DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

WSM and Animal Rights?

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
dara
Offline
Joined: 16-07-05
Dec 4 2006 21:28

ok comrade. as a proud member of a super-duper class struggle organisation, i shall get a buzz cut, wear a flat cap and so forth.

you have failed to demonstrate how my veganism is connected to europunk silliness. veganism does exist outside of that particular milieu.

dara
Offline
Joined: 16-07-05
Dec 4 2006 21:51

sorry for not keeping up to date. i'll stop reading marx too. 'ne-gree' is that who you kids like?

Quote:
Anyway even if we were to understand the role meat has in asserting masculinity, how does it follow that we should give it up

i'm not sayin you should. nor am i reducing it to simply about masculinity, that was just an example. eat what you like. its not a form of masculinity (or humanity) i like, so i try to live differently. my choice to or not to eat meat is based on situation. if i needed to, i would. i don't like animals enough to give up my life for them.

it probably (definitely) does nothing to undermine masculinity except in a purely personal context. and vegans can be just as sexist and crap in relationships as anyone else. and non vegans can be just as lovely.

Quote:
only PC pussies are vegan.

nice.
smile

what does scundered mean?

dara
Offline
Joined: 16-07-05
Dec 4 2006 22:01
guydebordisdead wrote:
Did you get a nose bleed from that speedy climbdown?

excuse me?
i don't think i've backed away from my position. please explain how i did.

and if you could keep it free of insults about 'europunk' or anything like that, that'd be nice.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Dec 4 2006 22:47

As a vegan (one who realy doesnt give a fuck about eating non-vegan food if thats all I can get or its given to me for free) I think these arguments are complete shit. Except for the trash talking on lifestylists and punks. Doing little crimethinc type actions like glueing locks or spray painting adverts isnt going to get us very far no matter the issue. I dont think any class organization should take a position on dietary habits. Thats something that should be left to the individual.

Since I dont currently live in Ireland does that mean I'm not supposed to post to this thread? sorry, I'm newish to Libcom.org

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Dec 4 2006 23:51

I'm a vegan. It doesn't have anything to do with my politics. I don't believe in animal "rights". I like the term animal welfare. My attitude is, if I can spare other concious beings pain then I might as well. No skin off my nose. That being said, obviously human beings are immensely more importat than animals and it really fucking pisses me off when people go on about animal rights while humans are getting fucked over.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Dec 5 2006 00:08

yay for daniel

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 5 2006 00:19
x357997 wrote:
Since I dont currently live in Ireland does that mean I'm not supposed to post to this thread? sorry, I'm newish to Libcom.org

No mate it's fine - welcome to the site.

anna x
Offline
Joined: 22-09-06
Dec 5 2006 03:37

I personally hate the term vegan as it is too dogmatic. I try to live a life that has as minimal impact on other animals - human and non-human, as well as the environment. I believe that if you are presented with information about things and actions that you know are harmful to others and fail to act on that information then you are a fool. Saying that though, I'm no primitivist. I evolved into a class-struggle anarchist as a result of the experiences of my 35 years. Likewise, 2 years ago I decided to avoid consuming products that have involved the exploitation of animals once I was presented with information that I couldn't ignore. Challenging exploitation in all forms seem to go hand in hand with my anarchist way of engaging with the world. Many people who use the term vegan dogmatically shit me as it makes things too black and white. Yes, intensive farming is evil, but be fucked if I think that eating the eggs that my chickens lay at home as they range freely on acreage involves exploitation at all. Before anyone jumps on me for having chooks at all... They were from a shelter that was going to euthenaze them.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Dec 5 2006 04:08
gregg wrote:
Challenging exploitation in all forms seem to go hand in hand with my anarchist way of engaging with the world.

do you mean being a hippy?

anna x
Offline
Joined: 22-09-06
Dec 5 2006 04:11

lol, yeah, pretty hard to convince people that you're not a hippy when you've got dreads and are interested in permaculture... but i'm not a hippy! Too angry.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Dec 5 2006 04:14
gregg wrote:
lol, yeah, pretty hard to convince people that you're not a hippy when you've got dreads and are interested in permaculture... but i'm not a hippy! Too angry.

oh, then an anarcho-punk?

anna x
Offline
Joined: 22-09-06
Dec 5 2006 04:25

The whole labelling thing is quite interesting isn't it. I guess up to about 10 years ago I would have been ok with being called an anarcho-punk but at 35 and on land wearing wellies instead of combat boots, it seems a bit silly. I do like some of the DIY stuff though but in saying that I went to check out a punk/DIY/anarcho 'festival' the other day and felt really old; like looking back on my self 15 years ago. So anarcho-punk... nah. Just me. Time for a home brew (he he).

