Killer Whale kills its trainer at Sea World...

The governments makes a lot of money from the meat industry, therefor it is not separate struggles.

 

The government also makes a lot of money from the soya industry, lets smash soya!

 

To prevent a debate from taking place? Are you fucking kidding? The biomedical industry is a massive economic power bloc. What do you think's going to happen? The CEO of HLS sits down with Josh Harper for an hour and comes out saying, "holy shit, you are so right! This is terrible! We should totally stop making millions of dollars of it!"

We've had 1800 years of debate. Debate is over. If there's really anything that's been left unsaid, we can talk about it once the killing stops. If anyone's confused about what's going on, they can read the communiqué.

 

You can spread whatever information on soyproducts you want and you don't have to eat them, and I can care about animals and not eat them. I'm not trying to force anything up on you so enough already. Arguments were asked for and i provided some.
I actually avoid soyproducts too, when produced in ways that effects rainforrests, wich effects the climate and animals living there (and in a bigger perspective all life all over the world). But, the meatindustry has a way bigger negative effect on the climate then soybeans.

 

Anom: I was making a point that a dietary choice isn't actually anti-capitalist in any way shape or form other than aesthetically. Nor is the animal liberation struggle anti-capitalist or linked to anarchism.
Also I was being facetious.

Carcass: The debate was funded by Bruins for Animals and Pro-Test for Science and featured a panel of people with different opinions who work in the various relevant fields. I personally support medical research and am quite glad that various of my friends are alive and able to live lives free from pain thanks to animal based research.
http://bruinsforanimals.org/
http://www.pro-test-for-science.org/

 

It's funny that you mention UCLA since UCLA vivisectors David Jentsch and Dario Ringach have been running from a debate with Drs. Jerry Vlasak and Ray Greek for quite a while now. CNN has even offered to televise it, but they prefer a platform where their lies can be expressed unchallenged.

Let's also give thinks that those "various friends" who "really exist" weren't among the hundred thousand annual deaths caused by drugs that animal tests have deemed safe. Vioxx anyone?

Yeah, this is pretty much what I think of when I think of anarchism too. Nothing says freedom and autonomy like torturing kittens for NIH grants.

 

Yes they do really exist and one human life is worth far more than any amount of animals. That we should minimise the suffering of animals used in research, and it shouldn't ever be carried out for cosmetic testing, the increase in human happiness as a result of animal testing is worth it.
The relevance of anarchism to animal testing is that the labs will be run by those who work in them and carry out research there. That web site you linked to is bullshit by the way.

 

unless animals have some sense of oppression and government, i don;t see how the animal lib struggle is even remotely any more important or on par with our oppression from governments.

 

An additional point of relevance to anarchism is that the labs will be on fire.

You're right, that website is bullshit. This is what I meant to link, I didn't realize that I copied the other one. Here is another good one.

It's not "more important" because it's not separate. "Animal" is just an Other category to uphold in opposition to "human." It's a "them" to contrast with an "us;" a way of convincing ourselves that the violence we inflict is not poisoning everything. It's the exact same logic that has allowed men to justify slavery, colonialism and genocide. You can repeat over and over that "they're just animals," "we'll minimize their suffering" or "it's for the good of humans and we're more important," but the implications of this holocaust will follow you whether or not you choose to acknowledge them.

70 million tortured and maimed by those who would fashion themselves healers in our society?
50 billion raped, castrated and devoured to satisfy the whimsies of the human palate?

The engine of capitalism runs on violent exploitation and from no group does it take more rapaciously than non-humans. This is the root of oppression. It is the firmament of milk and blood upon which our society floats.

 

Are you saying black people and Jews are the same as dogs? /flippancy
The thing is that we ARE different from other animals, the mere fact that we can hold this conversation is testament to that fact. We are the only species that is global for starters. Whilst we are not the only creatures that are capable of symbolic thought, certain of the higher primates such as Bonobo have displayed tendencies to that, it is this that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. It always has and always will.
On a cultural level I think that the treatment of animals as simply another form of stock does degrade us. This, in my opinion, would change once we live in a different world. That does not however mean that we would do away with using animals in ways that are beneficial to us whether that be through scientific research or for food. The manner in which we would do so would however be significantly different. For one there would be far less need for vivisection aside from in research. Plus we would hopefully do away with the current way of producing things that leads to such wastage. This would mean less animals killed for food and less intensive production of milk and eggs.
By the way well done for all the hyperbole. Nice to see that the form of argument posed by animal libbers hasn't changed since I realised it was a crock.

