Human"ism"

[Iren]

this is a tender topic for me. i think that we're completely equal to other animals. but they deserve to be treated equally! i went to the dumpster today and fed the cats. i cry for them and their misery. one was a baby, dying. so scared and wouldn't come near me but in the end consented to take a bone and run away. when i see a horse i look for its ribs. i'm not as passionate as in "equus" but i hjold that belief completely. soldiers. beasts of burden, poor things. i take on tyhe blame for humanity when face to face to these abused creatures. i physically hurt myself and feel guilty if i laugh minutes aft4er i saw this misery. so pure and primitive

[impermanentrage]

Call me old fashioned, but i believe in a return to such healthy sporting events as bringing back the lions. Man, what i wouldn't do to see christians kneeling before a large predatory carnivore, begging their zoophobic deity to save their quivering , ever weeping, lamb-like eyes. <br>Is hate too strong a word to describe how i feel towards this faith? Or is it not quite strong enough? It is comments like "animals are here for our use" that infuriates me. By that token i will say, "are you here for the use of a viral pathogen?" <br> <br>Entropy, <br>Alex

[Guest]

Ahh, I think that answer is simple (the one pertaining to domestiaction of plants verses animals). Which was domesticated first? Animals or plants? Hybrid plant breeding was around a lot longer than animals... and it's been going on a lot longer, in many more forms, arguably. Major meat producing animals were bred under a Darwinian process, where the robust animals got to breed (not unlike how it would have worked in the wild). However, plants were bred in ways that could have never happened in the wild, totally new species created with the ‘devine’ intervention of man... <br> <br>But... I don't think that anarchy exists to ‘reduce stress’ on all living things. Hell, on humans, for that matter. The abolishment of property, and the abolishment of consumerism is going to be one hell of a stressful situation!

[Guest]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>It is comments like "animals are here for our use" that infuriates me. By that token i will say, "are you here for the use of a viral pathogen?"<p><hr></blockquote> <br> <br>Ahh! You unwittingly answer your own question! Aren't we?

[Guest]

It makes no damned difference how long we've been doing something. That has no bearing on whether it should be continued or not. People may have been beating their children thousands of years ago, that doesn't make it ok. People have been slaughtering each other in wars from the beginning of our time, but that doesn't mean it's "natural" and we should continue. <br> <br>The point is: This murder is unnecessary! Period. It's unnecessary cruelty. Unless you're a sadist, you can be perfectly happy and healthy NOT exploiting animals. So stop being so selfish and think of others. <br> <br>Besides, if you truly did care about people so much you wouldn't be eating factory farmed meat, because if the grain and corn was not being fed to fattening farm animals, there would be more food to go around to feed starving people.

[Guest]

And one more thing. . . <br> <br>"There are cultures eating monkey brains, do you want to simply end their traditions? Is it because they're immoral, or because you're not culturally inclined to do what they do?" <br> <br>Yes, screw traditions that only exist if someone is murdered. Have some compassion. <br> <br>~ tamara

[Guest]

So: <br> <br>Step 1: Stop all humans eating a natural omnivorous diet <br>Step 2: Stop all other animals eating meat. <br> <br>Sod this, I'm off for a KFC

[Kevehs]

Or better yet, <br> <br>1) stop making the exact same naturalistic fallacy over and over again without ever responding to the arguments against it. <br> <br>This applies to both your first and second above proposal.

[Guest]

impermanentrage was basically making a case that animals are ‘more prone’ to domestication, which is clearly not the case seeing how agriculture has progressed over time. <br> <br>Killing animals is totally unnecessary, and I can agree with you for the most part. The question is whether or not we should have a bias for animals when plants are just as alive, if not more connected to us. <br> <br>And don't start that crap about eating factory farmed meat. being better for poverty, and so on. The impact of me not eating it would be unbelievably insignificant. Doing so would not only be foolish for me, but also very egotisical.

[Guest]

This is where problems come about. When you start equating human political philosophy to animal -&gt; human interaction. Then things get unnecessarily authoritarian. Anarchy ought not pretend to define culture beyond a specific point. I can certainly eat an animal without being authoritarian to my fellow human beings. If you want a culture that is defined by strict ‘norms’ so be it. But don't think it's anarchism.