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Dec 5 2006 04:39
gregg wrote:
The whole labelling thing is quite interesting isn't it. I guess up to about 10 years ago I would have been ok with being called an anarcho-punk but at 35 and on land wearing wellies instead of combat boots, it seems a bit silly. I do like some of the DIY stuff though but in saying that I went to check out a punk/DIY/anarcho 'festival' the other day and felt really old; like looking back on my self 15 years ago. So anarcho-punk... nah. Just me. Time for a home brew (he he).

*rolls eyes*

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 09:28
Joseph K. wrote:
non sequiter mate, your assumption being that people who do eat meat already have a healthy balanced diet, which is bollocks. i mean i don't attach any political weight to my dietary choices, and don't see a moral problem with predation per se, but your argument doesn't follow.

Not only do I not assume that, I actually think that the opposite is true. People with special diets tend to have more balanced diets as the meat eating population includes almost the entire fast-food eating population, for example. This is why all the comparative studies between random meat-eaters and random vegans / vegetarians are invalid in my opinion. If you compare a population of people who put a lot of time and effort into balancing their diets with a population who don't, there's only going to be one result.

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 09:34
tojiah wrote:
I think the relevant common ground between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom is the ability to experience pain and distress and, more over, to attempt and resist it. No, they won't be setting up a new society (unless we get out of the way, and that's only stop-gap, some other hairless ape will evolve eventually and take our place), but neither will quadriplegics. Not a good enough reason to snub them.

The evidence suggests that animals that are neurologically more complex than ants experience complex emotions. A recent study identified empathy in mice, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop setting traps for the pesky little buggers.

If your defining line is the ability to "experience pain and distress" and "to attempt to resist it", plants are included too.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 5 2006 09:35

ok, obviously i agree, which is why i make no health claims one way or the other. however, to claim that it's 'more difficult' to get a balanced non-animal diet and this translates into poorer aggregate health is another logical leap, as other people have said its probably as easy to eat a balanced vegan diet as an omnivorous one, in the UK at least. and that's before we take into account the 'difficulty' in producing animal food products, which in calorie in-out terms are far less efficient than primary producers (i.e. plants) on account of trophic levels, with which you're no doubt familiar. in short, your opinion that there are "health implications" serious enough to "oppose veganism", is just that, your opinion, without any empirical grounding as far as i can tell (not that empiricism is a sufficient basis for dietary habits, but i know you're rather fond of it wink)

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 09:38
dara wrote:
and gurrier, that whole animal rights tirade is total ninnyflappery. I heard one story about some eejit who did want to stop animals eating other animals, but the story was told within a group of vegetarians/vegans as a joke. You may have noticed that I've never attempted to tell you to stop eating meat/animal products in the pub comrade, yet i am fairly solidly vegan. Its a personal choice, nothing to do with how i see revolutionary change occurring.

It's actually pretty common. See http://www.vegancats.com/ for an example. For some reason, most of the practical applications concern cats wink

But the point still remains that such lunacy is a logical consequence of a rights based approach to non-human animals. That's what I'm arguing against, I consider the vegan cats stuff to be a reductio ad absurdam. I'm not saying that all vegans follow the logical consequences of their diet to the end - most don't.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 5 2006 09:42
gurrier wrote:
But the point still remains that such lunacy is a logical consequence of a rights based approach to non-human animals ... I'm not saying that all vegans follow the logical consequences of their diet to the end - most don't.

which assumes the one and only rationale for veganism is a conception that animals have 'rights', which i don't think holds. i mean you can oppose human rights as a construct, and still oppose murder, torture etc. in fact my veganism is quite without rationale, i reckon my unconscious decided to direct my irrational faculties somewhere fairly harmless tbh wink

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 5 2006 12:35

AR debate 101 tips (cont.)

number 98- let your debating partners disccus animal rights in a way that a Daily Mail journalist would discuss communism, distortions and mistakes only serve you well.

number 99- never say rights when discussing any issues with those on the left, the term liberation is best used.

number 100- understand that speciesism runs through all levels of society, inc. those who profess revolutionary ideas.

number 101- veganism is not inherently revolutionary.

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Dec 5 2006 12:39

number 103- if someone in the discussion wishes to remove specieism as a concept, ask them politely to also remove racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination from their vocab.

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Dec 5 2006 12:50
guydebordisdead wrote:
Comrade, that is some shite you are spouting. You are consciously changing your dietary patterns to conform to a europunk norm which hopefully will allow you to create yourself through an experience with some crust-girl.

