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

SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Outlaw_(A)_Punk, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Oh, come on, now...

    I have a cat. I decide when she can go out, I feed her and so forth. Does this mean my cat is oppressed? Does this make me a fascist? Certainly not.

    Well, for a number of reasons. Again, the equivocation of humans and animals is simply bogus. I don't really think you believe this, either. I mean, if a house was burning down and you could save the baby or the terrier, would you really need to think about it? Of course not. You can't equate sentient and non-sentient life. As Kant would've said, we are the "judges of the universe", that makes us different.

    Second, it has no coherence, no philosophical principle. What is you're ideology based on? Do you subscribe to some buddhist notion about all life being sacred? What about bacteria? Or insects? There shouldn't be any moral distinction in that case between a beetle and a cow. Or is it about pain, ala the Bentham argument? But I doubt it because even if all the cows or whatever were killed painlessly that wouldn't satisfy you, either. So it comes down to which principle is conveniant at the moment.

    Also, you have to make a clear dilineation. I would take a bullet for Morrissey, but meat is NOT murder. Murder is an act of wanton cruelty for power, profit, or the pleasure of doing it. I eat animals to survive, just like they eat eachother. This needs to be clearly differentiated. My cat often quite brutally kills mice and chipmunks, she doesn't even eat them, my cat is not evil.
    Lastly, we need animals to test vaccines and medical procedures. It's very likely the fact you are presently alive is the result of animal testing. Take the infamous soviet expiriments with transplanting dog heads, you think it's awful, and it is certainly gross, and I am not totally unmoved... but those expiriments layed the groundwork for heart transplants.
    I also want to say that there is this absurd idea that animal domestication is somehow tied to political freedom in human society. This is ridiculous nonsense. There have been fascist vegetarians and anarchist meat eaters, it has no bearing at all.

    Yes, but the difference between eachother is not remotely comperable to the distance between species.

    Again, that is a ridiculous comparison. Other humans may be different, but they are humans, the difference between species is a much, much wider gulf. There is absolutely no reason why asians, hispanics, homosexuals, etc., should have less rights or freedoms.

    See above.

    Yes, essentially. Again, we are judges of the universe. We were the first to say "I think, therefore I am." The first that could say that. The first to create music and art, and to split the atom, and go to the moon. You're omission of these acheivements is telling.
     
  2. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    i didn't call anyone a fascist. and i'm still not calling you one. but that isn't freedom to me. i'm not saying i don't think you should look after a cat, don't get me wrong. i'm currently fostering a dog, and of course she is bound by the restraints my life puts on her. it is the domestication of animals in the first place, by humans, that has taken that freedom, the wildness away from the animals.

    you actually believe that because an animal is non-human, they are also non-sentient??!! you think they don't feel pain? they don't know pleasure? love? if you stand on your cat's tail, does she not shriek and hold it against you for the rest of the day? ... or at least until you give her a tasty treat... and could you tell me what you mean by 'judges of the universe'? is being judgemental a positive trait? and no, i haven't a clue what i would do in the burning house situation, since i'm not in that situation right now. i tend not to dwell on what ifs, for there are far too many and my head might explode. however, if i was to rescue the baby first, it would likely be that i would realise that there would likely be far more suffering as far as the family were concerned if the baby died than if the dog did, because it is their child, their flesh and blood. and also, i realise most humans seem to care more about other humans than non-humans. i guess that must be the human way. i don't know why. evolution?

    i don't subscribe to any ideology. i follow my heart. and my heart feels sick at the thought of any sentient beings, human or non-human, being abused, exploited, tortured, murdered for this disgusting capitalist system. i realise that people in some parts of the world must kill animals to eat to survive. but here in the uk, and many other 'developed countries' or whatever label we want to use, i know few people who hunt animals for their own food. i know people who buy body parts wrapped in plastic from a shop, far enough removed from the life they once had that the person can see it as food, not a dead animal. and i have the misfortune to meet angry men on horses who go out at the weekend to hunt for sport and not even use the flesh they would manage to kill if they had not been intervened. to hunt an animal, then use every bit of its body to sustain your life - i cannot argue with that. but i live somewhere that i, and just about everyone else in a similar situation, can live a healthy (often healthier!) life without having to consume animal products. and it can even be cheaper to eat that way than to buy meat, so its not only 'the rich' who can 'afford' to be vegan. again, i'm lucky enough to live near lots of fruit and veg producing dumpsters! :thumbsup: ... where do you live, that you have to eat animals to survive?


    No we don't. The pharmaceutical industry needs animals to make up whatever result it is they need to release a money-making drug or procedure onto the market, to keep symptoms dumber down, and people sick, to rely on them for more drugs, and more drugs... There is a range of more reliable non-animal testing methods. see http://www.drhadwentrust.org/non-animal ... ternatives for more details. Even if this was not the case, why should all those animals have to suffer in laboratories, just to prolong human life a little longer? It is only putting off the inevitable after all. And to be honest, if animals were not tested on this way, and I really would not be alive right now just because of that, so? I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't be here! So many different factors/opportunities had to be in place at particular moments in time for each of us to be alive right now. If the holocaust had never happened, maybe my jewish ancestors would not have left poland, my parents would never have met, and I would not be here. But, the holocaust not happening would have been a good thing, no? I think so.

