DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

ALF to target students?!

468 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 00:07

Hi

Quote:
Reactionary. You can't blame her for acting within a role prescribed by capitalism, you can only try to awaken class consciousness.

There’s nothing reactionary about getting cats to stop passing the buck and “own the problem”. Just because it’s not their fault doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished for not fixing it.

Love

LR

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 31 2006 00:08
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
No.

Excellent. My premise is that “rights” don’t exist, consequently animals can’t have them.

Love

LR

Could you elaborate? How is your premise constructed based on the existence of God? You didn't go into enough detail for a person like me.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 31 2006 00:10

Fatty Said that he didn't believe in God, that doesn't imply a disbelief in rights. In fact as religion is designed to make us accept shit then a disbelief in God is surely a sign of a belief in rights.

Why didn't you join in on the binned thread yesterday Lazy, I've missed you.

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 31 2006 00:12
Jef Costello wrote:
Fatty Said that he didn't believe in God, that doesn't imply a disbelief in rights. In fact as religion is designed to make us accept shit then a disbelief in God is surely a sign of a belief in rights.

You saved me the effort of explaining myself

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 00:12

Hi

Quote:
well as much as i agree rights don't exist, if i used your logic i could prove that pronouns don't exist. Being as they are constructed concepts for the further understanding of our world.

I suppose that's fair enough. But that's not my logic. Like you, it’s the supernaturalism of rights that concern me.

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 00:15

Hi

Quote:
How is your premise constructed based on the existence of God? You didn't go into enough detail for a person like me.

Rights have no greater existence than supernatural phenomena. In what way are rights more tenable than religious morality?

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 31 2006 00:30
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
Reactionary. You can't blame her for acting within a role prescribed by capitalism, you can only try to awaken class consciousness.

There’s nothing reactionary about getting cats to stop passing the buck and “own the problem”. Just because it’s not their fault doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished for not fixing it.

Love

LR

Cats are unenlightened members of the w/c and as such are not to be blamed for their limited conception of the effects of their actions upon class struggle.

Rights are based upon an idea of human dignity that is superior to the religious one. When I speak of rights they are connected to responsibilities and as such have an ethical value. The ethical value of religion is not the same, as it is based upon an external arbitrating force, my conception is based upon the individual as the ultimate arbitrator of the worthiness of his or her acts.

Fatty
Offline
Joined: 15-01-06
Jan 31 2006 00:34

Can I gain entry to the big words club?

Anyway yes, cats have responsibilities as well. They have to feed and nurture their young as well as teaching them (such as valuable lessons like licking your groinal area). They need to feed themselves.

In fact, what's the difference between cats and humans apart from intelligience (and biological differences of course - I wouldn't omit that as someone is bound to say we don't have tails or something somewhat similar)

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 31 2006 00:42

Cats treat all humans with contempt which is a sure sign of intelligence, even the smartest humans think some of us have some worth.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 00:44

Hi

Quote:
Cats are unenlightened members of the w/c and as such are not to be blamed for their limited conception of the effects of their actions upon class struggle.

Like I say, just coz it isn’t their fault doesn’t mean it’s not their responsibility to put it right.

Quote:
Rights are based upon an idea of human dignity that is superior to the religious one. When I speak of rights they are connected to responsibilities and as such have an ethical value.

I’m not so sure. What makes your humanism superior to religion? The foundation is no less abstract. The notion that religious morality is external to the individual is mere delusion, so the difference between religious and secular notions of morality and rights differ only in the psychopathology of the respective believers. One believes in “God”, the other “Rights and Responsibilities”, as if either really exist.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 31 2006 00:52

It might be their responsibility to put it right but it doesn't mean they should be excuted and turned into slippers for failing to do so. Otherwise you have a lot of w/c people to kill smile

IF they have a responsibility, then suirely they have concurrent rights, unless you are imposing conditions of behaviour upon them without a real notion of reward (sounds like christianity to me)

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 01:06

Hi

Quote:
It might be their responsibility to put it right but it doesn't mean they should be excuted and turned into slippers for failing to do so.

Agreed. That is why I’d like a democracy to stop barbarian psychos like me from doing bad things to cats.

Quote:
Otherwise you have a lot of w/c people to kill

It’s a different rule for cats because they are lower order animals.

