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 20:05

Hi

Quote:
Considering that female bees often try to lay eggs in defiance of a queen it is likely they are not the mindless drones they are often portrayed as

How do they fit all that processing power into such tiny heads? Do you believe in magic? You're right though, sorry about the tone.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:10

I don't believe a bees interests should be subordinated, where did I say stuff that would agree with that view? I do not see bees as a priority in any animal rights views, I know some would, I don't, but I still don't think that is any reason to cause them harm that isn't needed.

The fact they serve the queen, and live in accordance with strict 'social' rules does not make them drones, humans live in societies with strict social rules, dosent mean people don't break them. There is always going to be people/ bees breaking from the 'social rules', and while bees have not had any sort of uprisings (I know of), humans have the desire to and the need to, whereas for bees I feel this is not a priority for them. Joking about people in the AR movement is ok, like the PETA 'army' video taking the mik out of PETA.

Health and emotional stability do not always fit into socio-economic terms, they can, but they don't have to. Again i'll use the example of me stabbing you with a pencil, that dosen't have a socio-economic background but it still violates rights and can cause you physical harm and emotional harm, if I kept poking you it would drive you abit crazy.

Whats not like what? I do not understand when you say ''Causing harm to the wrong person is naughty and you will be punished if you do it.'' I do not take such a simplistic view, but I do understand if someone is injured say at work, especially if they are working in any illegal way, will lose out economically through a violation of their rights.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:16

With the capitalistic view of rights, I can understand that for alot of rights, especially in regards to property, but would the right for someone not to have harm caused to them stop in a communist society? What would the 'rights' be for humans and animals in a communist society? Going back to vivisection, one of the main reasons vivisection still continues is based around money and the law- the key elements of a capitalist society, there are many- hundreds- of alternatives with a high medical validity, would these be incorperated into a communist society?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:17

Hi

Quote:
there's nothing within say the Universal Declaration on Human Rights that I wouldn't want to be enshrined within a communist society.

These are guarantees of economic security and political liberty, and I suppose I’d have to concede they’re viable in that. But I don’t see why these should be granted in varying degrees to other species depending on their complexity.

Are there any animalists who think animals should be given the vote, perhaps through a close human proxy?

Quote:
one of the main reasons vivisection still continues is based around money and the law

For what other reasons does anything continue?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:20

What causes them to lose out? If a basic form of protection is broken, even if it is a law, is based in the right for people working not to be harmed (even though this could be to keep a healthy workforce for capital production).

Again i'll go back to the basic of personal harm to another. I do not mean predomently economic based harm, I mean harm to others for ones own pleasure (without the others consent). If there is no rights, then is this ok? I'm taking the view its not right to harm others, but what would make it right if their wasen't any rights, could a murder for pleasure be, or even capitalistic (say a imperialist occupation) be justifyed in any way?

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 20:24

you see what i mean about any discussion about animals bringing out all the wannabe 1st year philosophy students grin

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:24

Hi

Quote:
I mean harm to others for ones own pleasure (without the others consent).

Being naughty is consent.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:25

LR, no one I know who is for animal rights promotes them having a vote. Firstly voting is often a sham (note often, not always), secondly animals have different needs and desires to humans. So a human would like to vote whereas an eagle would like to spread its wings, both different rights.

What is the framework for me not stabbing you? If I take what LR said of there being no rights, if I stab you what harm would arise from it if you didn't have rights? The idea that you said you could expect not to be stabbed is infact a part of rights, if not, why would you not want to be stabbed? This may seem tedious, but if there isn;t rights no harm can come from me attacking you (or vice versa).

Monkeys won'tfind cures for AIDS or any such diseases. The idea they would is (without the humour) grin [/i]

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:26

Hi

Quote:
you see what i mean about any discussion about animals bringing out all the wannabe 1st year philosophy students

If it’s so bad, why are you such a defender of animal rights then, JDMF?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:27

I find the philisophical stuff ok, as i'm discussing it now, but with philosophy you can debate for ages and tend not to reach anywhere. Even AR philosophers totally disagree with one another on many things!! As Marx said, or nicked of someone else, the point is to changed the world.

However a discussion on vivisection (on what the initial discussion was about) would be interesting...

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:29

Hi

Quote:
the point is to change the world

No. The point is to guarantee the economic security and political liberty of this species. Current animal welfare provision is adequate, claiming otherwise is reactionary.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:32

Animal welfare isn't adequate, neither is human welfare, so it needs to changed.

What do you disagree with LR on? Your views seem quite close.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 20:33
Lazy Riser wrote:
Hi
Quote:
you see what i mean about any discussion about animals bringing out all the wannabe 1st year philosophy students

If it’s so bad, why are you such a defender of animal rights then, JDMF?

no, your BS philosophy is bad - not the general notion that sentient beings are worthy of consideration.