    Yes, but the difference between eachother is not remotely comperable to the distance between species.[/quote]

    Why not? Because you say so?

    Yeah, everything I write is only my opinion. And everything you write is yours. So i'm not saying i'm right. but i don't think you are either. who is after all? let's just say, i think it's good to discuss these things, and i'm not going to judge you because i don't agree with much of what you are saying, and i hope you're not sat there in front of your screen calling me a bitch either <3

    I totally agree that there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have less rights or freedom, so what is the reason non-human animals should?

    Telling of what? Maybe we did some of those things. So? But weren't the whales making music before us? Also, how about animals that can soar through the air using no equipment, run 70mph, communicate using frequencies we don't even know exist. In fact, every single species of animal has it's own talent and beauty. just because they are different to ours, i don't believe that it makes them inferior.

    and really, what is this 'judges of the unverse' thing you mention again? And how does it give us the right to 'rule' over the rest of the planet? surely that's not very 'anarcho' of us...
     
  3. Hex

    Hex Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    126

    0

    0

    Sep 22, 2009
     
    very well said singerminger! :thumbsup:
    i commend and admire your levelheadedness, a trait that i have never been able to cultivate in myself.
     
  4. ghost in the void

    ghost in the void Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    me neither. i sometime get told i am, i sometimes feel i am, but lately i seem to have turned into a snarling intolerant freakazoid.

    Hex, where is your avatar from? it's pretty.
     
  5. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    You can't compare the two. At least not until golden retrievers start reading Thomas Paine.

    It was an example to make a point...

    Why is that inherently bad? She is loved and will live a longer life with a higher standard of living.

    "Sentient" has more than one definition. True sentience involves abstract reasoning and self awareness. I don't dispute animals have nerves and physical senses, I don't think anyone disputes that, today.

    It goes back to one of the notable philosophers of the enlightenment, Immanuel Kant, I have a limited knowledge of his work, just a few quotes from Critique of Pure Reason from an ethics class and scattered bits. I was more into Nietzsche. Anyhow... The idea is simply that judgment, the ability to frame and conceptualize ideas, that this is the basis of knowledge. Humans are the only species, on earth anyway, that can do this. Animals largely function on instinct, they have limited capacity to both understand and communicate, which comes down to biology. Only humans can say; "I think, therefore I am."

    Judgment is an essential component of knowledge. I would say at least making judgments is beneficial.

    You should do that more often. You have to analyze and test you'r preconceptions, subject them to scrutiny. In terms of philosophy, the mind is a laboratory.

    Now you're making progress.

    Thats' part of it, yes. All life forms are generally biologically programmed to protect themselves and their offspring. There are a few exceptions, like the Great White shark which will actually eat it's own babies, but that’s' rare. it's pretty self explanatory. Evolution promotes traits that increase likelihood of survival. This is why women are emotionally bonded via neurotransmitters to their children to protect them, to increase the likelihood they will grow to maturity.

    That’s' part of the problem right there. Not to mention, it makes articulating or arguing you're position difficult, for both of us. Emotions are often illogical, and when not tempered by logic can lead to disaster.

    I'm not particularly enthralled by capitalism, myself, but that is a separate issue. Capitalism dictates the method by which animals are cultivated for food, but capitalism has no propriety over this. Livestock are/were cultivated and consumed in both pre-capitalist and socialist/communist societies. So let's set that aside, as it's really not integral to the subject at hand.

    That’s' what "development" means in that context. We've developed where we don't have to spend most of our lives desperately searching for food and shelter. It's something we should be grateful for.

    There is a psychological disconnect, but I'm not sure how important that is.

    I dislike hunting. I don't see the appeal. However, it sounds like you're making this an "ought." On what authority do you make or that decision, how do you justify it logically, and how should it be enforced? This is where emotional thinking can come up short.

    Actually a lot of the animals are used, even the bones and fat. But, efficiency is sort of beside the point.

    It's possible. However, it's complicated. I'd love to see a really comprehensive nutritional study of vegans. There are some who are very conscientious and do it right, but you really have to work to get all the essential nutrients. I suspect most vegans have at least some level of malnutrition, or deficiency. You can get protein from vegetables, but only certain proteins, which means you have to combine them in sufficient quantities. Vitamin B12, which is essential to the human body, is absent from natural plant foods. The only way you can get it is through vegan products that have had b12 put into them, or by buying supplements. A person who lives on a well-planned, nutritionally balanced, vegan diet, all else being equal, will probably be healthier. (Although I've noticed a lot of vegan foods seem to have a LOT of sodium.) However, actually managing a healthy vegan diet, if you want to do it right, is sort of a project.