 

Classic deliberate misreading. Our arguments don't change, you say? Nowhere did I ever say that any group of humans is the same as any kind of non-human. But as far as the ways they've been treated by the ruling class, there are some important similarities. The logic of capitalism sees everything creature as exploitable. For historical reasons, the ruling class is currently unable to exploit most humans to the extent that they can exploit most non-humans. But that's not to say that they wouldn't like to because, indeed, they have at other points in history.

In a bunch of ways that have absolutely no bearing on whether or not non-humans deserve to violently exploited by humans. What the hell does the capacity for symbolic thought have to do with anything? All you're really saying is that humans are superior because of some arbitrary characteristics and, because we're superior, we're entitled to dominate everything we can. So basically, might makes right. Yeah, you got this anarchy thing nailed.

 

a) I was being flippant but you were doing so. Also the comparing of the holocaust to the meat industry is abhorrent and just plain factually wrong. The holocaust was the mechanistic extermination of a people due to a racist ideology. The meat industry makes dinner.
How is the capacity for symbolic thought arbitrary? It's what makes us what we are and has allowed us to progress beyond being lice ridden apes. At no point do I say might makes right, if that were so we would be shagged as many animals are vastly better at the whole violence thing than us. I wouldn't fancy my chances against a chimp. What I may say is that vastly superior intelligence, tool use, language, rational thought and civilisation makes right.

And by the way. Anarchism is a stateless, classless society where the means of production ore worked in common.

 

Actually most of those things could very well be attributed by animals as well
Intelligence: most primates, dolphins
tool use: several species of bird, most primates
language: ants would be a great example, as would bees
rational thought: tougher one
civilisation: depends on your specific definition

 

intelligence: Aye which is why I do oppose the use of great apes in vivisection/experimentation.
Tool use: Again with the primates its only the higher apes like Bonobo or Chimps. With birds its a bit trickier to define whether what they are doing is tool use.
Language: Ants don't use language nor do bees. Unless you're talking about the "waggle dance" with bees in whiuch case recent research has shown tha theory to be seriously flawed.
Civilisation: Technically means culture of cities.
It is however the combination of these traits that sets us apart from the rest of the species on the planet. Similarly the traits of the Cheetah separate it from the Lion.

 

Ants use phgeromones to communicate, build structures by tunneling (whilst termites actually construct mounds and adapt it to their environment), so yeah if building with materials is what constitutes tool use even 'lowly' ants would have all these traits.
To me the differentiation is far more subtle and vague, but I do still make it.

 

Tool use involves manufacturing specialist tools for specific purposes, knives, axes, spades etc... not making nests.
We do see nascent tool use in certain species of ape, notably chimps fashioning simple 'spears' for hunting and bonobo being planet of the apes spooky.
Really cool talk from an animal abuser.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/susan ... write.html

 

We humans have all the right in the world to treat all other species like shit, cos we are the only ones that have computers and internet, and are using that to the highly superior purpouse to bitch at eachother endlessly about what makes us different from other species.

 

So what exactly says we don't have the right to treat other species like shit? What all encompassing over arching morality is it that means we mustn't do so? See I've never heard a rational argument from an animal rightsist that's not full of ad hominem attacks and spurious moralising.
My argument is that we are different because we are the only species that has rational thought. This, and all the things that stem from it, makes us different from other species. A refusal to recognise this is a refusal to see the facts of the situation. The morality adopted by animal rightsists is kinda backwards and has the same sort of rhetoric as that used by pro-lifers and homophobes, i.e. that we must increase the amount of human suffering to achieve their chosen morality.

 

Look for clips on the behaviour of porsha a jumping spider for such a tiny creature they " seem " to be able to act in a very controlled co-ordinated manner, Tool use in primates also examples rational thought processes as for me at least the forward planning needed for tool use IE " if I do this then that will happen " illustrates to me that rational thought is not a human peculiarity.

Famous clip of birds making and useing tools to get what they want... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnpMjzRacYA

 

Yeah, you can use rational thought to justify any old shite, like torture, war, genocide, slavery, fascism, blink 182, whatever. Let's see, what I doing here feels bad, but must be ok cos some fucked up dogma allows me to close my eyes and divert responsibility. So yeah, kill, maim, torture, it's for the greater good, afterall. So what happened to you, Miserable, ya pet kitty cheat on you, or something?

Rational thought, yeah, that sure is a wonderful trait for our species to possess, init.