When i say AR i use it as a general label of a movement which makes radical claims on the position of animals as opposed to animal welfare, which aims to preserve current animal abuse industries but sugar coat them with longer chains and bigger cages.

I have never said that i believe in "animal rights" because i don't really (actually have discussed it on this board ages ago as well) - i dont believe rights exist any more for human animals than they do for the non-human animals. Then again i dont feel comfortable with the other philosophical strand of animal issues, utilitarianism, either.

In in end, not really that fussed, i have very little interest in this kind of philosophical banter.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:34

Hi

Quote:
Oh and for the record, I don't agree with LR in the slightest, beyond the fact we both think the concept of rights is a steaming pile of wank.

I'm going to fall out with you. What is your problem with my excellent position?

Love

LR

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:36

Hi

Quote:
i have very little interest in this kind of philosophical banter

If you don't want to politically defend animal rights activism then don't.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:38

But JDMF, if animals do not have rights- if rights do not exist, why not make welfare legislations for them instead of radical changes? What is the point in making radical changes?

I think actions are much more important then philosophical debate, but philosophical debate has its uses, it provides a base for discussion for one.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:44

Hi

Ha ha ha. This'll be a laugh. It'll be like a Jedi battle.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:45

I'd stop discussing philosophy, its not the most important thing to me and alot of thee discussion has just been going over the same stuff. roll eyes

How do Jedi's battle?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:47

An animal dosen't have rights ok? So why protect them or ask for any sort of change. If humans don't have rights, why protect them even? Why protect children, or the disabled, or the old?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:49

If you do not agree with rights, in what way would you protect those who you could say need protecting? Or just not try to protect/ help them?

If people, or animals, dont have rights- then why even bother protecting them? An example of a mentally disabled person, they do not provide anything in terms of socio-economic worth, but I beleive they have a right to be protected etc, but if they don't have rights, why protect them?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 20:54

Hi

Quote:
If you do not agree with rights, in what way would you protect those who you could say need protecting? Or just not try to protect/ help them?

We are all vulnerable to some degree. We only protect the vulnerable when it’s in our best interests to do so. Real autonomy is guaranteeing human security so that we can each protect ourselves as we go on adventures.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 20:57

I'm not discussing how rights arised, or under what system rights are protected. The protection of a mentally disbaled person could be done under a communist society or a capitalist society, i'm not concerned with that. I'm saying if you do not believe in rights, why should we protect these people? They do not have rights, so if they don't have rights what do they have worth protecting?

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Jan 31 2006 21:00
Jack wrote:

Well, to be honest, given that rights were a major part of the ideology of capitalism, and emerged with the arrival of capitalism, I'd argue that they've been astoundingly shit at protecting people.

Best way to defend those who need protecting is through practical solidarity and the shaping of a society that works to elminate such abuses, of course. So, as always, the ultimate answer is 'workers councils'. 8)

Nail & head. Rights in what is thoroughly exploitative and oppressive economic system do not get you far. Which is why those concerned about the animal abuse need to get involved in changing the fundamentals, and the culture that it produces.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 21:03

Again I shall say-

I'm not discussing how rights arised, or under what system rights are protected. The protection of a mentally disbaled person could be done under a communist society or a capitalist society, i'm not concerned with that. I'm saying if you do not believe in rights, why should we protect these people? They do not have rights, so if they don't have rights what do they have worth protecting? Same with animals, what does an animal have worth protecting?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 21:18

It is not a right to protect them, but it is a right to try to help them?? So why do we have a help to protect them, if they have no rights themselves, why should we then 'put ourselves out' to protect them?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 21:18

Hi

Quote:
Which is why those concerned about the animal abuse need to get involved in changing the fundamentals, and the culture that it produces.

What animal abuse is that then? How far should they go in preventing it?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 21:22

LR, what do you feel about protecting those who do not have the ability to protect themselves, the eldery, the mentally retarded, babies etc, should we look after them if they do not have rights, and indeed should we even bother with helping them?

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 21:24

Hi

Quote:
Which is why those concerned about the animal abuse need to get involved in changing the fundamentals, and the culture that it produces.

Which particular aspect of your alternative culture plays to their agenda?

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Jan 31 2006 21:28

The culture of money over the protection of others, humans or non-humans.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jan 31 2006 21:30

Hi

Quote:
LR, what do you feel about protecting those who do not have the ability to protect themselves, the eldery, the mentally retarded, babies etc

I feel very good about it.

Quote:
should we look after them if they do not have rights, and indeed should we even bother with helping them?

Given proper incentives.

Love

LR