    [quote="singerminger”]and it can even be cheaper to eat that way than to buy meat,[/quote]

    You can try to do vegan on a budget, but it's much harder. Low-grade meat and animal based foods are actually the cheapest. Look at McDonalds', even though it is essentially poison. This is part of the reason why poor people suffer from more health ailments. Crap food is cheap. The few vegans I've associated with spend much more than I do on food. Financially, there’s no appeal.

    [quote="singerminger”]so its not only 'the rich' who can 'afford' to be vegan. again, i'm lucky enough to live near lots of fruit and veg producing dumpsters! :thumbsup: ... where do you live, that you have to eat animals to survive?[/quote]

    I'm hardly upper crust, I'm poor working class, but I balk at eating out of a dumpster. That is also really unsanitary. I'd rather struggle by and buy real food.

    [quote="singerminger”]No we don't. The pharmaceutical industry needs animals to make up whatever result it is they need to release a money-making drug or procedure onto the market, to keep symptoms dumber down, and people sick, to rely on them for more drugs, and more drugs...[/quote]

    For some tests animals are not efficient, they sometimes metabolize chemicals differently, but they are still essential. The procedure I mentioned, the heart transplant, that had to be perfected on animals.
    Unless you want medical science, and eventually, civilization to end, it needs to be done. Although there are some promising emergent technologies, like computer simulations, but that is probably at least a decade away, if not longer.
    The scientists who develop new drugs treatments and surgeries are generally acting for the public welfare, however it's manufacturers, and distributers that prevent people from having access. 200 years ago you were an old man if you made it to 40, now people regularly live into their 70's and 80's. In fact the greatest period of growth was in the last century, which is just another example of the exponential growth of technology. This is definitely a good thing. By what I’m guessing to be your age (Teens/Early twenties.) IF you survived this long, you would have to be raising children now, that is, if you survived the births, and many of the children would die, themselves. It’s not a very pretty picture.

    [quote="singerminger”]There is a range of more reliable non-animal testing methods. see http://www.drhadwentrust.org/non-animal ... ternatives for more details. Even if this was not the case, why should all those animals have to suffer in laboratories, just to prolong human life a little longer?[/quote]

    Tell that to somebody whose child has cancer or desperately needs a transplant. Please. This is absurd.

    [quote="singerminger”]It is only putting off the inevitable after all.[/quote]

    Would you rather live or die, given the choice? You might choose death, but you would be in the minority. I also find this callous attitude toward human life really glaring given you're professed moral outrage over animals.

    [quote="singerminger”] And to be honest, if animals were not tested on this way, and I really would not be alive right now just because of that, so? I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't be here![/quote]

    No offense, but this is a ridiculous statement. Moreover, it only works if you don't value being alive.

    [quote="singerminger”] So many different factors/opportunities had to be in place at particular moments in time for each of us to be alive right now. If the holocaust had never happened, maybe my jewish ancestors would not have left poland, my parents would never have met, and I would not be here. But, the holocaust not happening would have been a good thing, no? I think so.[/quote]

    There is no comparison. That’s completely disingenuous. Moreover, it's insulting to the memory of people who died and suffered in concentration camps. If you can't differentiate between the mass torture and murder of human beings for ethnic hatred to the raising of livestock for food…. PETA tried that bullshit and they got sued, deservedly so.

    [quote="singerminger”]Why not? Because you say so?[/quote]

    No, because humans are more than 99% genetically alike. You and I are drastically more alike than you and a ferret. That’s not really complicated, it's not even a matter of opinion.

    [quote="singerminger”] Yeah, everything I write is only my opinion. And everything you write is yours. So i'm not saying i'm right. but i don't think you are either. who is after all? let's just say, i think it's good to discuss these things, and i'm not going to judge you because i don't agree with much of what you are saying, and i hope you're not sat there in front of your screen calling me a bitch either <3 [/quote]

    I can articulate my grievances much better than that. Here you get into trouble, again. See, if there is no truth, you can't be right (And neither can I.) and the entire matter becomes pointless. It comes down to "I don't like the animals in captivity." I wouldn't dare contest your right to FEEL that way, but, no offense, I don't really care, either. If you're going to prescribe a course of action, if you're going to push a cause, the argument has to have a logical basis.

    [quote="singerminger”]I totally agree that there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have less rights or freedom, so what is the reason non-human animals should?[/quote]

    First of all, because freedom in it's fullest sense requires a being capable of a level of judgment that animals can't make. Second, because it isn't done out of cruelty, and this is a huge point, it's done for survival. I don't eat meat because I hate the cow and want to destroy the cow, it's not sadism. I'm simply hungry, and it contains a lot of my nutritional requirements. Also, I think there needs to be a huge distinction for endangered species. Let's face it, cows aren't going anywhere. I am much more concerned about gray wolves or polar bears.

