SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

NGNM85, I find it interesting that you like to carve other user's posts into discrete pieces. A true Cartesian.

If you were familiar with Jensen and Zerzan, you would know that they don't make the same argument and I'm not parroting either one. I've actually met JZ, by the way, and while I don't agree with his philosophy, I will say he was a very courteous houseguest.

Now are you really going to tell me that DIY technological research is comparable in volume to that of corporations who spend billions of dollars on R&D annually? Yes, people invent things all the time (usually these are people who have had the appropriate race and class background to enter academia--also ideological--in the first place). And then corporations find what's profitable about those things and shape the direction of further research to maximize profits. So you must concede that, barring a few marginal cases, the direction of technological research in capitalist societies has been and continues to be unduly shaped by what is good for the wealthy and powerful classes that exercise a stranglehold on knowledge production.

Case in point: space shuttles. Theoretically you could build these in your backyard with a lot of help, but you probably wouldn't because building a space shuttle isn't really that relevant to most people's lives. It's very relevant to the lives of people who have the privilege to care about what's going on in space because they've got it relatively easy on Earth. Given that about 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day, I bet you would see some reprioritizing if class-based, poverty-motivated division of labor vanished tomorrow. As Frantz Fanon said: "if the building of a bridge does not enrich the awareness of those who work on it, then the bridge ought not to be built."

The answer to the E. Coli question was "factory farms," by the way.

I'm not making moral judgments, I'm saying that when something is produced by wealthy capitalists, its design most strongly reflects their interests. Those interests happen to conflict with mine. I get that you can point a tool in any direction but some tools only do one fucking thing. What's the liberatory use for an atomic bomb?

This is why I and others are having a hard time discussing things with you. Rationalism is not neutral! I don't really know how to explain that to you so I'll let you just assume I'm crazy on this point.

Gah! No it's not! Stop carving things up, Descartes! It's a whole, not discrete parts! Everything affects everything else! Does not occur in a vaccuum!

Sure you can! Whatever praxis I favor is a completely separate issue. Marx had an incredibly incisive critique of capitalism but he turned out to be way off base when it came to communism. "What's the alternative" is the classic canard for when you want to stop the attack on your position and start attacking someone else's.

I don't really believe in rights, although I'll gladly take advantage of them. I'm just over here carving my own design onto an amoral universe. I'm confused as to how an anarchist could be utilitarian, though. How do you feel about the Tuskegee experiments? Those sure taught us a lot about syphillis!

 

It just makes it easier to communicate. First of all, I'm not publishing anything so an essay format is unnecessarily formal, and in a straight block of text stuff seems to get missed if it's all crammed together. This style is also more like a conversation.

There are differences, Zerzan is crazier.

Thats' a relief.

I'm sure, but that has little relevance to the matters at hand.

No, but it's part of the picture. I'm just saying it's more nuanced. I also mentioned the vast amount of work being publicly funded.

"Profitable" in this context is another way of saying "useful." Companies manufacture refrigerators and cell phones to make money BECAUSE these items have value and thus people buy them.

Obviously, technologies are marketed to a certain class. However, technology becomes much cheaper when it's perfected. I'm paraphrasing Kurzweil here, but, cell phones, for example, were an expensive toy for elites in the 80's, when it was like a brick and reception was generally bad. Now the technology is perfected they are very small and lightweight, they work much better, and even poor people can afford them.

A LOT of fucking help. It's essentially impossible.

Ah, but it enriches the human race. We all gain from seeing pictures of other planets, from photographs of supernovae light years away. it contributes to our knowledge and understanding of the universe, and it satisfies our natural curiosity. Also, on a long enough time scale, interstellar exploration WILL become a survival imperative. The sun won't last forever. However, we're going to need off-world communities probably much sooner than that for other reasons.

There are plenty of diseases spread in primitive communities. The AIDS virus is believed to have reached humans via "bush meat."

In every way? I sincerely doubt it. This is one of the logical failings of Rand's "ethical egoism", that we have seperate interests. The majority of all people's interests coincide. I want to play Mortal Kombat, designers want to program games like Mortal Kombat, and somebody wants to build games like Mortal Kombat, however they may do that in an unethical way, such as using sweatshops, or not giving decent pay or benefits to employees or by polluting. That does not therefore make Mortal Kombat evil, in fact I like it. You have to make a clear dilineation between the object and it's producer, or method of production.

None. However the science that allows it to work has many beneficial applications.

Agreed.

Thats' true. However, you don't blame the object, you blame the producer. It's not the soccer ball's fault.

