#41

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying


by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.

#42
a rare rhizzone thread that is correct
#43

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying

by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.


again its not about the 'worthiness of women', but about animals being as worthy and as deserving of care and comradely assistance as you or anyone else is. it is completely necessary for animal advocacy because animal advocacy is refusing to ignore the life and suffering of living things

#44
vegansim is obviously Correct, OP
#45

jansenist_drugstore posted:

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying

by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.

again its not about the 'worthiness of women', but about animals being as worthy and as deserving of care and comradely assistance as you or anyone else is. it is completely necessary for animal advocacy because animal advocacy is refusing to ignore the life and suffering of living things


it is perfectly possible to care for non-human life without dehumanising people. and to be clear i am NOT saying it's necessary to choose one or the other to care about, or that caring about animals is a mere indulgence while humans still suffer. it becomes a matter of the 'worthiness of women' when specific claims are made about the welfare of female animals being a feminist issue. feminism is about the rights and dignity of women, and the equality of all humans. to bring cows or any other non-humans into it is fucking gross.

#46
Calling dairy farming a feminist issue on the grounds that it exploits "female biology" is going way too far. For one, what constitutes human "female biology" and whether human biology can be gendered at all is not a completely settled issue. So to say that an animal reproductive system which functions in an analogous manner is "female biology" isn't right. Even if we accept a vagina and uterus to be "female biology" in all mammals, in what way does that link human and animal "females" as being exploited in the same way? Animals don't live in the human patriarchy. The exploitation of women isn't inextricably tied to the exploitation of animals.

swampman posted:

Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types,



Yes it can be, because all those systems of control are distinct in purpose, method, and history. Also, if you want to eliminate empire's control over these things that's terrific, but patriarchy and human domination over other animals predate capitalism. They can outlive it as well.

If we want to look at this issue as communists, then we have to look at it from the proletarian point of view. Animals are not a part of the proletariat, only humans are. We know that ending factory farming is good because it is in the interest of the proletariat to avoid climate apocalypse. I think compassion for animals is very important to be a good person, but I can't place animals on the same level as humans. I think that, at least for now while the majority of humans are brutally exploited, the interests of animals can only be addressed as far as it benefits the oppressed class of humans.

#47

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying

by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.


No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit

#48
i think universal or near-universal vegetarianism is an achievable near-term step for humanity at the present point in the struggle for the emancipation of all life. probably with enough socialist development from there we can either proceed en masse to veganism or work out non-exploitative practices through which to gain properly symbiotic access to dairy, honey, etc.

of course, the horizon of morality is determined in the last instance by the development of production. vegetarianism as a universal practice probably hasn't been thinkable for very long, in the context of the whole arc of history. but as we develop, and as our picture of harmonious and empathetic sociality continues to extend outward from kin to tribe to nation to species to mammals to animals, it's not hard to imagine a point where this familial regard will expand to encompass plants, as well.

hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.

i'm scratching my head to think of what the horizon after that would be, because i'm cursed to live in this fuckin depressing stretch of prehistory right here. it's all just blurry shapes on a cave wall.
#49

swampman posted:

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying

by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.

No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit


swampman posted:

...the same respect...can't be separated...all of a kind...


all in the context of defending the inclusion of animal welfare among feminist issues. so it's fine to backpedal now but you did not even imply a distinction in that post

#50

colddays posted:

So to say that an animal reproductive system which functions in an analogous manner is "female biology" isn't right.

For the mammals we've been discussing it pretty much is

Even if we accept a vagina and uterus to be "female biology" in all mammals, in what way does that link human and animal "females" as being exploited in the same way?

Control over social reproduction is control over resource production and biological reproduction

Animals don't live in the human patriarchy.

Yes they do

The exploitation of women isn't inextricably tied to the exploitation of animals.

Dialectical materialism indicates that all things are inextricably tied together

Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types,

Yes it can be, because all those systems of control are distinct in purpose, method, and history.

No they aren't

Also, if you want to eliminate empire's control over these things that's terrific, but patriarchy and human domination over other animals predate capitalism.

They caused it

They can outlive it as well.

Not really. The only way to defeat capitalism, in fact, is to create a world where no relationship can be defined as domination.