    [quote="singerminger”] Telling of what? Maybe we did some of those things. So? But weren't the whales making music before us? Also, how about animals that can soar through the air using no equipment, run 70mph, communicate using frequencies we don't even know exist. In fact, every single species of animal has it's own talent and beauty. just because they are different to ours, i don't believe that it makes them inferior.[/quote]

    Not "maybe", we did. It's telling me about your preconceptions, your psychology. You framed human progress in a completely negative light, as if it had no redeeming characteristics. I find that interesting, and informative. I mean, going to the moon, creating art, harnessing atoms, unlocking the secrets of the universe, etc. ..These are incredible achievements, equally wondrous with anything else. I mean, look at the photos from the Hubble telescope. Not only are we the only organism on this planet that's ever seen those wondrous things, but that could understand them, and imagine the tools to make it possible.

    In all but physical characteristics, essentially, we are superior. Very simply.

    [quote="singerminger”] and really, what is this 'judges of the unverse' thing you mention again? And how does it give us the right to 'rule' over the rest of the planet? surely that's not very 'anarcho' of us...[/quote]

    Again, that rests on the idea of animals having inherent rights and freedoms which sets a burden of proof which, to my knowledge, nobody has met. Therefore, there is no comparison.

    On a sidenote I think the html code on this site is fucked. I give up.
     
  6. Spider

    Spider Experienced Member Experienced member


    90

    1

    0

    Sep 3, 2009
     
    I was a pack a day for a long time, and then when me and my girlfriend "Quit" I was secrtly smoking at any opportunity I could behind her back. It wasn't untill i got into anarchy that i realized supporting an industry that makes 1.2 Billion dollars every day out of killing more than 10, 000 people was fairly hipocritical seeing as i was already boycotting a few multi-nationals. Thats 4.2 million deaths in one year, and this number is increasing. This also doesn't include foetal deaths from pregnant smokers. By smoking you are essentially funding the biggest mass murderers of all time, and killing yourself in the process.

    PS in an unrelated matter dogs as an example of a domesticated species have actually evolved a level of social awareness not found in any other animal (including chimps) through the evolutionary benefits of hanging around humans and getting their scraps. Domesticating them simply took them along for the ride, as they have depended on our relationship for much longer than they have been domesticated.

    They are currently testing cats for similar traits.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1921614-1,00.html
     
  7. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    ok NGNM85, i can see that we are both coming from two extrememly different perspectives on this subject. and i think that it is a positive thing to have this kind of discussion on this kind of board. it gets people thinking from more angles.

    i think i have said what i wanted to say, and if i keep responding, we're gonna take pages and pages! :ecouteurs: but, i want to make it clear that you have some incorrect judgements about me. i do not have a callous attitude towards human life. i DO value life. i think that life is beautiful. human and non-human. and i can see that humans do beautiful things too. i am not disputing that. and human and non-human suffering saddens me greatly. but death? death is the ONLY real fact of life. it is certain. we can't choose to live or die. we live AND die! and that makes life all the more beautiful surely? to appreciate every moment, every other life that we come into contact with, physically or on a different level. yes, science has allowed us to prolong life for a few years. but my question is still, so? what's so important about living longer? i would rather live 'more' during the time that i am alive, which, whether it is 27 years or 99 years, is not very long in the grand scheme of things. and the world wouldn't end for you if i were to die. and vice versa. and i don't mean that in a callous way. it's a fact. and it isn't a fact because some famous philosopher said it, or some famous scientist 'proved' it. it just is.... (unless of course, we both happen to meet and die together in some freak accident! haha)

    i'm 27. and why would i 'have' to be raising children by now? nobody should 'have' to raise a child. people don't 'have' to have children.

    and freedom??

    what????? so wild animals are not free? while human beings, chained by social restraints, and the restraints of their thinking minds, and all of the programming that mind has had since the day we were born, are free... because of that mind??? we have very differing ideas of freedom. in fact, i can see what you are saying. you are looking at freedom from the point of view of a human. and what that word means to your human mind. and to me, your whole argument is based on that. anthropocentrism, and not connecting with the rest of the life we share the planet with. we are just a small part of a massively diverse variety of life on this planet, and we should not forget that. after all, we have the consciousness to remember don't we? and because we have that consciousness, and that judgement you spoke about before, i think that great responsibility comes with it. not only for our species, but for all species (and yes, ours included).

    i eat REAL food! haha. fruit and veg gets thrown in the trash behind shops or warehouses because the packet has a short date. the actual food in the packet stays fresh and edible much longer than that. i do not think that it is unsanitary either. a lot of the food we find is still packaged. obviously, i wash the food too. or peel it. i don't see how it is unsanitary. i think that all this over-sanitisation of life can make people less able to fight germs and disease naturally. i recommend checking behind grocery stores, and if your lucky enough to live near a supplier to catering businesses and shops, then the food stays fresh even longer :thumbsup:

    sorry, that was meant to be short and sweet but ended up :ecouteurs: once again...
     
