Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Hell on Earth (Vivisection)

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Carcass, Feb 28, 2010.

  1. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
     
  2. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    a doctor seuss quote comes to mind... a person is a person no matter how small... from horton hears a who...


    And NGNM85 will keep going until u ignore him, if u want him to stop, stop responding to his posts.
     
  3. ASA

    ASA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    4 posts germs, i wouldn't want an experimentor who thought they were better than everybody else sheesh
     
  4. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Who said we wanted him to stop? I'm really enjoying Nag Mom's posts in this thread. The longer we string it along, the more apparent it becomes that he's been arguing with himself the entire time. There's a certain type of person who needs to "beat" others with his beliefs because he's not capable of self-validation. It's just like the one kid who won't lie down when shot while playing cops and robbers. Walk away from the game and he'll bend over backwards trying to get your attention.

    Next phase: sulking in the tree house.
     
  5. Rathryn

    Rathryn Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    Not to add fuel to the fire, though most likely it will nevertheless, but so far 'Nag Mom's posts seem more logical and reasonable to me than anything I've read from the 'pro-rights' people.
    Especially the AI part, look at Robocop (to use a very popular object of comparison) he's only a robotic shell with a human brain basically. If we'd eliminate the brain and replace it with a hard drive, would we erase the person he was in life? Does that mean that his rights should be relinquished?
    As for the animals... My personal arguments ARE a lot more arbitrary and vague, but amount to about the same as NGNM's.
    I have yet to see, read or hear an argument from a pro-rights person that is set in more logic than I have so far. Honour where honour is due, no?
    We can't breath underwater. We can't fly. We can't asexually reproduce. We can't regenerate our head when it's cut off.
    Then again I have yet to see a fish build a house. I have yet to see a bird come up with an idea such as anarchism. I have yet to see an earth worm write his thoughts down.
    And they have no need for it, there is no need for them to do any of that. Which in and of itself is a virtue if you ask me. Does that make them better than us? In a way.
    Does that make us better than them? In a way. We CAN responsibly take care of the environment. We CAN consciously set out to help other members of our own species and other species. Lions, dogs, cats, ants, etc do NOT set out to help their prey. Nor do they set out to help members of their own species if they are not directly affiliated with them.
    Us humans don't usually do that either, but we can at least SET ASIDE our differences in times of need.
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Snide comments aside, you have utterly failed to make an adequate case for your beliefs, or what I presume to be your beliefs. You can’t accept people to accept propositions, especially radical ones, on blind faith alone. Therefore, you have to have logical reasons for such a course of action, and have the ability to communicate them to others. Nothing you’ve said covers any new ground, or resolves the holes in this line of thinking, which I have illuminated. In response to critical analysis, you seem to either simply repeat the original statement as if nothing ever happened, or resort to juvenile personal attacks and flippant remarks. Neither of these is convincing, or impressive.
     
  7. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Rathryn, as far as you and I are concerned, there is no fire. I do take this discussion seriously and I understand why not everyone feels the same way about it as I do. I like to bust Nag Mom's chops because he's not trying to have a discussion, he wants a competition. He exploits the deep personal significance these questions have to a lot of anarchists in order to work out his own personal issues. The fact that I'm not interested in participating in his therapy sessions doesn't mean I don't care about what you have to say.

    Talk of which animals can perform what specialized task is a distraction. Ultimately human exceptionalism boils down to an article of faith: that the actions of our species, by virtue of being far-reaching (in our eyes), have some sort of objective universal significance making them more worthy of occurrence. But all talk of significance, of importance, of one animal's actions being more deserving of occurence than another's is subjective. It is based on what the observer values. If the observer is a human, how can he ever hope to be free of the taint of anthropocentrism? He feels the deep personal significance of his own rituals but, at best, he guesses when it comes to other species. Even if he could know, whose standards of value would he apply? Trying to make an objective comparison of value between lived experiences is completely incoherent because the act of valuing needs an individual to perform it. By trying to say otherwise, people who believe in human exceptionalism reveal their article of faith: that the universe values what they do. The universe doesn't value shit. It's not alive. There is no god.

    Yes, vivisection can produce drugs that will make the people who can afford them live longer. It also hardcodes abominable violence into what are supposed to be institutions of healing. This affects us. Changing the paradigm wouldn't be easy although it is certainly possible at the moment. The longer we wait, the more the repeated rituals of violence poison us and the harder it gets to change our ways.

    The animal liberation stance makes the most sense to me because it's based on self-interest. I am an animal and I recognize the kinship of living creatures. We are not the same but we all experience pain and the restriction of our choices to be negative. I do not wish to perpetuate social growth that is based around exploitation (the m.o. of capitalism) because I understand that nothing other than who holds power in an historical moment determines who gets exploited. As long as vivisection exists, we are all vulnerable. These categories which seem so natural and immutable to us (human/animal, colonizer/colonized, man/woman, boss/worker, etc.) sometimes undergo profound redefinitions. By allowing oppression to exist for any group in our society, we're just keeping it warm for the next shake-up. Maybe you and I won't be alive then, but who knows what side of the line our great-grandchildren will be on.