Quote:
IF they have a responsibility, then suirely they have concurrent rights, unless you are imposing conditions of behaviour upon them without a real notion of reward (sounds like christianity to me)

You got me. If society wants to gift rights to animals, then I’m not too bothered, whatever model they want to employ to make sense of the world is cool with me as long as it doesn’t hurt me. The bourgeois institutions which currently service animal welfare are doing a more than adequate job as far as I’m concerned. Given the real material poverty suffered by working class people in this country, I think political activity directed explicitly towards a different species is a bit insulting. There is the point about mystification through promoting the notion of rights in the first place, but I accept that it may be a bit ethereal for some people’ tastes.

Love

LR

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 31 2006 02:10
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
It might be their responsibility to put it right but it doesn't mean they should be excuted and turned into slippers for failing to do so.

Agreed. That is why I’d like a democracy to stop barbarian psychos like me from doing bad things to cats.

Quote:
Otherwise you have a lot of w/c people to kill

It’s a different rule for cats because they are lower order animals.

Quote:
IF they have a responsibility, then suirely they have concurrent rights, unless you are imposing conditions of behaviour upon them without a real notion of reward (sounds like christianity to me)

You got me. If society wants to gift rights to animals, then I’m not too bothered, whatever model they want to employ to make sense of the world is cool with me as long as it doesn’t hurt me. The bourgeois institutions which currently service animal welfare are doing a more than adequate job as far as I’m concerned. Given the real material poverty suffered by working class people in this country, I think political activity directed explicitly towards a different species is a bit insulting. There is the point about mystification through promoting the notion of rights in the first place, but I accept that it may be a bit ethereal for some people’ tastes.

Love

LR

I disagree with bourgeoisie institutions promoting the rights of animals, especially those donkey sanctuary people. Cats are not a lower order, their contempt for humanity, although we cannot understand the reasoning, marks them out as having a very sound understanding of humanity. I do still put people first but only just.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 08:23

To the comments about student groups against the lab: very true, the anti-lab crews biggest strategic failure has been not building a group/movement within the oxford students and staff/unions. In the beginning things looked really promising, loads of students and some staff attended the public meetings and some rallies as well, but the numbers started to fall (in my understanding) when the antagonism rose. Now it seems like a free game situation from both sides so i am not suprised if students choose not to take part.

When saying both sides, i mean that from the AR direction there are things like the communique quoted in the start of this thread, and from the Uni side increased crackdown and witchhunt. For instance injunction orders which means that people involved in speak - the campaign against the lab - have an injunction not to be close to any uni buildings unless permission given for once/week picket. This would make being a student impossible, so it would in effect be an expulsion.

But like in the case of HLS, often there are staff members inside who leak information to the campaign groups which make a huge difference and are vital for these groups.

But the radical grassroots AR groups are not the only ones, there are many layers in this cake and loads more more moderate groups exist as well. They dont want to be vocal about their opposition to the lab because of fear of getting bad rep though.

http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 09:09

Hi

Quote:
In the beginning things looked really promising, loads of students and some staff attended the public meetings and some rallies as well

In what way is that promising? Time devoted to their animalist hobby would be better spent protecting the incomes of IB claimants. I see they weren’t quite so vocal about that, why is that do you think?

You may as well be talking about pro-life activists.

Love

LR

lucy_parsons's picture
lucy_parsons
Offline
Joined: 13-05-05
Jan 31 2006 12:00

Awww, ALF couldn't hurt a fly, the students have nowt to be worried about.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 12:39

How can there not be a recognition of animal rights? For a start why would you not recognise an animals rights?

For simplicity lets say an 'animal' in this instance has a CNS and is capable of physical feelings/ sensations that can be then transferred to what can frequently be described as emotions. Does someone who denies animals rights feel that if a dog is kicked in the stomach this is ok? If animals lack rights surely it must be, the dog must only yelp and retreat in a purely physical way i.e. that its just a reflex, like a muscle contracting when a body moves, the dog does not experience any sort of emotional feeling to being kicked.

I've frequently heard the arguement that animals don't have a soul (from those with a religious belief, so I doubt that will come up here much) and also that animals cannot make a complex sense of the world. Now this may be true, I doubt anyone would say an adult cod can have the same experiences and opportunities as a adult human being, but this is no reason to deny rights to the animal, if we work on the principle of animals not making a complex sense of the world and so denying them rights, why not make a smaller step and extend it to humans who can't? I'm not saying people who say animals don't have rights are all secret Nazis, but surely if a human baby cannot express itself in a intelligable way- or even a mentally retarded adult human, why grant them rights? I believe that babies and the mentally disabled should have rights, of course, but surely in a 'making sense' way of the world, they are at a level of a mammalian animal- like ones this proposed lab is to be for testing on.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 14:11
guydebordisdead wrote:
Anyway, anarchist youth have a problem here in dublin with a person refusing to come to our next meeting because it's in a college that has animal testing facilities.