  8. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    p.s. thanks hex. i don't always feel that way either, ghost. it's difficult in a world like this eh?
     
  9. ixkin

    ixkin New Member New Member


    1

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    " I mean, if a house was burning down and you could save the baby or the terrier, would you really need to think about it? Of course not. You can't equate sentient and non-sentient life. As Kant would've said, we are the "judges of the universe", that makes us different."

    Makes us?whos us?humanity? because for me "us" is ALl life on planet earth,and why would that make me buddhist?
    yes there is different species and? why would one species amongst millions existing on earth be Above all the others?one life is one life is not about being sacred....
    and according to your extraordinary example,if a house would be burn down why would you asume that people have to save people otherwise is stupid?i would fucking save the one i have more feelings for,if thats a dog that would be the dog then!!why would i have to save a baby if im more connected to the dog for instance?because its human? is that even an answer?
    so basically you agree with animal testing too?

    and by the way....what does the age has to do with womens role?
    why do women have to have kids either?
     
  10. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    hear hear! it's nice to hear someone shares similar ideas on this. so many people seem to take the human above all stance, that sometimes i almost lose hope. even 'anarchists'!

    i just got back from the common place, a social centre in leeds. there was a free film showing of 'earthlings'. i recommend this thought-provoking film to everybody who has not yet seen it. it covers a lot of the issues in this discussion (sorry it has seemingly veered quite a bit from the original vegan sxe topic, whilst still being pretty related if we make the connection ;)) it is free to view on google video here:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ings+full#
     
  11. Hex

    Hex Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    126

    0

    0

    Sep 22, 2009
     
    were i tend to cringe at the term 'animal rights' (i much prefer 'animal liberation' to describe the ideas that i support) here is the most comprehensive, one page FAQ on the subject that i know of:
    http://animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

    i think that should clear up a lot of what is being discussed and dissected without reprinting the entire thing here.

    also, i will point out that this pervasive 'humans are most important' stance is full on SPECIESIST. Speciesism is the assigning of different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership, just as racism is the assignment of value/right to humans based on their race. i know that is going to really screw with a lot of posters images of themselves, but it's really time to face the facts and own it. Justifying or rationalizing speciesist attitudes is just cognitive dissonance trying to sort itself out.

    the old 'humans are most important because, because, because' argument is nothing more then that tired Judeo–Christian concept of 'dominion over the earth' leaking out. religious indoctrination is a hard thing to shake off, it holds on tight to our subconscious and is constantly reinforced in most societies.

    the only other thing in this thread which i feel warrants a mention was the post about "you are not what you consume"

    ...wow is THAT a relief!!!

    i suppose that with that kind of absolution i can go buy a shit ton of cases of Coke Cola, start investing in Walmart and buy a few dozen cartons of Marlboros tonight without the worry that what i consume (ie. purchase, financially support as a CONSUMER in a capitalistic society) has absolutely no bearing or reflection on me, the earth, other humans, or my beliefs/convictions. SWEET! :ecouteurs:
     
  12. ghost in the void

    ghost in the void Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    i've already told my story on this thread how i came to be an evil torture supporting flesh eating monster.

    an interesting addition to the tale.

    i've done a lot of human/indiginous rights work/activism. lived with many indig folks here, koori and nulla, from the bundjalung, bidawali, gunai-kurnai and arabunna nations respectively. one of the main spiritual beliefs of indig folk in oz is they don't think they live "on" the earth, but that they are part of it and everything on it. inseparable from the plants, animals, plains and mountains they move amongst. or at least the folks who still hold on to their old ways ("the dreaming") do. this is of course a generalisation.

    i have met many elders of these peoples.

    when i lived in the desert many of us "white protester" folks where vego (for our own varied reasons), myself included at the time. one particularly passionate individual of this group was a hindu or krishna guy. he keep lecturing people, white and black, about the evils of meat. an elder of the arabunna addressed him rather aggressively after a few days of this fellows preaching.

    he said that as part of the land, he consumes anything of it, for to him it is all one thing anyway. anyone telling him not to do so is directly attacking his peoples culture: ie being racist. this statement can have many different interpretations, but i find it true in case point.

    of course this kind of logic can be twisted. i've heard of indig folk hunting endangered seals to extinction in some parts of the world. the nihonjin use this kind of logic to justify their whaling practices as well.

    anyway, when this incident occured we were talking about 'roo. here in oz we have a very rarified top-soil. the land just isn't able to deal with herds of cloven hoofed animals such as bovines. nor is is able to deal with vast monoculture plantations of flora such as soy or wheat. but kangaroo are in plague proportions. it's really hard to drive in the desert sometimes without killing heaps of them. indeed, the nulla don't walk around with spears hunting them "traditionally" much, some mostly just eat their roadkill.

    useless you grow and maintain your own vegie garden, including legumes, it's far more environmentally sustainable to eat 'roo occasionally than it is to be a "locally grown organic plantation supporting vegetarian" for the most part. provided you're eating roadkill 'roo, most commercial brands of the meat are "harvested" in as sickening a manner as any other corporate animal slaughter.

    i'm not really trying to prove any points here. to be anti or pro omnivorism or vegetarianism or whatever. i just thought it was worth mentioning this little tale, and it's implications on my local community and environment.
     
