#17561

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

#17562
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
#17563

Horselord posted:

I had to say bear court


catchphrase

#17564

Horselord posted:

No not really.


ah fuck

#17565

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.

#17566
wow 60 new posts I wonder if anything interesting happened
#17567
*guy writing lines from Maddox articles about vegans* Uh i thought we'd all left this era of internet ugliness behind us
#17568

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

#17569

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

#17570

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 ()

#17571
If you judge the validity of a political cause based on your surface reading of its most obviously unpleasant adherents what are you doing on the irony stalinist webforum my dude
#17572
i don't have any greater use for my time. besides nothing actually communist on this website is offensive except to people who should be shot, like my ex landlord, or my last three bosses
#17573

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

#17574

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

#17575

This is what horselord wants us to eat, and it's fucking disgusting
#17576
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.
#17577

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.

#17578

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.

#17579
#17580
exposing the vegan to morgellons pipeline
#17581
If anyone is interested in people talking about the similarities between human slavery and the treatment of animals, The Dreaded Comparison is the book to read. If you want to look into the connections between patriarchy, masculinity, and vegetarianism, the Sexual Politics of Meat is the way to go. It is inappropriate to use terms like “rape” and “slavery” to non-human animals because those have very specific implications within human social relations (especially as it relates to imperialism and patriarchy), but the medicalized alternatives (forced impregnatiion, confinement, etc) also don’t properly convey the psychological torture that these practices cause.

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 ()

#17582

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?

#17583

Horselord posted:

dizastar posted:


its pretty bizarre to be on a communist forum and see such jingoistic takes on the relationship between humyns and sentient animals. 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. this is also where your pro animal subjugation argument falls fl



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.

But this is another time where someone with sympathy to animal lib puts together an argument that equates non-whitey society to animals. It's not even the first time someone in this thread did it. I wonder why that keeps happening! Or if you would be brave enough to submit yourself to the reputation number of IRL by writing the sentiment on a sandwich board john mcclane style and wearing it in the relevant culture's high streets.



youve got no proofs that animals cant have social norms and what could be qualified as morals... in fact everything seems to indicate they do! social animals being able to experience a wide spectrum of emotions, ranging from happy to sad, implies they have intuitive emotional judgement over experiences, which is some sort of morality. look deeply in the eyes of sheeps going about at the slaughter house then look at sheeps running wild in the hills. youll see a big difference! just like youll see a big difference between looking at the eyes of modern man slugging through his megalopolis of choice and the ancestral tribesman who just went back from bowhunting. i think youre framing me in a very dishonest way when saying i compare primitives to animals. you make it seem like i put down primitives, but in fact i elevate the condition of the animals as equal to humyns. its totally different. a zoophile ought to know better

vimingok posted:

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.



amazonians would see the current brazilian government as a problem just like they would see any sovereign instance stepping on the little patch of land they have semi-sovereignty over as a problem. that is a good point though. But if colonial ventures during the second part of the XIXth century called for ethnologists which later became anthropologists and so on was that indigenous people on colonized land had their own little cosmology, their own systems which greatly differed from the europeon pov which was perceived to be universal. same could go for orientalism and so on. if there was cultural exchanges in the first place there had to be differences

as for cannibalism... everybody posting rn had an ancestor who had a taste of human meat. This was of course way more prevalent before agriculture, which is only 11000 years old lets not forget. of course over thousands of years of different conditions people collectively started thinking 'dude you cant eat humans thats not cool, they look like you maaaaaaan', which is a rule that disappears as soon as death-causing food scarcity starts becoming more n more immanent. in our current world system, aside from residual groups scattered across the globe, eating people has been reduced to a metaphorical way for various sexual practices. im just saying i should be allowed to rip the heart out of my political opponent and eat it

Edited by dizastar ()

#17584
also that whole thing about calling me amongst others racist for not thinking that it is our duty to feast on the flesh of other sentient beings just shows that youre the one prancing around trying to prove the innate inferiority of animals. according to the words of others you are an alledged zoophile, which i dont condone but i wont judge you for it. but this entire inquisition against animals and their mental capacities just shows you do not want the best for them, you do not want to imagine them possessing the most acute cognitive capacities realistically possible, which indicates that you are not a mere run of the mill zoophile but an animal rapist. this same belittling of animals, added to your sexual infatuation for them just proves us that you fantasize, or enjoy, engaging in sexual acts with beings who do not share an ability to consent, which isnt cool IMO. branding yourself as an animal rapist on a forum isnt cool. god knows what your internet history consists of.. i dont even want to know!
#17585

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.

#17586
serves all of you right for having avatars
#17587
I'm going to fuck the four boxes in your fractal pattern
#17588
Here in my garage, just bought this uhh, new Lamborghini here. It's fun to drive up here in the Hollywood Hills. But do you know what I like a lot more than materialistic things? Knowledge! ...In fact, I am a lot more proud of these seven new bookshelves that I had to get installed, the whole 2000 new books that I've got that I'm not going to post about because I'd rather spend multiple pages arguing about "crazy vegans" or whatever the fuck
#17589
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
#17590

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.

#17591
av fucka boyz

Edited by tears ()

#17592

tears posted:

av fucka boyz


#17593

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.

#17594

sovnarkoman posted:

pork is haram


#17595

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



#17596

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.

#17597
It doesn't really matter what the aim is because meaning is in the eye of the beholder and I behold a dumb and gross rhetorical trick
#17598
Of course I would say that because the horse in my av is flying in an attempt to escape my turgid member
#17599

Parenti posted:



"no, no, you misunderstand, when i said jews are worth the same as rats i meant it in a nice way"

#17600
imagine thinking that a holocaust survivor couldn't go on to do some racism afterwards. what the fuck is a nakba? i guess noone knows