Animal rights <------> Logic

i think you are making a logical mistake here by equating someones personal and odd position with whole AR

guydebordisdead <---------> Logic wink

I mean, i work for an institution who carry out animal testing FFS!

Volin's picture
Volin
Offline
Joined: 24-01-05
Jan 31 2006 14:24
Lazy_Riser wrote:
I urge you comrades. Animals are not the issue. Working Class Autonomy is the goal. The notion that "animal rights" has a positive role to play in the development of a working class political theory capable of toppling capitalism and moving us all forward is wholly reactionary and continues to earn us nothing but defeat.

I would say 'Animal Rights' are not the issue. Animal Rights activists posit a a concept of 'rights', which detracts from participative transformation to an appeal to accepted authorities - themselves a part of the self-same system which perpetuates large-scale exploitation (human or animal). The splitting of issues into seperate camps usually removes the possibility of their resolution especially when their origins are systematic, universal and linked to each other. When the cause is social-based, the struggle must be social-based. I'm not saying animal rightists, sometimes, haven't achieved anything and even that I don't agree with them on many points they just have fuck all chance of actually, significantly, changing the situation their reacting to. However, the root amelioration of animals' existence in a social context is not synonymous with this change-by-right, and such an issue would inevitably play a part in any radical transformation of society -which by definition would have a primarily working-class agency.

Quote:
...recognising “animals as animals” doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be vivisected.

Being a communist doesn't imply you have any sympathy for animals. The point is the removal of the commodity relation leads human beings to co-operate with human beings as themselves (as opposed to alienated, atomised competition) the natural world as an inter-dependent part of ourselves (rather than seperate from man-made world, basis of things and commodities, of inhuman 'value') and inevitably animals as intrinsically living beings (instead of inert matter to be exploited). It tends, greatly, towards a revised conception of animals in relation to human beings, recognising their similarities and thus treatment on those grounds. So whilst we can't say the communist approach necessitates the abolition of animal testing (etc. etc.) it more than accomodates for it.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 14:34

Cna those who are against animal rights, or at least disagree with those who are for animal rights answer me two questions-

1) why are you against animal rights? what basis do you have for not giving animals basic rights?

2) if someone says they disagree with animal rights, can they torture a cat without having to worry about it?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 15:29

I'll repeat what I put previous-

For simplicity lets say an 'animal' in this instance has a CNS and is capable of physical feelings/ sensations that can be then transferred to what can frequently be described as emotions. Does someone who denies animals rights feel that if a dog is kicked in the stomach this is ok? If animals lack rights surely it must be, the dog must only yelp and retreat in a purely physical way i.e. that its just a reflex, like a muscle contracting when a body moves, the dog does not experience any sort of emotional feeling to being kicked.

I've frequently heard the arguement that animals don't have a soul (from those with a religious belief, so I doubt that will come up here much) and also that animals cannot make a complex sense of the world. Now this may be true, I doubt anyone would say an adult cod can have the same experiences and opportunities as a adult human being, but this is no reason to deny rights to the animal, if we work on the principle of animals not making a complex sense of the world and so denying them rights, why not make a smaller step and extend it to humans who can't? I'm not saying people who say animals don't have rights are all secret Nazis, but surely if a human baby cannot express itself in a intelligable way- or even a mentally retarded adult human, why grant them rights? I believe that babies and the mentally disabled should have rights, of course, but surely in a 'making sense' way of the world, they are at a level of a mammalian animal- like ones this proposed lab is to be for testing on.

If something/ one goes on their worth to the working-classes, what about the mentally retarded who, it seems, give no benefits to any class. Babies also don't give benefit, but granted they can provide benefit at a later date.

Also if everything is measured on the value of it to a social system why have alot of emotions? Emotions don't directly, or often indirectly, affect a class of people, so why appeal to them? Unless there is a staunch type of individualist-hardman/women image of a solo revolutionary no one can rid themselves of emotions (and even people who act like that have a pic or two of Lenin above the bedroom door).