[impermanentrage]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>impermanentrage was basically making a case that animals are ‘more prone’ to domestication, which is clearly not the case seeing how agriculture has progressed over time. <p><hr></blockquote> <br> <br>This is not what i was attempting to illustrate. you have my apologies for not further clarifying my position(s). <br>What i am/was attempting to point out, in reference to domesticated plants and/or animals, wasn't that one was more "prone" to domestication. Rather , that one is more prone to the rigors of said domestication. In this case an animal , in my opinion, is more likely to develop conditions of trauma that we, as animals, are more fully aware of. <br> <br>I also must say anonY, that you should refrain form saying that a domestic animal breeds under a "Darwinian" process. The domestication of animals and plants, although indeed different on a phylogenetic level, are still produced with one particular underlying principle. That is, they are being artificially selected (versus natural selection), with an anthropocentric goal. So regardless of the kingdom one lifeform may belong to, over another, we as animals, are much more capable of comprehending that which causes trauma to other animals, versus that which causes such problems in plants. I am not attacking your ethno-botanical inclinations, as there is a great deal of evidence for the assertion that man and some species of plants have a evolutionary relationship of symbiosis. <br>I must disagree that deciding not to give money to an ecologically destructive industry is somehow "irrelevant" , when one considers the evidence to the contrary. Both on an anthropocentric, as well as an ecologically centered perspective. <br> <br> <br>Entropy, <br>Alex <br>

[Guest]

You define tramua with regards to an intellectual capacity. A plant that shrivels up as it's being cooked doesn't bother you, but an animal that jumps when it's prodded by a rod does. This bias is understandable, as we can identify more with beings which have a CNS, but this bias is hardly rational. Or even ‘moral,’ since we're neglecting other lifeforms for the sake of intellectuality. Or rather, for the sake of a CNS. <br> <br>Although I admit that the Darwinian comment wasn't completely thought out, I still believe that animals have underwent less human manipulation than plants, and that when animals are manipulated, it's more Darwinian. Plants can't change their overall genetic makeup over several generations, whereas animals can change their genetic makeup to a more survivable (or meatier, for the sake of this discussion) version of themselves in only a few. Plants require, by their very makeup, impossible maniuplations, interbreeding and so on. Things that couldn't happen in the wild at all. There's a flaw with this line of thought, though, due to animal pet breeding, and the vast number of plants which humans have never even touched. So it's up in the air, I guess. <br> <br>And I didn't say not feeding the industry it was irrelevant, I said it was insignificant. It's relevant from an ethical view to some people. It makes a great statement. But statements don't mean everything.

[Guest]

"The impact of me not eating it would be unbelievably insignificant. Doing so would not only be foolish for me, but also very egotisical." <br> <br>Fine, if you want to say that changing your behavior has such a small affect on the world, then why would you even bother being anarchist? If no one can affect the world, why doesn't everyone just crawl in a hole and die? Our world is what we make of it. Our actions affect everything. Take some responsibility. <br> <br>Egotistical? Speciesism and Humanism is Egotistical. We are animals, unique in our own ways, but not superior. Who the hell told us we were superior? What I think is egotistical is being so lazy and selfish as to continue to eat meat when facts are continually brought to you that consinstently prove animals suffer for these industries, the environment is hurt by it and as a result so are people. And it's not just opinion; it's fact. The environment suffers, and cows suffer when their throats are slit just like your dog would suffer if someone came up and kicked it in the stomach. <br> <br>Why do we have this bias towards animals and not plants? That's nearly too ridiculous to discuss: animals are sentient. They feel, they suffer, they hurt, they can anguish. This is cruelty and torture and not worth a mouthful of flesh. They're conscious and want to live just as much as we do; what would give anyone the idea that they didn't care whether they lived or died, or did not feel pain? Sure, plants have the spark of life like every other being. But if someone were concerned with preserving this life as much as possible, would they not then try to live as simply as possible? Plants are the minimum that we need to consume to live. So, theoretically, if someone went vegan then they would be living and taking away the least life. Besides, if someone were concerned about all these plants being destroyed, they would also not consume meat because the animals being fattened up are fed with plants, if you cut out the meat, less plants die. <br> <br>And still, I don't understand how if philosophy transcends to the way humans interact with animals, why that should be such a problem. Why are we so superior? Isn't heirarchy a problem? Seems to me it causes a lot of problems, why should we be slave masters to animals if we shouldn't be to each other? Not so long ago women were property of their husbands and blacks were subhuman slaves. I don't think the exploitation of animals is on any higher plane. Humanism is egotistical. Period. You could say telling other people not to eat meat is crossing over the line of their rights. But, where are the rights of the animals then, they have none? They don't have the right to live? That's like saying "You can't take away my right to beat my children, to have my slave." Where is the right of the child or slave as a sentient being? I'm sorry if you would miss your hamburger, but I think the cow would miss it's life more. <br> <br>~ tamara