I just mean I can't judge or quantify what alternative society you find desireable because I have no idea what that is. I can't support or oppose something I don't know of.

I tend to agree with a lot of Bakunin's criticisms of Marx, many of which I think have been borne out by history.

Not a strict utilitarian, not purely. More of a rule-utilitarian.

But that knowledge could have been gained without the deceit, cruelty, and racism that accompanied those expiriments.

 

In that case, you cannot simply justify something by saying that civilization and nature are the same, since you obviously are saying here that humans are so much more elevated. So this justifies the exploitation of other animals simply because we can? You casually accept it as progress as if nothing will get in the way, as if there is no alternative or reform to the way research may work now. You just sit back and accept it then, knowing that 99% of the time the research is indefinite and pointless, when in fact it is actively negative by killing and torturing the subjects, while only attaining a hopeful maybe for those who believe that all of it is effective and there is nothing we can do is stop it entirely since none of it is feasible.
Sure, animals cannot do all of those things that us, elevated humans can, which you want to defend so badly while admitting that we are part of nature. If humans can attain beliefs and analyze the morality of their actions and do other elevated, complicated things, then why is it that we should just blindly accept your progress, if it is no natural? You told me essentially (not me, but someone else on a previous page) that we should be greatful for our own welfare. The whole point is, we can do more with our elevated mammalian brain and interpret the welfare of others, instead of selfishly and blindly accepting everything that has come to fruition because of evolution.
Give me a fucking break... nearly everyone has very little compassion for animals, really. Nearly everyone recognizes that humans should exploit and dominate simply because they too accept it as your progress. People always label organization that are trying to "find the cure" as saints and they will completely rebuke any sort of dissent involved with the exploitation of animals (and people for that matter), simply because they feel that humans are superior because of being selfish. How selfish to think that we own living things, selling them and testing on them and manipulating them for the worse like a slave trade. Animals have a wide variety of emotions. Perhaps we should include mentally disabled humans in this slave trade, since this is surival of the fitttest... they would surely be the first to die in "nature". Our civilization, not nature, is not ONLY survival of the fittest, it is survival of the most powerful, wealthiest, ect. They are not necessarily the fittest, I am sure there are many overweight corporate executives and politicians,ect. just like everyone else physically. There are intelligent people who get killed and unintelligent people who get killed, because of factors that could only exist within our civilization. Some of these factors were created by us, only us, and our civilization, and they were not present before mankind and are not present in non-human communities.
I say to you: this is what you want to reduce all organisms BESIDES humans to? How selfish. We ARE elevated mentally, so this is why I have the innate ability to reject notions of some hopeful, positive progression which actually DOES exploit others, human and non-human. So essentially you can also consider my rejection, nature, because I am offered this by my brain, seeing as how I am human and can interpret things on a more elevated level over non-humans, which want nothing but happiness and survival, since they too have a wide variety of emotions, not just nerves, a spincal cord, ect. ect.
Don't get me wrong about them wanting happiness and survival; I can understand communities requiring the exploitation of non-humans, but I cannot understand why, how can one be so selfish by living in their civilization and looking out into the wild, observing their struggle, yet you still equate this with your own civilization and somehow this justifies people imposing their realized progress (not simply extinct, everyone can decide for themselves what is right and just) on that world out there, where there is a natural struggle as opposed to a civilized struggle. You fail to recognize that you are observing from civilization and you are bold enough to say that you are superior because you are not part of that natural struggle, you are part of the civilized struggle.
It would also make sense to recognize human freedom and animal freedom as one in the same if you believe that our civilization is just a part of nature. If we share it with everything else then we have the obligation to oversee it with all, since we have the unique, elevated ability to.

 

@ bananaman:
so all ferrets are domesticated huh? Tell that to the Blackfooted ferret... but then that would be swinging way off topic.


@ singerminger, corvus corax and carcass:
you all have way more patience for this thread's inhabitants then i have.

NGNM85 has already tipped hand (in this the beginning of this thread. pg. 1)...it is not so much the premises or reasons behind veganism/support of animal liberation that irks NGNM85 so much but NGNM85's perception that the 'animal rights' movement/ anarcho-primitivists (2 TOTALLY separate things that NGNM85 seems to always group together) are 'spiriting away' activists from what NGNM85 DEEMS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT aspects of the struggle against oppression.
See pg 1 of this vSxE thread:
NGNM85:
“In the past few years I've seen dramatic growth in the fanatical vegans/ radical "animal rights" or primativists (sic), it seems like it's really surging. Personally, this leaves me dismayed and depressed. It seems like the movement is being co-opted by the Broccoli Brigade. This is taking energy, attention, and resources away from opposing the war, human rights, etc. It almost seems like a coup within the radical left, Anarchism, in particular.”

