on calling cops pigs

Actually my name is because i have an anxiety disorder, and i decided to embrace it instead of be ashamed of it. But i do like the Barbed Wire Halo single, since you asked.

 

Something I'd like to leave for howgodskill: It would seem to be a slip of language that is complicating your expression of the idea. Now I must say this, confirming and acknowledging indoctrination is totally different from accepting it. If we realize the implications of calling a cop a pig yet do not adhere to the backing idea, is there any harm done? You could say we spread the idea but if we actively seek to destroy it is the spread of this realization harmful?

Ive learned a lot about the relations between anarchism and veganism from this topic but, I still have a few questions that could use a direct answer.
Is veganism really a reliable method of resisting capitalism?
Think of all the things that contain animal products. It is a very long list, even if focused purely upon things that are directly consumed by humans. We may be able to refuse meat, leather, and other obvious items but what about things like beer, and sugar? (cane sugar specifically.) While this is ordinarily where i would consider the DIY aspect of anarchism (and punk.) to kick in the problem is that in veganism alone there is more to be done than any individual can do by themselves. I could see a better degree of independence being achieved in communes but what is the reality of that? Can any change truly be achieved by lifestylism? To answer my own question I think so but only if some degree of destruction has already taken place.

I think what I'm really trying to get at is this: If we (anarchists) were to all stop eating meat would it make a difference? When I ask will it make a difference, I mean not only in the world today but the world we seek to create. We must tap into a broader issue for this to make sense, for this issue must have a definite answer before we can talk about the impact of our efforts. The neolithic revolution that brought about so many changes to humans and their society could be said to be Pandora's Box, it is irreversible, but it is so because not only do we lack the strength to close it, we lack the right to do so. And these two things (Strength and Right) are intertwined with each other. Should we claim the right to close it and try to do so, will we not face a contradiction of values? If we do (attempt to) close the box, on one hand we will have stopped capitalist exploitation but what will we have done to freedom? Freedom by nature cannot be forced. It simply cannot be done. The abolition of capitalism is an evil that is neither necessary nor "right" in any sense of the word. One might say that capitalist exploitation violates all ideas of freedom. The tricky part about this is that it does, yet at the same time does not. With the example of meat (that one kilo of meat vs 10 of grain) Capitalism tramples soundly upon the rights of human's in third world country's, yet to deny the right of capitalists to exploit other capitalists (I am aware that these third world citizens may not be capitalist) would be to deny freedom itself. So should we not establish ourselves as a separate entity (DIY?) and serve as a limiting factor between capitalists and non capitalists? I would say yes. However we still have the issue of animals in capitalism, while we may not be superior to them (animals) can we really place their freedom above that of fellow man? If yes, then what does that say about us and our ideals? That we would reject a member of our same species the right to freedom over another species. (Is that good? bad? I don't know.) If no, than what of the relation between animal and human liberation? Does it too have its limits?
And after we have this all sorted out, what does it mean for our method's? Are we really making a difference? If we are, Is it really that great of a thing?

Well now all I can do is wait for the hate to start flowing, but just so you know, I am dead serious about these questions, and am willing to elaborate upon anything you may have a question for, so, fire away.

 

There seems to be some confusion here. Are we talking about every individual as a societal whole or every individual as in anarchists? If we speak of a societal whole, then I must say that no matter what we regard as "moral" or "ethical" there will always be an antithesis to our idea's and because of this it will never be an all encompassing idea. If we speak instead of anarchist's then I must point out that my previous point was partly questioning the effectiveness of resisting capitalism on an individual basis. I recall that you brought up an idea that pertained to the fact that If we were all to do this our individual resistance would be made collective. While I do believe you are correct in this regard I think my source on conflict lies within specieism, If one does not consider an animal such as a cow as "lesser" are we still wrong to kill it for meat, even if the situation does not warrant it as necessary? One does not have to consider themselves above another being to exploit or destroy it. A vegan may find it morally reprehensible to do so but another may not. I think that no morality of any kind ever ought to be obligatory. So with this in mind can we really stop another from doing such a thing when such ideas stem from our own morality?