An experience with some crust-girl? Isn't this based on the fact that dara would actually be "getting some" rather than the fact that he is living in Ireland and thus not "getting some". grin

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 12:51
Joseph K. wrote:
ok, obviously i agree, which is why i make no health claims one way or the other. however, to claim that it's 'more difficult' to get a balanced non-animal diet and this translates into poorer aggregate health is another logical leap, as other people have said its probably as easy to eat a balanced vegan diet as an omnivorous one, in the UK at least.

It's not a logical leap at all. For a vegan or vegetarian to consume enough protein to keep them healthy, they must consume multiple, specific food-stuffs, carefully selected for their protein content, or else consume protein supplements.

Meat is more widely available than any supplement and easier to produce too, so it's clearly true to say that it's easier to support a diet that includes meat than one that depends on artificial supplements. If your protein intake is derived from multiple plant sources rather than from supplements, then it's even more obvious. A recipe that instructs people to eat any one of the large number of widely available meat-based products is always going to be easier to follow than one that instructs people to eat a highly specific combination of multiple food-sources within specific bounds.

Beyond this, I also find the argument that non-meat-eaters are at higher risk of certain illnesses, regardless of how balanced their diet is, to be convincing. In particular, a study I read some years ago which showed a significant correlation between certain gastric health problems and vegetarian diets due to the fact that our stomachs have a range of acids which are specifically designed to break down meat, acids which can accumulate and prove injurious to the lining of the stomach if they are not broken down themselves by reacting with meat-based enzymes. I do not pretend that this is study presents a compelling case on its own, my opinion is also based upon the general rule of thumb that, at a basic biological level, behaviours that are closer to those that are common features of our ancestors (in an evolutionary sense) are more likely to be healthy than those that are not.

Joseph K. wrote:
and that's before we take into account the 'difficulty' in producing animal food products, which in calorie in-out terms are far less efficient than primary producers (i.e. plants) on account of trophic levels, with which you're no doubt familiar.

I dispute the meaningfulness of pretty much all of the arguments that I've seen which make the above comparison, but that could well be due to the fact that I'm not particularly well informed about the area. How are you measuring the relative difficulty?

Joseph K. wrote:
in short, your opinion that there are "health implications" serious enough to "oppose veganism", is just that, your opinion, without any empirical grounding as far as i can tell (not that empiricism is a sufficient basis for dietary habits, but i know you're rather fond of it wink)

I think I've provided some evidence above that my opinion has some empirical grounding. I think the most convincing argument comes from the inadvisibility of consciously changing behaviour that evolution has baked into our genes unless there is a very good reason to do so. Or, to put it more simply, I like meat and I don't see any reason to stop eating it.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 5 2006 13:04
gurrier wrote:
A recipe that instructs people to eat any one of the large number of widely available meat-based products is always going to be easier to follow than one that instructs people to eat a highly specific combination of multiple food-sources within specific bounds.

assuming contemporary food production is a timeless practice. If everyone in the world turned vegan (and i really couldn't care either way), all that energy lost going up a trophic level (~90% says school) would be available in amino acid-containing plants and products of them, being able to feed more people than before a balanced diet.

gurrier wrote:
How are you measuring the relative difficulty?

you started it :?

gurrier wrote:
I think the most convincing argument comes from the inadvisibility of consciously changing behaviour that evolution has baked into our genes unless there is a very good reason to do so. Or, to put it more simply, I like meat and I don't see any reason to stop eating it.

afaik genes don't necessarily code for specific behaviours and the body is a pretty adaptive complex system. Is there a gene for meat-eating? or rather multiple genes for the particular acids you mention etc? if so, perhaps there are mutants, i mean i don't have any particular ethical reason not to eat meat/dairy, maybe its because of my genes. I don't think an appeal to 'its natural' really adds any weight to your dietary preferences. I mean I don't like meat and i don't see any reason to eat it. Meh.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Dec 5 2006 13:06

What are you on about Gurrier? What do you think vegetarians and vegans eat for protein?! There's plenty in beans etc.

Quote:
I like meat and I don't see any reason to stop eating it

Thats fine, just stop pretending there are logical reasons. Its widely believed that a vegetarian diet it healthier, you're just making a dick of yourself.

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Dec 5 2006 13:07
gurrier wrote:
It's not a logical leap at all. For a vegan or vegetarian to consume enough protein to keep them healthy, they must consume multiple, specific food-stuffs, carefully selected for their protein content, or else consume protein supplements.

I'll let JDMF deal with this one. But I don't see the problem with multiple food stuffs, I like a varied diet. confused

Agh, I can't believe I'm posting on an AR thread.