Haymarket8 smelled what NGNM85 was cooking right off the bat.

I am firmly under the impression that no matter WHAT anyone says in support of Animal Liberation, (hell, nearly ALL of NGNM85 arguments were addressed in the link that i provided a page or so back, and even more info is available on the web if NGNM85 was really interested in the reasoning behind the animal liberation stance) NGNM85 will always block and redirect in the hopes of discrediting “vegans/ radical 'animal rights' or primativists (sic)” and ultimately...for what? To 'win activists' for NGNM85's personal favorite 'radical left' politics? I really think so!

The real question here is why NGNM85 believes that humans are so flawed that they are unable to work toward liberation on ALL fronts at the same time. Perhaps a rational human with a positive approach would find a way to try to INCLUDE activists with animal liberationist and/or anarcho-primitivist views rather then ostracizing them and their beliefs. I know NGNM85 total lack of compassion for other earthlings and flagrant speciesism isn't wining me over!

no really, I personally would not spend another second debating a speciesist any more then I would devote time to explaining why racism/white supremacy is appalling to a neo-nazi whose obvious motive is to push their own agenda. The titles change but the shit still smells the same. :/

 

Ferret = Mustela putorius furo - a domesticated animal descended from European polecats

Blackfooted ferret = Mustela nigripens a North American species that is extinct in the wild

 

If you're going to publicly express you're opinion, you are obligated to defend it. This is especially true with radical opinions. I think I've shown more patience than anyone, in consistantly responding, repeating myself when asked the same question, or being subjected to the same false accusation, etc.

Well, theres' sort of a chicken & the egg thing, there. I'm dismayed because it's drawing energy away from legitimate efforts, and because it's ideologically bogus. However, the ideology is the root of the problem.

Because they usually are grouped together, they have common tendencies. Moreover, most of the individuals I've debated here have all expressed both viewpoints to varying degrees.

Whats' most important is arguable. However, diverting resources and energy from the murder and oppression of people for animals that aren't even endangered is definitely a waste.

No, they weren't. I read a lot of the FAQ, it contained many of the same logical fallacies, and questionable assumptions.

I respond to what is presented to me.

"Left" and "right" are crude oversimplifications to facilitate communication. Anarchists, socialists, progressives, and a number of others would be classified as "Left." A double axis graph is more accurate, but cumbersome for conversation.
I'm just trying to combat what I see as misguided or just plain wrong ideas. If somebody says something to me, or in front of me, that is totally nuts, or whatever, I'm probably going to say so. Not to mention, it's generally good to question assumptions, and subject ideas to scrutiny.

Thats' inaccurate because freedom as humans understand and experience it doesn't apply to animals.

On May Day we want as many people in the field as possible, in general. However, these individuals with questionable ideology can be detrimental in a number of ways. One of which being that they can drain resources from really important issues.
Again, when I hear someone say "speciesism" it's like Xenu, or FEMA death camps.

[/quote]

Now you're being completely disingenuous. Thats' a completely ridiculous and unfair comparison.

 

Well, if it makes any sense to anyone, I see everything you say, for sake of the debate as invalid.
You voted.

Hence, you are not truly anarchist, so why are you here?

Also, You seem to be into philosophy, which would mean almost all of your views are influenced by here-say and opinons, which in turn are not solidified fact, which in turn makes your arguments and views, again, in my eyes, Invalid.

Animal rights Issues, are cut and dried.
Human beings do not need animal products to survive.
Animal testing should be done on animal abusers.
Animal abuse should carry as much of a sentence as they give to people for human abuse, if not more.
It does not need to happen.
The simple fact that you debate it, leads me to believe you have never once entertained the thought in the slightest to give up your human elitism to have compassion for animals, let alone engage in any kind of valid D.A. work.

Henceforth, Stop talking in circles and beating around the bush with over extended sentences, big words you learned in college and own up to this one simple fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

thank you bananaman, as a long time ferret enthusiast, i am well aware of the differences. the Blackfooted ferret IS NOT extinct in the wild...at least, not yet. now, please forgive me for getting back on track.

ahahah LOL that is rich! a Xenu crack from someone prattling on about some great techo-futuro-space-living future that will save the chosen 'judges of the universe' all in the nick of time?!
....yeah say hi to Captain Kerk for me.

One might as well trust in the second coming, way to be beholden to a pipe dream...i'm sure NGNM85 will be the first one aboard the magical starship to the promised land of Mars. a whole new planet to fail on!
rest assured that i'll be dockside waving farewell!

