Carnivorous Anarchists?

[birthday pony]

No... I have never said that was "the issue." Nor the other "issues" you propose. My only "issue" is that veg*s use spurious reasoning in order to justify what is an entirely personal choices and give themselves a moral high ground. Not any of the other stuff you listed.

One of the vegans on this board has stated numerous times that he chose such a life style because he would die otherwise. That's at least one excepting to your statement.

Another vegetarian I know said she was one (she's not anymore) because animals simply don't want to be eaten. At least, they show resistance to slaughter and get worked up when they witness another of their species being killed. So she chose not to eat meat. It had nothing to do with wanting to give herself a moral high ground (which I she doesn't think she has anyway). She eats meat now and spends plenty of time around meat-eaters. What's spurious about that?

You are basically saying that people who testify for something are irrelevant because you can testify for the moon being made of cheese. My conclusion is that either you are batshit insane or you are trying to evade the issue by trivializing the fact that people give testimonies about something.

The moon excerpt in question came from this statement:
"I can testify that the moon is cheese but it doesn't make it true."

To which you responded:
"'I wouldn't be surprised if there is. I can testify that the moon is cheese'

Then you are crackpot insane, and no one should listen to you."
You didn't even include the entire sentence. I know you are smart Francois. There is no way you thought he meant the moon is made of cheese.

[Donald]

Sorry to everyone else for the length of this post.

"First you claimed that human domination of non-humans was natural and that human domination of humans was unnatural. You refused to define your terms or explain how your conception of "naturalness" (whatever that may be) justifies human-non human domination and exploitation."

Why should I? You already have decided what "natural" means, and for you it includes everything, including meat-eating. So there's no reason to debate that particular issue.

I reiterate:

I never rejected the term "natural". In fact, I offered my definition of the concept as I understand it, which for the record I don't think is entirely meaningless. I have no problem with the term, you just declared that I do and have refused to present any alternative formulation that I can accept or reject.

I haven’t "decided" anything. I’m just offering my opinion. A debate isn’t possible otherwise, as these last few pages have shown.

The importance of my question relates to this exchange:

Animals eat other animals, are we supposed to condemn lions for the 'genocide' of antelope?

Humans exploit and imprison other humans, that fact does not justify exploitation/imprisonment. Furthermore, lions can't survive unless they consume meat, humans can.

The difference is that predation is natural. Exploitation and imprisonment are not. Humans eating meat, on the other hand, is. So your analogy breaks down, Donald.

Your argument (or what was your argument) rests on the division between unnatural and natural domination. If you don’t want to defendéexplain your position at all, or give me a chance to come to any agreement with you, that’s fine. But your sacrificing your argument.

"Now (as far as I can tell) your claiming the issue is whether veg's can live healthy lives."

No... I have never said that was "the issue." Nor the other "issues" you propose. ..Not any of the other stuff you listed.

Forgive my mistake, I tried to determine what you believe “the issue” is by reading your arguments:

Cows do not understand the choice you are proposing.

The difference is that predation is natural. Exploitation and imprisonment are not. Humans eating meat, on the other hand, is. So your analogy breaks down, Donald.

If we're going to argue from natural constitution, you have to face the fact that humans are omnivores, not herbivores. Our evolutionary ancestors were omnivores, and our biology is omnivore.

These seem to match up with my assessment.

My only "issue" is that veg*s use spurious reasoning in order to justify what is an entirely personal choices and give themselves a moral high ground.

Well if spurious reasoning is the issue then provide arguments and evidence for your position (aka reason), simple assertions don’t count. Also, the suggestion that veg’s oppose human domination of non-humans simply out of some lust for moral superiority is ludicrous. It’s absurd to claim that veg arguments and ideas can be reduced to that. Smugness is not limited to veg’s by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly there are some like that (often people who start eating meat again after a week), but it’s absurd to claim that all veg’s are.

As far as meat being a personal choice, I’ll just re-state what I said to begin with:

It involves the domination/exploitation/commodification/torture/murder of sentient, feeling creatures. By any reasonable standard this qualifies as archy.

"I've directly addressed every one of your counter-arguments."

The only thing this conversation started with, was your claim that meat-eating implies a hierarchy. The issues of naturalness and health are not relevant to that claim.