If we want to look at this issue as communists, then we have to look at it from the proletarian point of view. Animals are not a part of the proletariat, only humans are.

If you read that recent Sakai book, you'll know that in many places and times, the number of "proletariat" was not always sufficient to create a true mass base for successful revolution. The example of the PRC revolution showed that harmony between workers, lumpen and nature was required to overturn society.

We know that ending factory farming is good because it is in the interest of the proletariat to avoid climate apocalypse.

You cannot pursue a negative like this. End factory farming, and do what instead? Something that enables Amerikans to keep up the pace of steaks? The alternative to factory farming, without massive adoption of vegetarianism and near-vegetarianism in the imperial core, is we turn Brazil into a ranch. I think they are already doing that anyway.

I think compassion for animals is very important to be a good person,

And to defeat Empire

but I can't place animals on the same level as humans.

Good, because that would require a belief in bourgeois "equality"

I think that, at least for now while the majority of humans are brutally exploited, the interests of animals can only be addressed as far as it benefits the oppressed class of humans.

Sorry, that's incorrect

#51

Constantignoble posted:

vegetarianism as a universal practice probably hasn't been thinkable for very long, in the context of the whole arc of history.


Not entirely sure what you mean by this but, yes it has

#52

Constantignoble posted:

hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.


i have some problems with techno-fetishist solutions to entrenched social problems

#53

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Petrol posted:

swampman posted:

Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying

by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.

No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit

swampman posted:

...the same respect...can't be separated...all of a kind...


all in the context of defending the inclusion of animal welfare among feminist issues. so it's fine to backpedal now but you did not even imply a distinction in that post


There is no distinction in the concept of respect. They all deserve respect which is a binary quality in the context of actual fucking love care and nurture. You either respect something or you don't really respect it. Do you think I'm saying pigs and humans should live in the same conditions and like, eat the same things? No, we have an equal duty to each not to degrade and dominate them and cause them to suffer, and to create conditions that enable their happiness. And if you're willing to look away from the suffering and slaughter of animals you're preparing yourself to look away from the suffering and slaughter of those who can be sold to you as animals.

#54
Fucking,
#55

swampman posted:

Not entirely sure what you mean by this but, yes it has



i mean like, the period where we've had tractors and such to boost farm production without relying on yoking oxen is teensy considering the ~10,000 years of human history, let alone the quarter-million or so years homo sapiens have been mucking things up.

but this is far from a specialty, so if you got good reads on it shoot 'em my way

#56

hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.



I don't know that i find it entirely reasonable to empathize with all life forms including plants. Why should one feel that destroying a plants life is meaningful at all? Just because its driven by some biochemical processes to grow and reproduce, and you are ending that?Most animals have infinitely more complex systems capable of feeling pain and pleasure the same way we do, which is why we empathize with them. We're social animals like they are, to different extents. Plants and such might as well be little automata to me. The value of their preservation is only important in as much as it props up complex life and earth systems. So yeah eating a potato may be gratuitous in a thousand years, but if there isn't anything lost in doing so beyond the plants functionality as a complex biological thing...


Edited by Caesura109 ()

#57
Had some veggies, tofu, garbanzos and kidney beans for lunch today and passed on the chicken fingers. feels good.
#58
Warning: account of gruesome animal slaughter

When i was in nouakchott last time a relative of mine figured me for a city boy - which i am, and though nouakchott is the capital most people i know there spend half the year in rural areas - and took me to see a lamb being slaughtered and dismantled for eid. The thing had lived in the backyard/street of his house for years with a few other family goats, theyd personally fed and raised them. I thought it would be gross or something but didnt really mind and was kinda baffled as to why he thought it important to see a goat slaughtered for me. Anyways they took it to this awful smelling place and cut its throat, left it to bleed out, skinned it, emptied out the contents of its stomach and intestines, cut it into parts. But i couldnt really empathize with it at that moment, and didnt really feel bad that they were taking its life to eat it because in places like that everything just feels sort of rough and tumble and people just seem like theyre doing whatever it is they were raised to do or required to do to make a living, feed their kids etc. There are no real pets, just utility animals. Otherwise you make sure they stay away from you or they might get you sick enough that you have to spend a fortune going to senegal or somewhere to get cured. We had the lamb for lunch later in the day.