  13. Hex

    Hex Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    126

    0

    0

    Sep 22, 2009
     
    Thanks for a very thoughtful post Ghost! you bring up a very important concept! :thumbsup:
    i completely agree with (and support!!!) roadkill consumption, subsistence and gatherer-hunters...as a matter of fact, that form of omnivorism is vastly more sustainable/does far less damage then the purest vegan diet ever could.
    (sorry veg*ans, i'm jumping ship on you here)
    there is a vast difference between humans who live WITHIN nature (as Ghost described) and those who deem it necessary to use, dominate and exploit it.
     
  14. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    It was blatantly obvious I meant humans.

    That would include plants and bacteria, which would make you a mass murderer by your own convoluted ideology. Except, you make allowance for plants, because they don’t feel pain, which changes the fundamental principle of your belief system, until one talks about killing animals more humanely, then it’s about life again.

    I obviously didn’t mean to infer anyone was specifically a Buddhist, but this ideology has some similarity to the Buddhist concept of “Karma”.

    The short answer is because we are. First, it’s an inherent biological drive to value ones’ own species, and ones’ own family, first. That’s’ just an evolutionary imperative. Second, again… Because humans are fundamentally unique among all life forms on earth, we are TRULY sentient. We can understand abstract concepts, we have imagination and creativity, etc. Trillions of life forms look up at the sky, but only humans can actually reach it, even to the moon (And Mars, in the near future.), we can understand what the atmosphere is composed of, we can take accurate photographs of supernovas occurring light years away and marvel at them, and compose art and poetry about the wonder of the universe. This is very special and goes beyond any other physiological adaptation.

    I didn’t mean sacred literally, I think it’s pretty clear. Besides, that’s’ essentially what you’re saying, until it’s inconvenient, then the argument changes.

    No, and that’s’ not to say you aren’t, you’d just be either dangerously deluded, or a psychopath.

    Because the human is your own kind (No, you can’t bring up different races, ethnicities, or orientations, they are just as human.) and we have a natural evolutionary imperative to protect our own kind. Also, because that baby has the capacity to achieve true sentience, to be a judge of the universe, to create and appreciate art and beauty, etc. Lastly because it’s the right thing to do.

    Of course. Like I said, if it weren’t for animal testing we wouldn’t have developed heart transplants, and thousands of other life-saving medical procedures. If not for modern medicine, I wouldn’t be alive right now, so I’m very grateful for that. Absolutely.
    I think that such tests should have a proven utility, to prove they are necessary and serve a legitimate purpose, and should be carried out as humanely as possible under the circumstances. Just like I think livestock should be treated better, and not injected with chemicals that make them sick and us sick. However, the “how” is really beside the point.

    As I understood it she was suggesting that social/technological progress really wasn’t that big a deal. There seems to be a merging between primitivist and hardcore animal rights ideology, nowadays. Although primitivism, admittedly, outdoes animal rights extremism in going from logically flawed to absolutely insane, not to mention morally atrocious. Science and technology are inherently, and overwhelmingly important. If not for the trivialized progress to help us live “a little bit longer”, which is a total distortion, in the last century alone global average life expectancy DOUBLED. That’s not “a little bit”, by any means. In pre-industrial/pre-agricultural, and even earlier post-industrial/agricultural societies there was no birth control, there was no real “youth”, you went from being a child until just after puberty then you were expected to be an adult and that’s it. Shorter life expectancies, high death rates, and total lack of birth control made people have to have children early. That’s’ why many women in these societies were married mothers before the age of twenty. We really can’t take these things for granted. Given all we know about how horrifically awful (comparatively speaking) life was back then, it’s amazing people can romanticize it. As Hobbes said; “Nasty, brutish, and short.”
     
  15. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Well, if you’re going to publicly express your opinion, especially if it goes against the status quo, you’re obligated to defend it. It’s like Abbie Hoffman said; “I’m really a defendant full-time.” Also, this is essentially the scientific method (Which is also the philosophical method.) an idea is subject to scrutiny and critical analysis, that which survives is truth.

    Probably. That also occurred to me.

