they kill it.
• Drinking: Should we need to drink water, we can suck it with our lips, but we cannot lap it up. Carnivores' tongues protrude outward so they can lap water when they need to drink.
• Placenta: We have a discoid-style placenta, whereas the carnivores have placentas.
• Vitamin C: Carnivores manufacture their own vitamin For us, vitamin C is an essential nutrient that we must get from our food.
• Jaw movement: Our ability to grind our food is unique to plant eaters. Meat eaters have no lateral movement in their jaws.
• Dental formula: Mammalogists use a system called the "dental formula" to describe the arrangement of teeth in each quadrant of the jaws of an animal's mouth. This refers to the number of incisors, canines, and molars in each of the four quadrants. Starting from the center and moving outward, our formula, and that of most anthropoids, is 2/1/5. The dental formula for carnivores is 3/l/5-to-8.
• Teeth: The molars of a carnivore are pointed and sharp. Ours are primarily flat, for mashing food. Our "canine" teeth bear no resemblance to true fangs. Nor do we have a mouth full of them, as a true carnivore does. I am reminded of one of Abraham Lincoln's favorite retorts: "If you counted a sheep's tail as a leg, how many legs would it have?" Invariably, people would answer, "five." To which Lincoln would respond: "Only four. the tail as a leg doesn't make it one."
• Tolerance for fat: We do not handle more than small quantities of fat well. Meat eaters thrive on a high-fat diet.
• SaUva and urine pH: All of the plant-eating creatures (including healthy humans) maintain alkaline saliva and urine most of the time. The saliva and urine of the meat eating animals, however, is acidic.
• Diet pH: Carnivores thrive on a diet of acid-forming foods, whereas such a diet is deadly to humans, setting the stage for a wide variety

The most important thing is that we certainly do not require the consumption of animal products in order to live happy, healthy lives..so we shouldn't do it. If we physiologically did require animal foods, there would be a case for it. Before anyone mentions cholesterol, all the cholesterol you need is produced in the body providing that you are in good health in other areas.

Mike S.
Offline
Joined: 28-07-13
Aug 14 2013 09:31
Kureigo-San wrote:
Mike S. wrote:
Kureigo-San wrote:
Quote:
Your granny is a human being. No that wouldn't be OK.

again was assume that superiority of human importance is self-evident. I don't know why I'm supposed to believe this in the first place, let alone how I'm supposed to accept it as the pretext to exploitation of animals.

edit: Mike, I don't think you're a bad person and never did.

If there's no hierarchy between species then in your vegan utopia a person who squashes a bug is no different than a person who kills his grandmother out of some deranged anger for being cut out of the will. We can't all be the dalai lama....not all of us embrace slave morality.

No, you may not think I'm a bad person you might simply think I don't know any better. That this "holocaust" has been normalized in my eyes so eating meat, to me, is no different than crossing the street. Just as people once thought it was "normal" to own chattel slaves. Most vegan activists literally do see themselves in the same light as abolitionists. The John Browns of meat consumption. I'm an unrepentant "speciesist". Yes. I'll own that label.

Well squashing the bug would be permissable if it was self-defence or an accident - it's not the same as what we're talking about because you didn't consider the bug your property.

Well, under the current system animal products are usually commodities produced for profit/sale on the market so the consumer doesn't see the animal as her/his property. I do understand how you meant to use the term property though. This is neither here nor there my goal is to expose the fact your line of thinking places all animals and insects on the same level as human existence.

vicent
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Aug 14 2013 09:35
Quote:
don't care if Chomsky said this, it's f*cking stupid. No platform for fascists and I have no problem using force to prevent their 'freedom' or speech and assembly.

really??? that seems messed up

whats wrong with a few nutters on the internet? how would you manage who can publish and who cant???