But whenever im in Canada and I see farm animals or hear about big slaughter factories it seems super obscene. I cant help but feel thats a double standard - an animal's life is still an animal's life - but everywhere i go there are vegans and vegetarians comfortably living off quinoa and lentils and the meat consumed is always some greasy fast food shit or cold cuts sourced from dark mechanized slaughterhouse factories. It feels so abstracted from the animal. I guess thats why some prefer "free range" animals.

Edited by Caesura109 ()

#59

Caesura109 posted:

eating a potato may be gratuitous in a thousand years, but if there isn't anything lost in doing so beyond the plants functionality as a complex biological thing.



maybe! but also maybe not. part of the point is that it's a question that doesn't really make sense in our context -- in fact it's borderline absurd. but that stands to reason; it's not our question to answer

i wasn't really planning to dwell too long on far-flung speculation, either way. it's a fun spice, but not the protein, as it were

#60

swampman posted:

There is no distinction in the concept of respect. They all deserve respect which is a binary quality in the context of actual fucking love care and nurture. You either respect something or you don't really respect it.


Tautology aside, this is surely false. Respect is a matter of degree. Consider humans alone for a moment. Are all humans equally worthy of respect - of the same degree of respect? All humans regardless of their actions? All classes of human?

swampman posted:

Do you think I'm saying pigs and humans should live in the same conditions and like, eat the same things? No, we have an equal duty to each not to degrade and dominate them and cause them to suffer, and to create conditions that enable their happiness. And if you're willing to look away from the suffering and slaughter of animals you're preparing yourself to look away from the suffering and slaughter of those who can be sold to you as animals.


This argument is a mess. No, I obviously don't think you're saying pigs should live in luxury apartments or whatever. But I am saying that while I may have some duty of care to all creatures, my duty differs between species just as it differs between members of my own species. This is in no way a slippery slope.

#61
Why are you still trying to argue with me when you almost understand what I'm saying. You are saying that your duty of care does not extend to preventing the death and suffering of some things that can experience death and suffering, full and vivid the way you yourself can. Well actually it does.

Even in the act of lining capitalists against a wall and gunning them down there is respect, they die quickly, and the possibility of life continuing to exist through the end of the century goes way, way up. Revolutionaries didn't gleefully execute people, they did it to survive. There is a duty of care to Henry Kissinger which is to chuck him straight into the lava without delaying a second to waste your spit on his eye. If someone does spit in it though, I won't mind as much as I do if they eat a ham sandwich.
#62
I don't get the "humans of different classes have different value" implication. Communism is the abolition of capital, not its representatives. Violence in class struggle is an issue of pragmatism, not a matter of principle. I mean yeah they have different revolutionary value, but i dont see how that factors in animal life.
#63

animedad posted:

a rare rhizzone thread that is correct




#64

Caesura109 posted:

hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.



I don't know that i find it entirely reasonable to empathize with all life forms including plants. Why should one feel that destroying a plants life is meaningful at all? Just because its driven by some biochemical processes to grow and reproduce, and you are ending that?Most animals have infinitely more complex systems capable of feeling pain and pleasure the same way we do, which is why we empathize with them. We're social animals like they are, to different extents. Plants and such might as well be little automata to me. The value of their preservation is only important in as much as it props up complex life and earth systems. So yeah eating a potato may be gratuitous in a thousand years, but if there isn't anything lost in doing so beyond the plants functionality as a complex biological thing...




Edited by Caesura109 (today 15:56:52)


it's worth noting that arguments like 'animals have nervous systems and plants don't' aren't actually very meaningful because lots of contemporary research into plant physiology has shown that plants in fact do have systems analogous to the function of nervous systems in animals, they're not automatons at all. they're certainly not 'less complex' than animals(and invoking 'complexity' is a very thorny thing in biology anyway). of course cutting part of a plant off isn't the same as cutting an animal's limb off because of the modular way that they're put together, and probably the concept of pain is relatively meaningless when you're talking about a plant, but you have to be careful what arguments you use here.