I didn’t bring those things up! You brought up “naturalness” and health, both as counter arguments to my claim! We’ve been dancing in bizarre circles ever since!

"You excise the bit where I ask for evidence, and I'm evading?"

You are basically saying that people who testify for something are irrelevant because you can testify for the moon being made of cheese. My conclusion is that either you are batshit insane or you are trying to evade the issue by trivializing the fact that people give testimonies about something.

Really? Thats a huge logical gap you just leaped misrepresenting what I said. A more obvious conclusion, from my perspective, is that I was asking for evidence. Not your undocumented assertions about what other people said. I can find you just as many testimonies from veg’s who’ll say how much healthier they are now, etc. It’s entirely anecdotal and insufficient to prove your position. Well documented and researched information on what exactly is unhealthy about a veg diet is what you need.

""I can't really makes sense of the sentence "'Sentience and feels pain' is not a criterion to determine whether something is a hierarchy any more than being made of bark or used to write". I don't want to speculate as to what you might have meant, lest I be charged with evasion once again. Care to explain what you're getting at?""

What I am "getting at" is that the fact that cows are sentient and feel pain is irrelevant. Children are sentient and feel pain, and yet everyone supports their exploitation.

Again, please don’t make baseless assumptions about me or my thoughts. Anyway, I think I might now be even less clear on what you mean. Does hierarchy (and criteria for determining what qualifies) now have nothing to do with you argument? Are you saying that you support the exploitation of children (and non-humans) because it’s supported by “everyone”? Or that somehow we shouldnt care about non human exploitation because children are exploited too?

"I don't believe I've ever had any encounter with you before this. Please don't make baseless assumptions about me. I've tried to be fairly polite throughout this "discussion" but I'm beginning to get a bit fed up."

How is it a baseless assumption? Pretty much everyone in the world, including on this board, supports the parenting system (except the good people at the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement). I naturally assume you do unless proven otherwise. It's no reason for you to get offended. In fact, I fail to see why you'd be offended by people assuming that you are a normal human being!

I have severe problems with “the parenting system”. However, I have no obligation to prove a goddamn thing to you. This is just a red-herring.


I think Im near done with this. Its getting ridiculous.

[Donald]

ps. you have the patience of a saint, donald. i feared i would have to handle that myself.

haha, believe me its wearing thin.

[Francois Tremblay]

If you are so tired of me, why are you still arguing? Or are you just very weak-willed and can't stop replying to me? Or is it just an excuse to leave when you'll feel uncomfortable? Or what?

Unlike some people who are seemingly boundless in their desire to harass and demean people (hi Yarrow), I am here to discuss issues, not here to make people uncomfortable. If this is what is going on, then we need to take a different tack, or just forget about it.

[Yarrow]

it's not an argument, it's a debate. you're supposed to discuss and counter each others' points.

so here's one for you: if it's wrong to exploit children, why is it not wrong to exploit other animals, old or young?

in fact in my eyes this comes down to the usage of the word 'wrong'. not believing in morality, i see as much issue in pulling a carrot from the ground, or indeed planting it. but my personal imperative is to survive, and in order to do that i must consume the bodies of others. to me then, the issue is whether the being needs to die for your survival, how it dies, the overall ecology of the situation, etc.

once you factor in herbs and other 'non-essential' variables, you may come to the conclusion that what really matters is the amount of suffering caused (or, if you like, the amount of suffering you encounter). it can be cut many ways, but these are valuable thoughts to be having. i feel much wiser for having been in the position where i was able to consider these things.

[atheist_anarchist123]

I am an anarchist and i eat meat. I dont think that the hierarchy subject really applies to animals because they may be alive but humans naturally should eat some meat, not a steak Monday, burger Tuesday, pot roast Wednesday, etc. but mostly vegetable based meals with fish and poultry thrown in 1-3 times a week.

[Francois Tremblay]

"so here's one for you: if it's wrong to exploit children, why is it not wrong to exploit other animals, old or young?"

I didn't say it was not wrong, ever, to exploit other animals. I don't believe that meat-eating is inherently exploitative. All I am saying is that it is hypocrite for people on this board to rant against me for being for meat-eating AND to rant against me for being against breeding.