    The only safe and sane thing to do is to pull up oppression by the root and eliminate it for all beings, not just confine it to what we think are safe corridors. We need to stop trying to divide the world into groups it's okay to oppress versus groups it's not and just realize that the act of oppression itself is what's abhorrent and dangeorus.
     
  8. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,341

    8

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
    Male , 46 years old
    Long Beach CA  United States
    i love calvin :lmao:
     
  10. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    My thoughts expressed to a tee.......check and mate
     
  11. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I haven’t seen any evidence of this. If you understood that you’d concede that this ideology has some weak spots, and allow for opposing viewpoints.

    I’m interested in the ideas. Both perspectives on this issue, or any issue, cannot be simultaneously true. You cannot expect others to adopt your prescriptions without demonstrating sufficient cause. Not only have you not done that, you don’t seem really interested in doing that.
    Also, to my credit, I have refrained from making this personal, which you seem determined to do.

    Anarchism has nothing to do with it. You and others like yourself are trying to co-opt Anarchism for your own extremist agenda. You don’t have ownership of Anarchism, you don’t get to take ownership of Anarchism. If Anarchism is going to have a future, there should be a substantial effort to dissociate from this stuff.

    You’re doing it again. Like the product and the producer, the issue is sentience, not specific tasks that sentient beings can perform.

    Yes, humans see the world in human terms, and primarily concern themselves with human needs, because they are human. Being a part of the human species is morally relevant.
    While you’re bemoaning anthropocentrism, I’d also remind you that I would grant any non-human sentient life with all the rights I grant for myself.

    Other species don’t have values for us to contemplate. Values involve a higher level of understanding and comprehension.

    I never claimed otherwise. However, I find the idea of a universe without sentience to be as horrifying as it is tragic.

    You’re doing it, again. You cannot honestly conflate the object with the institution. It’s wrong as well as being fundamentally dishonest.

    You say this as though it was self-evident. There is no reason to believe this. There is no connection between animal research and interpersonal or international violence. There is no factual, or inductive reason to believe a causal relationship.

    This is essentially Bentham’s argument. However, “restriction”, as you so deliberately phrase it, is not the same for animals as it is for humans. For animals “freedom” is entirely physical, merely freedom of movement.
    Also, if it were simply an issue of pain, then we can just anesthetize all the animals and the debate would be over. However, that’s not really the case.

    This is why I find your claims of “superior morality” to be so fundamentally bogus. Deliberately allowing a person to die is still murder. You’re proposing mass murder. What’s interesting is that this doesn’t seem to cause any distress. One would think if there were a true equivalency, (Which is still insane.) that there would be some emotional conflict. For instance, if I could only save two people who are dying, or in mortal danger, I would make the choice, but I would most likely feel very uneasy about making that decision. I don’t see an excess of empathy, here. Quite the contrary.

    Demonstrate a causal connection between animal testing and human exploitation.

    No. You’re just spontaneously creating these new categories and treating it as self-evident. Women, ethnic groups, homosexuals, Jews, etc., have all been historically oppressed. However, and this is essentially the biggest argument against this sort of oppression, is that they are just as human as anyone else, there is no fundamental difference. That is why these forms of oppression have been dismantled, over time, because they ran contrary to the facts. To conflate animal research, or agriculture with pogroms or slavery, is first of all, to spit in the faces of all the people who have been victims of this bigotry, but to commit dishonesty. I mean, to say that the difference between a white person and a black person or a human and a dog are comparable in any respect is ridiculous, among other things.
    When animals, or anything else, can be observed to have achieved sentience, to have become an equal, then they will be accorded the same rights. No sooner.

    What you’re talking about can’t honestly be described as oppression. First, because oppression necessitates a malicious intent. Second, as mentioned, freedom for human beings has a completely different definition. No matter how hard you’d like to believe it, this isn’t some arbitrary distinction.

    In terms of sentient individuals, I’d agree with that completely.
     
  12. miserablist

    miserablist Experienced Member Experienced member


    91

    0

    0

    Feb 11, 2010
     
    What NGNM85 said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ which is pretty much what I have been trying to say on the other thread but s/he puts it much more eloquently.
    Carcass. I can't tell if you are simply dense or dishonest. NGNM85 has been polite, rational and has engaged with the points you and others have raised in a reasonable manner. You respond with ad hominem attacks, dishonest forms of argument and an outright refusal to present anything to support your cause aside from an incorrect assumption that certain concepts are self evident. As I said on the killer whale thread you AR types remind me of pro-lifers and young earth creationists.
     