#65

contemporary research into plant physiology has shown that plants in fact do have systems analogous to the function of nervous systems in animals



Oh wow thats fucking with my head right now

#66
wait is this just response to stimuli that we are talking about? Because I don't think I can empathize if they don't even have a nervous system. or do they have like a proto-nervous system? how could we tell?
#67

Clearly, plants can communicate. But does that mean they can feel pain? It's a troubling scenario for salad lovers squeamish at the thought of eating foods with feelings, and for them the answer may not be that appetizing.

According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut .

There's also evidence that plants can hear themselves being eaten. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that plants understand and respond to chewing sounds made by caterpillars that are dining on them. As soon as the plants hear the noises, they respond with several defense mechanisms .

For some researchers, evidence of these complex communication systems -- emitting noises via gas when in distress -- signals that plants feel pain. Others argue that there cannot be pain without a brain to register the feeling. Still more scientists surmise that plants can exhibit intelligent behavior without possessing a brain or conscious awareness .



https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm

Swtiching to eating rocks now

#68

swampman posted:

Why are you still trying to argue with me when you almost understand what I'm saying. You are saying that your duty of care does not extend to preventing the death and suffering of some things that can experience death and suffering, full and vivid the way you yourself can. Well actually it does.

Even in the act of lining capitalists against a wall and gunning them down there is respect, they die quickly, and the possibility of life continuing to exist through the end of the century goes way, way up. Revolutionaries didn't gleefully execute people, they did it to survive. There is a duty of care to Henry Kissinger which is to chuck him straight into the lava without delaying a second to waste your spit on his eye. If someone does spit in it though, I won't mind as much as I do if they eat a ham sandwich.


You're wilfully misconstruing I'm saying and it's not cute. I wasn't talking about wanting to do violence to anyone, I was illustrating the point respect and duty of care are matters of degree, and you seem to understand my point and agree somewhere under the snark. And I certainly was not "saying that your duty of care does not extend to preventing the death and suffering of some things", but rather that my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous. If you think that's tantamount to saying animals are worthless then it is probably not worth continuing the discussion.

#69

Caesura109 posted:

wait is this just response to stimuli that we are talking about? Because I don't think I can empathize if they don't even have a nervous system. or do they have like a proto-nervous system? how could we tell?


behold: everything alive has complex emotions and can feel pain, the universe runs on obligatory murder for survival designed by a cruel demiurge who we must kill and eat to escape the cycle. full deicidal cannibal apotheosis now! *every gnostic catholic from every schism, heresy, sect, cult, movement, and heterodoxy come in with everything for a HUGE party*

#70

shriekingviolet posted:

the universe runs on obligatory murder for survival


Unsupported by the evidence

#71

Petrol posted:

my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous.

It's not more onerous. It's the same oner. We can't free the humans without freeing the animals. Not possible. Hence, all of this splendorous thread.

#72

the universe runs on obligatory murder for survival designed by a cruel demiurge who we must kill and eat to escape the cycle. full deicidal cannibal apotheosis now! *every gnostic catholic from every schism, heresy, sect, cult, movement, and heterodoxy come in with everything for a HUGE party*



yeah but even so this feels kinda excessive:



do americans always have diarrhea or something? how many of these sold?

#73

swampman posted:

Petrol posted:

my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous.

It's not more onerous. It's the same oner. We can't free the humans without freeing the animals. Not possible. Hence, all of this splendorous thread.


If you're saying our duty toward animals springs from our duty toward humanity then that's not only a different proposition but kind of proves my point.

#74

swampman posted:

Unsupported by the evidence


as opposed to the cruel demiurge, which everyone knows is real. that's fair! point: swampman.