[Yarrow]

i'm not saying eating meat IS inherently exploitative. i'm saying we exploit animals for meat, by means of manipulating their living conditions, diet, biochemistry and breeding. do you refute this claim?

and being against breeding means nothing to me but the end of life. as a parent i can assure you the relationship (my child is still young) is more complex than a heirarchy. the child is the most important part of the system. And i don't think anyone has a problem with your meat eating stance per se- personally i have more issue with your views on animals.

I dont think that the hierarchy subject really applies to animals because they may be alive but humans naturally should eat some meat

atheist, humyns naturally should eat whatever they've adapted too. different peoples are more adapted to meat, milk, fish etc. the humyn 'canines' are actually incisors that have adapted, we do not have the right teeth for eating meat (when compared to other omnivorous animals). but to say a heirarchy doesn't exist because we benefit from it is a mistake.

[Maggot]

we do not have the right teeth for eating meat (when compared to other omnivorous animals).

Then how come I can eat Chicken McNuggets, pot roast, sausage links, etc. just fine?

[Yarrow]

canines have a spherical base, and incisorsn are flat. humyn teeth have adapted to a diet of meat, but they are not designed for it. incidentally, we can eat coal. the fact that something is possible doesn't make it supposed to be.

[zoonjoo]

How is survival hierarchical? And wouldn't all those protein supplement companies and corporate vegetable farms fall into your category of "capitalist"?

At the moment it is nearly impossible to avoid capitalism, so why accuse others of just getting by? I thought the core concept of anarchy was autonomy and ambiguity. It's people like you, who try to divide anarchy into single-minded sub-categories, that divide the anarchist movement itself. There are no market anarchists, no anarcho-syndicalists, no anarcho-feminists (seriously? anarcho-feminism? What the fuck?), there are only people, united against a common enemy, and that enemy is not the capitalist, not the carnivore, not the elitist, not the monarch, not the supreme dictator; it's the ideas these people subscribe to; the ideas that divide the rich from poor, the animals from the dignified vegans, the desperate from the powerful, the peasants from the kings, the populace from the ruler.

Categorizing anarchy is a form of this 'archic' idea. Categories divide. The more we divide, the less we shall conquer.

Edit: this entire thread makes me sick to my stomach.

[ambi]

my take on anarcha-feminism is that it is a form of feminist analysis (versus gender feminism, for example) , not a form of anarchism - though i am sure some anarcha-feminists might disagree.

[Theory5]

I know that a lot of anarchist are Vegitarian, or even better Vegan.
Yet I understand there to be a large number of meat-eaters that claim to be anarchistic.

Is it possible to be both an anarchist and a carnivore?

Shouldn't the ideas of a non-hierarchical system be extended and applied to all living beings?

Aren't the industries manufacturing meat, dairy, animal testing, animal products (clothes, shoes, lipsticks, glues etc) some of the major players in any capatilist regime?

I suppose this is a loaded question, but would like to hear the feedback.

I eat meat. I like meat. With vegans and vegitarians I have come across, I found one thing is common with them; they need to take vitamins and suppliments because they don't get enough vitamins and minerals. So it is my view that we need meat to get all the daily vitamins and minerals we need to survive. I do not however support the abuse of animals on farms, nor do I support hunting, because no one uses everything from an animal they kill.
I do however wait for the day when we only need to take a couple of tissue samples from animals and then we can grow the meat and other animal products in vats and cultures, allowing animals to live freely without harm, including sheep and other livestock.

[Francois Tremblay]

I think in the future that's gonna be the litmus test: whether veg*ns accept to eat grown animal tissues (some already say no, but I hope the vast majority will come back to the realm of sanity and say yes).

[Lucas]

I was strict vegetarian for about 2 and a half years. I didn't do it because I thought I was morally better than everyone else, or that eating meat is oppressive to other animals. I became a vegetarian because I realized the injustice of a dead cow being more profitable and being more of a product than a living cow and how many people treat animals more like consumerist products rather than living things.
If you've ever been to a large slaughterhouse or a factory farm, or even seen how they treat the animals there, it's horrifying. Humans eat meat, there's no doubt about it, how we get it though, and whether it's organic or pumped with perservatives is what makes eating animals an issue.
Plus, if you look at the stomach acids and enzymes in the human body, they're considerably weaker than other meat-eaters, and even omnivores. So I'd suggest that maybe some animals in our diet we're not naturally able to consume without cooking them first.
In any event, I'm also not a vegetarian anymore.