Well I say that a fundamental difference between anti-specieism and anti-racism is that one is an idea constructed by humans as a form of "natural law" while the other is a idea constructed by human's as a "moral law" In an anarchist society I would expect having the opposition of racism as an inherent "natural law" would make a significant difference in the up-keeping of such a society where it seems an anti-specieist "moral law" would seem to be of no importance to its upkeep at all.

As for this I think the best I can explain is this: If one by free association, associates with a capitalist society and lives by a capitalist standard of morals and expectations than can they really complain about exploitation when they not only fully agreed to it, but also had the opportunity to leave at any time?
As to your remark on what anarchy stands for, I see it as absolute equality in all things. However I should mention that I also am a proponent of panarchism.

 

If cows weren't meant to be eaten they would have evolved thumbs and learned how to use AK47's

 

Ok, do you object to the word ASS being used to refer to butts or as an insult to people? (in the usa the word Ass is actually from Jackass, which are donkeys.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Diet
Main article: Human nutrition
Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming plant, animal, and inorganic material.[76] Varying with available food sources in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted a range of diets, from purely vegetarian to primarily carnivorous. In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to use nutritionally balanced food sources.[77] The human diet is prominently reflected in human culture, and has led to the development of food science.
Until the development of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their sole means of food collection. This involved combining stationary food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms, insect larvae and aquatic molluscs) with wild game, which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed.[78] It has been proposed that members of H. sapiens have used fire to prepare and cook food since the time of their divergence from Homo rhodesiensis (which itself had previously speciated from Homo erectus).[79] Around ten thousand years ago, humans developed agriculture,[80] which substantially altered their diet. This change in diet may also have altered human biology; with the spread of dairy farming providing a new and rich source of food, leading to the evolution of the ability to digest lactose in some adults.[81][82] Agriculture led to increased populations, the development of cities, and because of increased population density, the wider spread of infectious diseases. The types of food consumed, and the way in which they are prepared, has varied widely by time, location, and culture.
In general, humans can survive for two to eight weeks without food, depending on stored body fat. Survival without water is usually limited to three or four days. Lack of food remains a serious problem, with about 36 million humans starving to death every year.[83] Childhood malnutrition is also common and contributes to the global burden of disease.[84] However global food distribution is not even, and obesity among some human populations has increased rapidly, leading to health complications and increased mortality in some developed, and a few developing countries. Worldwide over one billion people are obese,[85] while in the United States 35% of people are obese, leading to this being described as an "obesity epidemic".[86] Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than are expended, so excessive weight gain is usually caused by a combination of an energy-dense high fat diet and insufficient exercise.[85]

 

I understand what you're getting at. You're concerned that by calling cops 'pigs' or any of the other examples, we might have an attitude towards pigs that are less favorable. You are right in the respect that pigs should be held in a higher respect than that. Pigs are smart, emotionally responsive animals.
I'm surprised people got so up in arms about your post :/

 

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI[/video]

 

riot/clone did a version of cows with guns.

 

that i'd like to hear

 

oh...
www.anarcho-punk.net/viewtopic.php?f=94&p=33844

 

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied..." J.S. Mill

What an arrogant bastard.

 

Consider these lyrics on political correctness
It may help explain my position better

The song is PC Musical Chairs by Citizen Fish

 

Topics like this are why anarcho punks are doomed to forever preach to the choir, and never be listened to by anyone except other anarcho punk fans.

 

I don't listen to any anarcho-punk, yet I learned much on this site. I don't agree with majority on this topic (I already stated my reasons), so I just said what I think and buggered off. Everyone has different views on different topics, but we are united in our will to make a better world. And so are many other people. So when you state your views and ideals, some will listen.

 

Ferago has the right idea, Anarchy and Violence! none of this hippie crap

 

Anarcho-punks are doomed to preach to each other until it's too late

 

anarcho punks are doomed because they say they're doomed, and are merely fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy

 

oh, and i'm sure GISM has changed the world greatly. because we really need more violence to solve our problems...as if that's not preaching to the fucking choir