#75
is personal experience with animals a big factors into why many go vegetarian? because i know only two types, very health conscious older people and people who a close connection with animals.
#76
do i really have to put the breaks on and specify that shitposts about gnostic cannibalism are not serious arguments.

vegetarianism is correct and the industrial slaughter of animals is an atrocity.
#77

Caesura109 posted:

is personal experience with animals a big factors into why many go vegetarian? because i know only two types, very health conscious older people and people who a close connection with animals.


i don't think an argument can really be made for a personal emotional empathy with animals as the causa causans of vegetarianism, people who consider themselves animal lovers rationalize the brutalization of animals all the time

#78
but its all so out of view, ive spoken to people who like their pets and hobby animals like horses but cows to them are abstract meat sacks that get processed somewhere out of view. they dont have the same sensitivity for livestock. and everyone i know back home is totally desensitized to killing animals because everyone does it at some point or another.
#79
the meat industry is not only barbaric, but its impact on the biosphere, at least in its current format, presents a clear threat to the human survivability of the planet.

i'm interested to explore a bit, though, the relationship between this observation - which for the record, i accept without elision or caveat - and our position as supporters of the world communist movement, who nevertheless mostly post from core imperialist countries (NATO and allies) which are fundamentally backwards with respect to the liberation of the proletariat and the advancement of communism.

case studies:
the People's Republic of China is the world's number one producer of pig meat, by a margin so wide, that it alone slaughters more pigs than all other countries of the world combined. thought the PRC accounts for ~1/6th of the human population, it disproportionately accounts for more than 1/2 of all pigs slaughtered annually on earth. moreover, outside of a handful of cosmopolitan urban centres (e.g., Beijing, Shanghai), elective vegetarianism - though completely permissible de jure - is not at all widely practiced. despite this, the Communist Party of China displays virtually no interest in the promotion of vegetarianism, though they take a concerted interest in other aspects of political education.

by contrast, with the sole exception of India (where vegetarianism is exceptionally common as a consequence of religious doctrine), all of the world's "most vegetarian" countries by percentage of adult population are members of the traditional imperialist core and its close allies (e.g., UK - 14%, Switzerland - 14%, KMT-occupied Taiwan - 14%, Israel - 13%, Australia - 13%, United States - 9%, etc.). it goes without saying that certain kinds of meat production in these countries are tremendously high as well (for instance, the US outstrips the PRC in beef production), despite opposition to animal products being far stronger and more widespread than in socialist countries.

in light of the above examples, i want to invite thoughts on the following questions - with the objective that the advocacy of communist vegetarianism is strengthened, rather than weakened, through the anticipation of defeasible criticisms:

1) given the indispensability of vegetarianism to the communist cause, and its inseperability from proletarian liberation, why is it that elective vegetarianism is by far the most widespread and valorized in the most politically backward, imperialist countries, and comparatively unpopular and uncommon in the most politically advanced socialist countries? what is different about vegetarianism that paradoxically makes beneficiaries of imperialism more likely to adopt it than socialist citizens, when in most other respects the former are far more ideologically backward than the latter?

2) how or why did revolutions in socialist countries singularly fail to crack down on meat production and consumption, when in virtually all other fields of communist political development (women's liberation, workers' control, the eradication of religion, etc.) they excelled, and left the citizens of imperialist countries far behind?

3) given the meat industry's central role in capitalist economies, how are bourgeois states able to tolerate opposition to it/rejection of it so readily, even as they find it necessary to thoroughly repress other components of proletarian resistance (such as labour organising, violent protest, etc.)?

4) what is the appropriate critical disposition of vegetarians in imperialist countries to meat-eaters in socialist countries? how could fraternal criticism be applied in this direction without attracting the counterclaim that it is the product of backwards political conditions in imperialist countries, or a reflection of imperialist paternalism, hypocrisy and prejudice, rather than a piece of faithfully communist criticism? the ability to convincingly apply such criticism is growing more urgent with time, since per capita meat consumption is growing by far the most rapidly in socialist countries, but is comparatively stable in the imperialist core.

i have encountered complaints similar to these before, and i think it would be useful to get a grip on how these sorts of analyses are challenged - bearing in mind that i already accept prima facie that the slaughter of animals is abhorrent.

moreover because i have been taught, and feel the truth of it, that ideas have a tendency to arise as a consequence of material conditions in the final analysis, i often find myself second-guessing my own convictions if i judge that they are significantly at odds with the citizens of more politically advanced societies - so these kinds of objections are not idle fancy for me, i think that i truly don't have good answers to them, and that is a big problem.
#80
Tarzie has good posts on veganism. You will like them Swampman. My general position is that it's morally incorrect that I'm not a vegan, but I'm also not.

https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/meat-is-for-assholes/