NGNM85 it's a completely fair comparison, sorry that your delicate self image can't hack a nasty truth. i call 'em like i see 'em.

just because YOU have no empathy for other then human animals does NOT MEAN that humans who do are misguided or are taking anything away from ANY struggles. human and animal liberation ARE NOT mutually exclusive pursuits (except perhaps for you and other speciesists), they are complimentary and the vast majority of humans (that i have had contact with) in the AL struggle are very much involved with human liberation struggles. again, perhaps it would be wise and behoove you (and the Liberation struggles you have chosen to support) to not 'shit in the pool' - it reflects poorly on you, causes a rift and misrepresents both intertwined struggles.

you may now return your blinders to their previous position and continue proving your malicious intent.

filters on, troll ignored. beam me up Scotty.

 

Down with the cross, Up with the animals.

 

I never said anything about aliens. You're also deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I said NASA was planning to build generators on the moon. That is true: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology ... power.html The purpose of this would be to support a permenant human presence. The article also mentioned the possibility of a Mars base some years down the line. There was also a mention of it in this months Popular Science. This is not fiction.

That phrase is a simplified paraphrase of Immanuel Kant, the enlightenment philosopher, who died in 1804.

As for the future of humanity; while it is impossible to see the future exactly, we can certainly make some fairly basic predictions. As Oxford professor Nick Bostrom pointed out, theres' four major possibilities;
Human Extinction
Recurrant Collapse
Plateau
Posthumanity
The first three are pretty unpleasant. The middle two are the least likely. The most probable outcome will be what happens to all species; they evolve (As any biologist will tell you species is transitory.) into something else, or they go extinct. While we are evolving physically, albiet incredibly slowly, at least, on our terms, we are evolving much faster technologically. It is very likely, barring an existential catastrophe, which is also certainly undesireable, the technological ability to change and improve ourselves beyond humanity's present limits will happen much sooner. The most likely emergent technologies that would allow for this are genetic engineering and nanotechnology. While both are in their infancy, they are growing rapidly. The designs are outpacing the technology, as usually happens. The difference is, these things are now actually within reach.
Medical technology has advanced sufficiently that there is no possible separation between medicine and human enhancement. They are intrinsically linked from now on. Just because I know what people are thinking, I perfectly realize that these new technologies hold risks in themselves, that like atomic energy, they could be used to inflict great harm.
However, that is true of everything. Just like language. It's the context that makes the difference. The positive side is it's up to us which way it turns out, which is also the negative side. However, I happen to believe in people. That we can come together and survive our technological infancy to reach whatever comes afterwards. The unique position of humanity is unlike the tyrannosaur we will not be victims of circumstance, we will be the architects. This is Transhumanism. The idea that technologies (Just like the internet.) can and should be used to increase freedom and the quality of life, up to and including expanding the boundries of life as we have known it.

Comparing transhumanism to the rapture is absurd. As I mentioned, missions to Mars are already being planned. We've already sent probes there, it's just a matter of time. NASA and scientist around the world have also done substantial research on terraforming.

Then you might want to get your eyes checked. Although, I suppose hopelessly distorting everything I say makes it easier to disagree with me. Then, you might have to think and produce logical arguments.

Thats' not remotely true.

You're talking about "speciesism" and you're calling me out to lunch. Thats' rich.

I'm not deeply involved in the primativist or animal rights extremist circles, but the ones I've met would rather throw fake blood at rich ladies wearing fur than protest the war, or Israeli brutality in Gaza, or whatever. A case of seriously misaligned priorities.

This is absolute nonsense. You expect me to toe the line and conform on an ANARCHIST forum?! Thats' bullshit. This forum may be young, but there already have been plenty of debates and arguments. There should be, especially because this is a DISCUSSION FORUM. The thread is SxE, veganism, and vegetarianism. I'm well within my rights. Unless we're forbidden to disagree, perish the thought. Thankfully, I don't establish such restrictions. I have been calm and receptive and responsive to constant criticism.
There already is a rift because primativists and animal rights extremists are subscribing to bogus ideology. I wouldn't want to be associated with that. Why do they suddenly own Anarchism? Who decided that? There are Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians on this site, I should think there is room for Anarcho-Transhumanists.
Forgive me for not realizing you're ideas are so unsound they can't stand a little criticism.

If only you were capable of intelligent debate. Au revoir.

 

I hadn't realized everyone consented to have you represent them. It must be an honor. Incidentally, I don't see how there could BE a debate then, as, excepting one or two comments by Debiant and Bananaman, I have been the sole opposition. Then it ceases to be a debate. Besides, if anything has been made clear, at least by you and Hex, is that you deperately want to avoid debate. Carcass is the only one yet who can formulate coherent arguments, and is capable/willing to conduct reasoned debate.