    It’s not just you, specifically, but radical animal rights I general. There seems to be a marked indifference to human suffering, in fact, it seems they care much more about animals. Now, admittedly, I’d give a ferret’s life more concern than say, Henry Kissinger, but the ferret isn’t a mass murderer. Or, actually, from you’re perspective, they might be.
    I find it appalling that this draws energy away from pressing crisis. I mean, I can’t morally justify taking energy and manpower away from ending the war, or mass murders in Gaza, or oppression in Tibet. Thousands of innocent people are dying and they honestly want to play on my emotions with “Save the fucking COWS’?! It seems like a tremendous and tragic waste. Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction. If “Meat is Murder” (Again, I LOVE Morrissey.) then it stands to reason that there’s a strong objection to that. If “meat is murder” than so is murder. Yet, the radical animal rights types I see seem ambivalent about this mass destruction of human life. Yet, they still claim to be such sensitive and moral people. It’s interesting. I liken it to radical conservatives who weep and moan about fetuses, but love war and the death penalty. A kind of tunnel-vision.

    But it’s interesting that you didn’t mention it.

    Actually, that might not be a certainty forever. Barring an existential disaster, new medical technologies such as genetic engineering and nanotechnology could extend human life, indefinitely. Not “forever”, but conceivably for hundreds of years, perhaps. Dr. Aubrey de Gray in particular has done some very compelling work on this.

    Not just a few. Again, in the last century alone, global average life expectancy DOUBLED. 50% is not a small increase.

    If you had a terminal disease you might think differently. Appendicitis used to be a death sentence. Now you can be healthy at home the next day. Diarrhea used to be fatal, it still is in the most impoverished, undeveloped areas of the world, particularly for children. Today, you just take a little medicine and stay hydrated. That’s’ definitely a plus.

    Ah, yes. Well, quality is probably more important than quality, but obviously a shorter lifespan increasingly limits the amount of joy you can have. I don’t see why, if we had the sufficient medical technology, we couldn’t have even greater quality of life for longer. Assuming you are reasonably healthy and enjoying life today, what if you looked and felt as good 10 years from now, and so did all of your loved ones, what about twenty. You might eventually decide you’d had enough, but I’d guess you could go on for a very long time and experience much more joy.

    Not for me, but it would for you.

    I’d rather not meet under those circumstances, no offense. However, I don’t plan on being killed in England anytime soon, so I think we’re safe.

    In a more primitive society you did, absolutely. Less developed societies are/were especially hard on women. You just seemed dismissive of human progress, and I was trying to give an example that might hit closer to home.

    “Freedom” does not mean the same thing for animals as it does for humans. For animals “freedom” is essentially purely physical.

    I think our minds are liberating. They allow us to be more free, to experience a whole different level of reality. The human imagination may not be infinite, but it’s close enough.

    I definitely think we should take care of the planet, and protect endangered species, like the polar bears, pandas, etc. However you have to weigh that against human wants and needs on the other end of the spectrum. From a totally radical animal rights perspective, the best thing would be human extinction, and you would endeavor to commit mass murder to hasten that. Of course, that’s’ insane, although there are crazy people who believe that. It’s about where you draw the line. I think emergent technologies are giving us some of the best tools to live more sustainably. After all, there’s enough solar energy to provide 10000X+ the electricity we use today. With nanotechnology we can capture and utilize a lot more of that. There’s also other ideas like nuclear fusion, which could create a lot of power with virtually no waste, whatsoever. IF we can crack the bugs out. I watched a taped lecture by Craig Venter, one of the leaders of the genome project, who was working on altering bacteria which eat C02 and convert it to methane, to make a chemical that could be used as a fuel, instead. Artificial insemination is helping to breed more of endangered species, especially pandas, who are unusually ambivalent towards sex. Organizations and zoos have stockpiled genetic material from these animals, so they can be preserved, forever. There are lots of other examples.

    Well, there’s all other sorts of trash and dirt. Dumpsters are breeding grounds for bacteria. They are also frequented by rodents. Rat urine and feces can carry some nasty diseases, like meningitis.

    It’s too much antibiotics. Part of the problem is in the meat and dairy industry. They give the cows these antibiotics because of the unsanitary way in which they are treated, we eat these antibiotics and in doing so we’re slowly immunizing bacteria. This is causing more deaths from staph infections and such. I definitely think that needs to change.

    I work in a grocery store and I wouldn’t trust most of what we throw out. I don’t even trust everything we sell.

    I’ve actually been accused of being long-winded. Shocking, I’m sure.
     
  16. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    to keep it short but sweet, on this discussion ngnm85, you're talked about pharma, nuclear power, and other government-funded 'science' in a great light. just as i fail to mention things, you fail to mention any disadvantages to all of these too. are you employed by the government to try to turn anarchist's thinking, to support them?
     
  17. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    and you think zoos are a good thing??? how about prisons? because i think both are a violation of freedom. humans built them, and we have the responsibility to destroy them in my opinion. another example that not everything humankind has done has been positive. have you watched earthlings yet?
     