From an evolutionary perspective, yes meat eating on rare occasions was common, but in attempting to link it to the current level of meat consumption you're taking a bit of a leap. Not only that, your positing of fast food diet being the most common diet seems to ignore the fact of how much this diet is based around consumption and lifestyle habits (in terms of commuting, free time, etc.) that are purely informed by the socio-economic structuring of the world as it it currently is i.e. Capitalism. So surely, in an anarchist society regardless of whether everyone is a meat eater or vegan these dietary habits will change due to changes in the means of production, distribution, etc.

I also don't think the production of meat is exactly all that simple or "efficient", I mean the growing of soya beans in Brazil to feed european livestock to then be killed and distributed outside of Europe??

Also, I think the health benefits of vegetarianism over meat eating have been quite clearly shown at this stage (not on this thread but in terms of studies done).

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Dec 5 2006 13:12

And speaking of meat products, aren't McDonalds burgers only something like 10% meat? I'm sure gurrier wants some 100% Irish minced meat from superquinn for his burger. wink

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 5 2006 13:16

oi, i'm not 'AR crowd' angry

i just have certain dietary preferences in common with them

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 13:42
revol68 wrote:
Ah good to see the old bourgeois scientist coming out there. Your looking to justify your current desires by appeals to evolution vis a vis extremely dodgy science, fanfuckigtastic, I suppouse we could justify rape and authoritarian hierarchy in the same manner. If you feel the need to justify eating meat atleast have the fucking intelligence and honesty to do it on your own terms instead of appealing to some transcendental nature even if it is apparently in your genes.

Next week we learn that women are forever doomed to their current position on the basis of social biology, rape afterall is a hardwired evolutionary mechanism (it isn't by the way).

That's a brilliant argument. You are claiming that my appeal to evolution is invalid on the basis of a comparison to an appeal to evolution in an area that you yourself recognise to be bogus. Even if such behaviour was baked into our genes, which it obviously isn't, there would be a very good reason to change it. As it happens, empathy is definitely baked into our genes and thus behaviours that cause suffering to other people are never a simple expression of evolutionary impulses.

By the way, it's really, really obvious that evolution has baked meat eating into our genes.

We eat things because they are tasty. Things are tasty because they contain required nutrients. The fact that meat is particularly tasty is evolution's way of telling us that it is desirable despite the fact that it was normally more difficult to acquire than plant foodstuffs.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 5 2006 13:51
gurrier wrote:
By the way, it's really, really obvious that evolution has baked meat eating into our genes.

We eat things because they are tasty. Things are tasty because they contain required nutrients. The fact that meat is particularly tasty is evolution's way of telling us that it is desirable despite the fact that it was normally more difficult to acquire than plant foodstuffs.

yeah but i have absolutely no desire to eat meat, no rational or ethical reason for my not doing so, or any peer pressure to not do so. i just don't feel like it. is that 'nature's way' of telling me i have some novel genotype, or are you just spouting ideology as fact, again?

gurrier
Offline
Joined: 30-01-04
Dec 5 2006 14:02
Joseph K. wrote:
assuming contemporary food production is a timeless practice.

Who's assuming that? I'm not.

Joseph K. wrote:
If everyone in the world turned vegan (and i really couldn't care either way), all that energy lost going up a trophic level (~90% says school) would be available in amino acid-containing plants and products of them, being able to feed more people than before a balanced diet.

That's a bogus argument. The energy lost in going up a trophic level is way too simplistic a metric. Even just looking at energy equations, which is still way too simplistic to be meaningful, the important metric should be the amount of energy that can be appropriated by humans. Thus, in the case of grass-fed cattle, for example, the percentage increase in useful energy approaches infinity.

Joseph K. wrote:
gurrier wrote:
How are you measuring the relative difficulty?

you started it :?

Yep, but I made it clear how I'm measuring the difficulty of getting a balanced diet - the complexity of the algorithm and the practical difficulty of following that algorithm.

Joseph K. wrote:
afaik genes don't necessarily code for specific behaviours and the body is a pretty adaptive complex system. Is there a gene for meat-eating? or rather multiple genes for the particular acids you mention etc? if so, perhaps there are mutants, i mean i don't have any particular ethical reason not to eat meat/dairy, maybe its because of my genes. I don't think an appeal to 'its natural' really adds any weight to your dietary preferences. I mean I don't like meat and i don't see any reason to eat it. Meh.

What one finds tasty is genetic. The famous study that proved this relates to the identification of a specific gene which makes some people find cucumber disgusting. A recent study also showed the genetic basis for us finding meats and certain kinds of saturated fats to be delicious. If it was possible to test it, I'd be happy to bet a large sum of money that your aversion to meat is based upon the related ethical matters, rather than being purely a question of taste - a large proportion of vegetarian foodstuffs make great efforts to mimic meat flavours and this is for a reason.