  13. ASA

    ASA Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    888

    0

    0

    Nov 2, 2009
     
    can we agree that the way of doing things right now sux
     
  14. Rathryn

    Rathryn Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    853

    1

    0

    Oct 21, 2009
     
    @ Carcass:
    Your attitude towards NGNM, to me, signifies a similar feeling of superiority as he is portraying towards animals, as you suggested.
    Also, I do not see NGNM making any personal comments, other than a wondering if you were obtuse or stupid.
    As for your arguments that we can not see the characteristics of animals from their point of view, that to me is obvious. One cannot change his point of view at will, therefore one cannot assume a point of view that is completely alien to him, to say the least.
    I do not see how a I could ever imagine being a dog, nor how a dog could ever imagine being me.
    Also your other argument concerning this seems to be of the 'absence of proof is no proof of absence'-type. Which I agree with, however until proven wrong I will believe that animals are not sentient in the same way we are, therefore not necessarily inferior, but different and we do NOT have to give them the same rights as ourselves.
     
  15. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    NGMN85 Wrote: "No. You’re just spontaneously creating these new categories and treating it as self-evident. Women, ethnic groups, homosexuals, Jews, etc., have all been historically oppressed. However, and this is essentially the biggest argument against this sort of oppression, is that they are just as human as anyone else, there is no fundamental difference. That is why these forms of oppression have been dismantled, over time, because they ran contrary to the facts. To conflate animal research, or agriculture with pogroms or slavery, is first of all, to spit in the faces of all the people who have been victims of this bigotry, but to commit dishonesty. I mean, to say that the difference between a white person and a black person or a human and a dog are comparable in any respect is ridiculous, among other things.
    When animals, or anything else, can be observed to have achieved sentience, to have become an equal, then they will be accorded the same rights. No sooner."

    So I didn't realize that Animal Rights hinged on the opinions of one person NGMN85, "No sooner"? Your arrogance is astounding, you truly believe these forms of oppression have been dismantled? In Brazil, in Nigeria, in China there is human harvesting going on and I really don't doubt for one second that somewhere on this planet there is illegal medical experimentation on live humans. You split hairs with your Sentience argument, bottom line vivisection is torture, have you ever been inside a vivisection facility? I would invite you to attempt to retain your stance after wittnessing firsthand what goes on inside the research departments. And then explain to me how different it is from a concentration camp. The smell, the hollow eyed expression on the faces of the researchers. As for the medical benefits, we've discussed this before on another thread, the majority of research is not publicly funded, it is subsidized in its majority, by the Pharmaceutical Corporations in the world. You say you are an Anarchist yet I have yet to read anything you write that holds these companies to the torch, so regardless of your stance on animal rights it is ok to oppress and exploit humans as long as some inherant good trickles out to the elite few?
     
  16. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Nag Mom, who was talking to you? Why do you think you're entitled to my time? I've stopped trying to convince you of anything. You can decide for yourself what that means. You're going to reply to this post. You won't be able to help yourself.

    Huh? I just think the dude's a dick. I'm not trying to make Cialis out of him.

    I think my post might have been a little bit confusing. My point was that none of this talk of sentience (which is just an ability) matters. Sentience is not a clear dividing line and it becomes just another excuse for the exercise of violent power. As long as that kind of power is being exercised, no one is safe.

    If anyone's actually interested enough in this subject to (gosh!) read a book on it, I would highly recommend this one. It's a quick read. This is a little bit longer, but has a great section on how vivisection is really just an up-to-date version of animal sacrifice, with about as much social value.
     
  17. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Sentience? They don't even know what it is. They don't even know what human sentience is. It takes time for the eyes to open.
     
  18. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    It's not smart, you don't say. Ok, so some people might think god tells water to flow downhill, but no, I wouldn't call water smart neither. Don't suppose we evolve much nowadays, far quicker to throw some tool together to solve a problem. Maybe we even going backwards. It's a worry, really, our tools growing ever more advanced, while we stand still. I dunno how it's gonna turn out, but it does make you wonder at the wisdom of evolving the ability to create that which is more powerful than ourselves, but like you say, evolution aint that smart.
     
  19. Wonder138

    Wonder138 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    437

    0

    0

    Dec 2, 2009
     
    the funny thing about this all is in the end there opinions some think animals are equal and some don't
    i choose not voice my opinion in this one but i will say this why not try discussing this and save the fighting for the enemy one problem i see alot on hear is that when people disagree they insult each other or take extreme offense when it could be solved so easily by just discussing
     
  20. miserablist

    miserablist Experienced Member Experienced member


    91

    0

    0

    Feb 11, 2010
     
    SO finding medicines to help degenerative disorders is of no social value? Studying the mechanism that govern the functioning of cells in order to deepen our understanding of diseases and help alleviate human suffering is of no social value?
    You really have a warped sense of perspective.
     
Loading...