[Guest]

I am an anarchist because I find the theory to be appealing. I never suggested that no one can affect the world, I merely suggested that working for the world, as it is, in a way that is ‘moral’ hardly does any damn good. <br> <br>My not eating some meat that I have on a plate in front of me is not going to change the fact that a cow had to die, and ecological damage had to occur. Indeed, my not buying that meat will change nothing, because either it will be wasted, or recycled in the system. I accept that. I don't think that not eating that piece of meat is going to do a damn thing. You? You would take that piece of meat and throw it in the garbage, I suspect. Not me. At the very least, assuming I felt I should accept this moralistic view and not eat anything nutritional except for a subset of creatures I deem fit for consumption because they don't feel ‘pain,’ or aren't ‘affected psychologically’ or some other irrational bias; I would take that meat and give it to someone else who does not mind eating meat. <br> <br>True humanism can't be egotistical, since humans themselves tend to have many cultures spanning countless ideas and traditions. Indeed, humanism doesn't care about self interest. It only lets people explore themselves as much as possible, this means that at times, self interest is completely irrelevant; Humans themselves, as irrational as they can be, have invented morality, after all. And countless other ideas which contridict ‘reason’ to many. Without humanism, these ideas would be lost. One must laugh sliently to themselves when they realize that is the primary goal to some rather disturbed deep ecologists! <br> <br>Anarchy is the only theory which is humanistic. It only stands to define how human cultures interact with one another; defining interhuman relationships is its only goal. You cannot be an anarchist until you fully realize that people are different; tastes, feelings, ideas, visions, momments. This includes eating habits. <br> <br>No one says that humanism means that we are superior. The only people pretending to be superior, at least morally, are the people who kill living things becuse they ‘lack’ the intellectual capacity to show physical pain. <br> <br>Yes, animals are hurt by other animals. Humans are one of the few animals capable of really seeing that hurt and being affected by it (pets can be affected by someone elses pain). And humans are arguably some of the only animals capable of restricting themselves from hurting (again, pets, due to their neural training, are capable of playing rough without hurting- whereas a wild animal would bite your arm off). But this ‘moral’ justification is laughable! Any other animal that isn't human can go about killing other lower animals, but humans themselves shouldn't? Why? Because apparently, once we've invented this system in which heirarchy doesn't exist, we think it's rational to apply it to lower animals; animals incapable of respecting it as a social system?

[ThePeccary]

Well, to be honest, it might be true. There doesn't seem to be any scientific reason to think that it would be true, but that doesn't rule out the possibility. On the other hand, it might also be true that I am the only person in the world who feels any pain at all, or even that I am the only person who exists. <br> <br>Funny. I always thought it might be true that animals (even the fly I'm currently watching repeatedly fly headfirst into the window) possess exactly the same intelligence as humans, There doesn't seem to be any scientific reason to think that it would be true, but that doesn't rule out the possibility. <br> <br>However, if we get past the skeptical problems for a moment, there does seem to be heaps of evidence that human brains are far more developed than those of any other animals, and that while it may be straightforward to measure psychological stress of your average cow or sheep, it is virtually impossible to measure it in the vastly more complex human brain.