First of all thats' like saying it's raining in Tibet so I need my tires galvanized. Putting you're lack of logic aside, you're going way out of line. That is another thread. If you have something to say, put it in the fucking thread, thats' why they exist. This thread has to do with issues concerning a discussion of the merits of vegetarianism and veganism. Don't do that. It doesn't belong here. Put it in the thread.

Ok.... So where do you get your ideas? Zerzan and Jensen are PHILOSOPHERS. Kropotkin is a PHILOSOPHER. Proudhon is a PHILOSOPHER. Anarchism is a PHILOSOPHY. You're in the wrong place then. Also, it's amazing that this argument that you're at least trying to use, this structure, this idea, of debates and conclusions based on facts, was created by the Greek philosophers, Aristotle, in particular.

Don't look now but you're expounding a philosophy. A flawed philosophy, but a philosophy nonetheless.

I do have compassion for animals, but I have more compassion for humans, generally speaking, anyway.

Right, damn those big words. Intellectualism, whats it good for? What we need is ignorance and stupidity. Too much thinking, thats' the problem. See where that takes you.

If that were true at least I wouldn't be alone.

 

I love how you forgot to explain your ideals behind voting, and supporting the system were supposed to be against.

 

I'm not going to explain why you're wrong. There is a thread titled "Vote & Elections" devoted to that subject. There I discussed that issue with several other board members, I posted lengthy expositions on what I think and where I stand. You're welcome to read them, if theres' something I didn't address adequately, we can discuss it there. However, I won't discuss it on this thread. Just like if anybody has anything to say about Transhumanism further, theres' a thread for that. This isn't that thread.

 

I lift and been a veggie for 20 years. I'm not sure to what level you train, but I've always managed to keep in reasonable shape/fitness without meat in my diet. I turned veggie when I was 16/17 and I felt that I got fitter and stayed ripped without much effort- though I believe I'd have been bigger had I eaten meat.
A lot of the meat eaters I have trained alongside developed gastric and digestive problems, (not to mention terrible flatulence), when keeping to high protein diets and i have never suffered with anything like that. I'm a smoker, drinker and i have taken stupid quantities of none state condoned drugs over the years, but I've stayed fairly active and healthy due to training and playing sports. I'm quite a sporadic trainer at times, (I have gone several months at a time without training, due mainly to various work and social commitments), and never had a problem getting back on track.
My diets fairly simple. I eat a lot of pasta and rice dishes, plenty of green veg, nuts/pulses- though, with me, I think the majority of the substitutions for the high protein levels in red meat come from dairy produce. I'm not sure how working out would affect someone with a vegan diet, but I'm quite confident that most of the protiens for muscle growth could be found in fruits/veg/beans etc- if not you could always take a vitamin pill or a weight lifters protien supplement drink. I've thought about going vegan- and ethically I agree with veganism, but I love me eggs, cheeses and milk so much I would be constantly tempted to break my abstinence. So I;ve always ducked the responsibility I feel to take the plunge!
Anyhow- if you're training for a Mr Universe competition then I wouldn't advise you going veggie, but if it's just for keeping in shape and/or being toned I think it'll actually benefit you. Meat- especially red meat, isn't very good for the human body- too much fat for humans to consume regularly, too many steroids and hormones to help the animals grow and thrive quickly enough to be slaughtered to deadline and harmful/addictive additives to disguise the taste of blood, shit and piss. Mostly though- nothing has to be killed on your behalf if you give meat up. Maybe you could give up red meat and stick to fish for a while- see how that works when training? Definitely shouldn't make you frail though.
Hope that helps

 

@ Brutal_Aeons and anyone else wondering

here's an entire website devoted to vegan bodybuilding: http://www.veganbodybuilding.com/
i hope it helps, i didn't spend any real time looking through it since it's not really my bag. perhaps it might contain links that answer questions you have.

 

X.V.X.

 

I have no issues with the straight edge community,I admire their strength and will power to say no. As for myself i'm drinking as i type this. I have a few hippie friends that are vegans,cool people and hey,they wont touch my Hawaiian pizza.

 

ehh.. SxE is alright by me, as long as they dont try to shove it down my throat, i just think they are missing out on so much fun!!

I am a vegetarian...

and the debate in this forum --->

 

I have no problem with the SxE movement at all... I just like my drinks and drugs too much to quit
One of the joys of living in Holland, legal weed and hashish.

 

I couldn't agree more.