If kicking something with a right not to be kicked is part of a sport its ok? Pitbull fighting is a working-class sport, dosen't make it any way shape or form aceptable, neither does the (predomently) upper class sport of fox hunting. Killing, hurting, maiming, torturing something in the name of sport, I think somethings up with that regardless of class structures. I know people from all classes (ok well not the upper classes) who are against animal bloodsports.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 15:51

A view that likes to see animals hurt for entertainment is something I was used to seeing in books on the 19th century. To be involved in politics, but not the AR movement is fine, to agree with making pain on others seems sadistic.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 16:00

Well commiting harm to others is something worth opposing? I oppose it whether a goverment does it, a police officer does it, a rapist does it, or even people who harm animals. I'm not a pacifist, but I know when harm isn't needed, don't do harm.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 16:14

Animals arn't resources. They arn't like an inanimate object- a rock, a brick, a lamp etc, even at the low level of biological knowledge I have I know an animal isn't a resource. I suppose you could say it says in the Bible animals are resources... .

There is nothing that legitimises animals being resources for humans to use any way they want.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 16:17

Hi

Quote:
Animals arn't resources. They arn't like an inanimate object- a rock, a brick, a lamp etc

Sentience doesn’t preclude utility, even humans are resources from some perspectives. Why is it wrong to hurt sentient things? (Unless you are Jedi)

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 16:20

Hi

Quote:
There is nothing that legitimises animals being resources for humans to use any way they want.

You don’t need to “legitimise” behaviour before it is appropriate. In what way is it illegitimate?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 16:28

Human history does not legitimise using animals as resources in any way. Human history has also shown humans to enslave others, torture them, rape them, murder them, for goverments to do this on a massive scale etc, human history does not give any reason to continue doing something.

Maybe you mean the history of the control of animals, but being able to have control and physical dominance over something does not legitimise how we can treat each other or other living creatures, if so why not go out and just hurt those who are weaker?

If you do not need to legitimise behaviour before it is appropriate tell me then, in what way is it appropriate to use animals as human resources.

There is no solid legitimate reasons, but LR if you feel you don't need to legitimise the resource based view of animals, please tell me how you would view it as appropriate to use animals as resources.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 16:54

What do you mean by without harming? The sheer fact that people get pleasure from the harm of a living animal (or a dead animal, killed for them).

The history that something has been making people feel happy does not mean it is right. The length something has been going on is not a reason for it to continue going on.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 16:56

no one can deny the historical significance of animal use/abuse.

No one also can deny how fluctuating that use/abuse has always been depending on circumstances.

For instance now the circumstances are such that we need to drastically change our dietary culture for it to be sustainable, and that includes big cuts in animal product consumption.

Dietary cultures don't change overnight, so may as well start it already wink

one central problem when discussing about treatment of animals is that some individuals are very keen on seeing the whole issue as a 1st year philosophy assignement and then start talking about all kinds of high fly stuff. When i've been speaking about veganism/vegetarianism and animal issues you can spot the wannabe philosophers from miles away.

Luckily for the vast majority issue is pretty simple: you dont cause unnecessary harm to sentient beings. There is a dog, you dont kick it and so on. Common sense stuff, and thats how most people get to vegetarianism as well, since it is simple enough, easy, more and more convenient and apparently healthy as well, so why not.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 17:02

I have shown why animals arn't just inanimate objects and so deserve rights. You may of missed it, its a few pages back, but i'll repost it for you.

How can there not be a recognition of animal rights? For a start why would you not recognise an animals rights?

For simplicity lets say an 'animal' in this instance has a CNS and is capable of physical feelings/ sensations that can be then transferred to what can frequently be described as emotions. Does someone who denies animals rights feel that if a dog is kicked in the stomach this is ok? If animals lack rights surely it must be, the dog must only yelp and retreat in a purely physical way i.e. that its just a reflex, like a muscle contracting when a body moves, the dog does not experience any sort of emotional feeling to being kicked.

I've frequently heard the arguement that animals don't have a soul (from those with a religious belief, so I doubt that will come up here much) and also that animals cannot make a complex sense of the world. Now this may be true, I doubt anyone would say an adult cod can have the same experiences and opportunities as a adult human being, but this is no reason to deny rights to the animal, if we work on the principle of animals not making a complex sense of the world and so denying them rights, why not make a smaller step and extend it to humans who can't? I'm not saying people who say animals don't have rights are all secret Nazis, but surely if a human baby cannot express itself in a intelligable way- or even a mentally retarded adult human, why grant them rights? I believe that babies and the mentally disabled should have rights, of course, but surely in a 'making sense' way of the world, they are at a level of a mammalian animal- like ones this proposed lab is to be for testing on.

Please note this is only a fraction of why animals have rights, I can go on for longer!!