  18. debiant

    debiant Member Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Oct 4, 2009
     
    I think you are wrong about this. Many Zoos do research and seek to preserve rare and endangered species. Zoos bring awareness, and allow injured animals to recover safely. There are a great deal of people that have fostered their love of animals originally in a zoo. This environment is fostered by the public. Zoo staff and volunteers are there to ensure the safety and comfort of the animals. Comparing them to prisons is ridiculous. Maybe go volunteer at a zoo some time and see.

    Animal behaviour changes in a Zoo, well know shit, just like human behaviour changes when placed in a domesticated environment. All the sudden people aren't fighting and fucking any more, they're debating and making love. Here's a thought that just sprung up and you tell me what you think: The mastery of forces of nature is the very thing that has brought about civlization and civilized modes of discourse that are so praised among all seekers of human freedom. If you say that civlized people wouldn't do such things to animals you are forgetting the roots of civlilization. You cannot have anarchy in any productive sense without proper civilization, you cannot have civilization without the conquering of forces of nature.

    The freedom you speak of in animals is the freedom to spend the majority of their life seeking food and water and avoiding predators. If we considered the same freedom for human beings we'd all go back to living in caves and shunning all technological advance. But really that's just your concept of an animals freedom, because animals don't have concepts. Their idea of freedom could be eat play shit fuck. I don't think all animals should be held in captivity and sometimes it is a moral issue, but sometimes it's not.
     
  19. (A) timmy (E)

    (A) timmy (E) Active Member Forum Member


    35

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I'm not sxe because i don't see freedom of alcohol in it - my view is the opposite. Im vegetarian for 3 years already, 2 times i tried to become a vegan- my last try continiued for 4 months but no longer i can.
     
  20. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I've been vegetarian for 12 years, vegan for six. Going vegan is probably the best decision I've ever made. I've been sober for a few months now but I cannot lie, I loooooove smoking pot.

    Ups to singerminger.

    Ghost, you raise an interesting conundrum for vegans. My very short answer is that no indigenous culture needs to be taking moral advice from a white man like myself. I will do you no such favors. ;) It's cultural appropriation to take a single aspect from aboriginals (meat eating) and implement it into your (I'm assuming) first-world capitalist existence. When someone says, "I'm going to buy meat at the store because aboriginals eat meat," you are removing all context. Aboriginal tradition did not involve eating domesticated animals, so that's already a huge difference.

    Whatever your feelings are on the eating of animals in some ideal band society, the one in which we live now suffers from the effects of animal agriculture. Not only is a full third of all raw materials in the United States consumed by animal agriculture, but its scope and violence are intimately interconnected with other forms of oppression that we, as anarchists, have committed to fight against.

    My proposition is this: we use membership in the category "humanity" to determine whether or not another creature deserves moral consideration. Seems simple at face value. If you are a human, your needs for autonomy and freedom from pain are respected; we give this to you because we recognize what we have in common and do not want to live in a world in which people like ourselves are exploited. But whereas biological humanity might seem cut and dry, at various times and places in human history the following groups are not or have not been considered human: women, children, people of color, the working class, queer folks, indigenous people, people in other countries that happen to have a lot of oil under the ground, etc. I understand why people want to exploit non-human animals. I also understand why people want to exploit women. But I don't do either of these things because I don't want to live in a world based on exploitation.

    I know that my boss views me the same way he views a chicken: we both have something within ourselves that he wants to extract. For me, it's the most labor for the least money: 21 hours of my life per week for $12 an hour. If he could get 42 hours for $6 an hour, you bet your ass he'd do it. But from the chicken he can get much more. He can get every hour of her life as she sits in a crate stuffed with her panicking sisters, her feet slowly growing into bare wire caked with feces. Not only does he get her life, but he gets her death and, ultimately, her body. The fact that I have the privilege of a certain bargaining position--being able to at least sell my life even if I do have to sell it--is something of a historical accident. I have been born into privilege but I still recognize that the logical end of capitalism is a society in which we are all chickens: our lives managed from cradle to grave such that every ounce of life force goes to glut the appetites of the ruling class. And fuck a bunch of that shit. To me, anarchism is about recognizing oppression in all of its forms, even ones that don't affect me as directly, and fighting them tooth and nail.

    Whether you're a carnist or a vegan, anyone who thinks that the decision to eat the flesh and fluids of other creatures is apolitical is in willful denial.

    A few hanging thoughts:

    1-People who say they "just can't do it," give me a fuckin' break. Way to disempower yourself. If you believe it's right, then believe in your ability to achieve it. Maybe you'll have to learn to cook a few things you've never heard of, but veganism is a nutritionally complete diet. The only reason to not do it is because you don't want to.

    2-Veganism is fuckin' cheap. Beans are cheap. Rice is cheap. Kale is cheap. What's not cheap is fake meat and cheeses which you don't fuckin' need anyway. Meat is expensive, particularly when you consider that without the massive government subsidies received by factory farms, it would cost upwards of $40 a pound for cow's flesh.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - SxE Vegetarianism Veganism
  1. elahrairah
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,258