Horselord posted:Humans are humans, so they get treated as them, yes I agree, and how do you define humans? I do it with the thing the human species has that no other species has.
we don't extend special protection to animals simply because they are not human, yes, see above. We're using human here as synonymous with person, when person is the more important part. If he was real, would you eat Elim Garak?
considering afaik intelligent people aliens are scifi this distills the point. you don't have a problem treating animals as food or tools because they aren't people. however you string together a definition of 'people', humans still count as people, and no one/thing else does. so just say eating animals is cool because they're not human instead of obfuscating shit by talking about bear court. at the end of day a bear wouldn't feel guilty about eating you, you feel the same, whatever
Horselord posted:I had to say bear court
catchphrase
Horselord posted:No not really.
ah fuck
Horselord posted:i know that this is technically an offsite but that doesn't mean that you have to behave like a malicious dickhead from somethingawful, a website and culture that i think everyone here already understands is bad. That's the last time I'll respond to remarks like this.
At an impromptu press conference today following multiple serious allegations of sexual abuse against horses, the Horselord confused onlookers with a diatribe against the toxicity of mid-oughts bulletin board culture in a pointed refusal to discuss the charges at hand.
Horselord posted:I had to say bear court because "eating animals is cool because they're not human" wasn't sinking into the votes-for-cows side of the argument. they seem to think that animals are like people, so i had to explain why they're not. you might think going over it is tiresome but maybe you're not the audience
naw votes for cows (even horses) is cool w me, not to mention jury duty. what i found tiresome was beating around the human exceptionalism bush trying to erect a moral framework for an argument that doesn't really want one
Horselord posted:i know that this is technically an offsite but that doesn't mean that you have to behave like a malicious dickhead from somethingawful, a website and culture that i think everyone here already understands is bad. That's the last time I'll respond to remarks like this.
demanding respect and decorum after you lead your argument with "vegans are indistinguishable from morgellons crazies," come on man.
either get rude and have fun or don't, whimpering about how mean people are when they respond in kind to your shit is just sad
shriekingviolet posted:demanding respect and decorum after you lead your argument with "vegans are indistinguishable from morgellons crazies," come on man.
either get rude and have fun or don't, whimpering about how mean people are when they respond in kind to your shit is just sad
when i said they're frequently very insane i meant it as a literal statement, I think they're the absolute majority and I'll double down on that. Remember when I said that one of the insane, racist and unpleasant things they do is compare animals to oppressed people and the disabled? vegan lunatics have done this in this conversation several times, they can't help themselves.
there's a difference between saying something you think is true, and standing at the sidelines of the thread trying to bait whoever you don't like with cheap shots. I literally think most vegan animal rights people are unwell, but the person who makes crude insinuations about me is just trying to get a reaction.
Edited by Horselord ()
Horselord posted:when i said they're frequently very insane i meant it as a literal statement, I think they're the absolute majority and I'll double down on that. Remember when I said that one of the insane, racist and unpleasant things they do is compare animals to oppressed people and the disabled? vegan lunatics have done this in this conversation several times, they can't help themselves.
there's a difference between saying something you think is true, and standing at the sidelines of the thread trying to bait whoever you don't like with cheap shots. I literally think most vegan animal rights people are unwell, but the person who makes crude insinuations about me is just trying to get a reaction.
just because you literally believe a stupid thing doesnt make it less bad to say. like, i want to enthusiastically agree with your condemnation of people who compare factory farming to the holocaust because i do think it's indicative of a larger problem in the discourse of animal rights, but you're being such a fucking idiot with these blanket statements that all i can do is sit back and laugh at you being called a horse fucker
Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia posted:i want to enthusiastically agree with your condemnation of people who compare factory farming to the holocaust because i do think it's indicative of a larger problem in the discourse of animal rights, but
too late. thank you for your support
This is what horselord wants us to eat, and it's fucking disgusting
the only idiocy i see in my own behavior is in how i was willing to assume people spouting this rhetoric had something wrong with them that made it so they couldn't understand why that's nazi shit, and that there would be some sort of negative response to it from the thread as a whole. that the nazi shit gets + rep and a cheerleader squad going "lol you fuck horses" makes me realize you're all pretty comfortable with dehumanizing vast swathes of the marginalized and oppressed if you think it'll justify the overly anthropomorphized way you view farm animals, and especially if it gives you some gormless sick owns along the way.
dizastar posted:I'm not into the ethical tenet of animal lib either but claiming 'human exceptionalism' doesnt work when it comes to concepts such as liberation or empathy because they obviously dont have a universal meaning. YOu think tribesmen in amazonia have the same ethical/moral standpoint as you? or that theyre aware & sympathetic towards the same causes, ideals & so on as you or me? ethics & morals, like every aspect of social life, are entirely shaped by material conditions n thus differ from one social group to another.
But the material conditions governing different human groups are far more alike than they are different. Humans react to or behave under similar conditions in very similar ways, including the conditions imposed by humans on each other. And those conditions do not differ so much from each other that eg humans' desire for and conceptualisation of liberation has no continuity across time and space.
I would venture Amazonian tribesmen probably have a similar view of Brazil's government as I, being premissed on some or even most of the same judgments. The same might well be true of the way indigenous groups in various regions of the world perceive their governments. Then there is the complication of certain groups of human beings having a motivation for perceiving other groups as being more different to them than is actually the case, and other groups lacking such motivation and both acting/thinking accordingly.
Granted some of these observations also hold true for humans vis-a-vis all life on earth, but obviously to a far lesser extent than within the human species.
Also there are documented cases of collective cannibalism during famines in medieval Europe, and surely in other cold regions where low land productivity was a problem. See B H Slicker van Bath's study of W European agrarian history.
Horselord posted:i'm going to bed now. before i go i'd like everyone to think about how funny it is to call the assertion that animal liberation is for insane people a "fucking idiot blanket statement", when in this very thread advocates of animal liberation have equated the mental capacity of a man brain damaged by a gunshot to the head to that of livestock, and the social development of south american tribes to that of herds of animals.
I don't think the point was to equate the two, but to point out where the categories being applied to animals to distinguish them from human beings break down, indicating that there's some more fundamental assumption in which that argument is being grounded, and that the mental categories part is just secondary to that. I don't necessarily believe the statement that human beings are categorically distinguished from animals is invalid in this context, its just that the distinction is going to be at least partly arbitrary, which is the point of illustrating where those categories break down. We can make endless distinctions about the tipping point between animal versus human cognition, but the moral distinction that human beings are treated as ends and animals as the means isn't going to have any rational basis, its just an arbitrary decision which uses rational categories as a patina.
Under imperialism, which treats humans as means to extract profit, it shouldn’t be a surprise to see commonalities with how non-human animals and the environment are treated when they are also seen as a means to extract profit.
Edited by pogfan1996 ()
Horselord posted:No it has nothing to do with them sharing the same moral system or culture. It doesn't matter which one you have, it just matters that you can have one. All peoples on this earth have one, even though they are different, but cattle don't have one, because they can't.
what makes you so certain that a cow can't have a moral framework? let's say for a moment that it did have one, does it look any different from a cow that definitely doesn't have one?
Horselord posted:i'm going to bed now. before i go i'd like everyone to think about how funny it is to call the assertion that animal liberation is for insane people a "fucking idiot blanket statement", when in this very thread advocates of animal liberation have equated the mental capacity of a man brain damaged by a gunshot to the head to that of livestock, and the social development of south american tribes to that of herds of animals.
the only idiocy i see in my own behavior is in how i was willing to assume people spouting this rhetoric had something wrong with them that made it so they couldn't understand why that's nazi shit, and that there would be some sort of negative response to it from the thread as a whole. that the nazi shit gets + rep and a cheerleader squad going "lol you fuck horses" makes me realize you're all pretty comfortable with dehumanizing vast swathes of the marginalized and oppressed if you think it'll justify the overly anthropomorphized way you view farm animals, and especially if it gives you some gormless sick owns along the way.
I realize no human being or anthropomorphic horse is stupid enough to actually believe this is the point dizastar or I were making, and that you're just using heated rhetoric to make your point, which lord knows is common enough on the internet. Thank you for the discussion.
Also, I'm sorry people are teasing you about your avatar, I know it's rough. When I choose my avatar, it felt like the whole forum attacked me: "oh, you just want somebody to fuck the spiral in your head," "do you jerk off into the spiral," "is the spiral where shit comes from instead of your asshole," etc etc. People are just being playful.
88888 posted:I'm reading a book about the history of the production and consumption of cacao. the author is overly credulous and the book itself is mediocre. however, I have learned that cacao pods just sort of sprout straight off the trunk of the tree, which I didn't know, and I guess is neat
that is neat.
Edited by tears ()
tears posted:av fucka boyz
ribaraca posted:I don't think the point was to equate the two, but to point out where the categories being applied to animals to distinguish them from human beings break down,
they don't break down. to argue that they break down is the same as saying there's such a thing as a lesser kind of human. what a surprise that cripples and nonwhites are the target of comparison.
sovnarkoman posted:pork is haram
dizastar posted:it's clear that changes need to be made, for example i plan to propose to the jdpon executive board, once it is established, that all housepets be expropriated from euro-amerikkkan homes (along with the homes) to be fed to the hungriest and meat deprived third worlders. another proposition i have, maybe a little bit more risqué, is simply to feed all white people to the subsistence famers of the global south. Just think about it, you know how much nutrients are locked inside of our organs, muscles and so on? period blood and placenta are already known to be superfoods, but a whole human heart? think about it... one of the worst parts of so called civilized society is that we aren't allowed to engage in cannibalism anymore, and i dont care much for animal liberation but if it can help us solve that problem then im all for it
Horselord posted:Remember when I said that one of the insane, racist and unpleasant things they do is compare animals to oppressed people and the disabled
It's not insane or racist to do this. Eternal Treblinka was written by a Holocaust survivor. The aim of the comparison is not to degrade oppressed people or the disabled, but to elevate animals. It's a provocation, sure.
See Tarzie on this.
Clearly, these comparisons don’t aim to reduce the moral weight of Jews or Black people. They aim at increasing the moral weight of commodity animals, and their intended rhetorical potency presupposes that the Shoah and slavery are unspeakable atrocities and their victims as morally weighty as victims get. The assertion that commodity animals are morally comparable to Jews and Black people is the logical consequence of commodity animals being morally comparable to all people. There is absolutely no implication in these analogies that Jews and Black people are like commodity animals in any way apart from the capacity to suffer, and their history of being objectified and abused by human majorities.
While I think I’m obliged to consider how these analogies are likely to be interpreted if expressed a certain way and in certain forums, I don’t feel myself under any obligation to reject the analogies altogether or to never discuss them. I can’t insist that people accept the vegan benchmark for moral consideration, but I think it’s reasonable to insist that accusations of racism or antisemitism predicated on a denigration of animals animal liberationists emphatically reject aren’t valid accusations. Repetitive insistence on how humans really are morally special isn’t going to fly either, any more than its antecedent, “ordained by God” would.
Parenti posted:
"no, no, you misunderstand, when i said jews are worth the same as rats i meant it in a nice way"