Left-Wing Discussion Thread III

[United Muscovite Nations]

But there are no Jain societies today.

So, if it's wrong to harm animals, how is it not wrong to be a warrior?

There are still Jain societies today in India.

Because fighting to defend the law and to protect people is not the same thing as killing for personal gratification, which meat eating is done most of the time for.

Depending on the stance taken (for instance, if Utilitarian), then it very well can be. However, I'm not sure how forcing your religious doctrines on others isn't personal gratification, and I say that someone who believes in doing that.

[War Gears]

Depending on the stance taken (for instance, if Utilitarian), then it very well can be.

"One guided by the doctrine of the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

It doesn't go against that.

However, I'm not sure how forcing your religious doctrines on others isn't personal gratification,

It doesn't gratify me though. I hate vegetarianism and frequently relapse.

and I say that someone who believes in doing that.

Isn't that a sin?

[Genivaria]

Correction, the Revolutions happened because the MONARCHS refused to compromise.

You even read my posts? Or you just pick a part of them and decide to guess what the rest says? You know, because what you "corrected" was exactly what I wrote in that post, albeit with more words. In fact I was agreeing with Trot above, responding as well to the guy that said "So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?"
You did that twice this day, stop it.

Yes I responded to the part that was actually relevant and ignored the inane babble.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Question: can a left-winger realistically support a monarchy?

Personally, I would have no problem with someone, like U.S. General Russel Honoré, the hero of Hurricane Katrina, being selected, democratically, as a pure figurehead with no constitutional powers whatsoever (not even the limited powers which Queen Elizabeth possesses). However, the family of the monarch would not be a royal family, and her or his descendants would not be successors.

[The Ides of March]

You even read my posts? Or you just pick a part of them and decide to guess what the rest says? You know, because what you "corrected" was exactly what I wrote in that post, albeit with more words. In fact I was agreeing with Trot above, responding as well to the guy that said "So you'd drown the world in blood because you refuse to compromise?"
You did that twice this day, stop it.

Yes I responded to the part that was actually relevant and ignored the inane babble.

Sometimes context helps. If you've read the inane bubble you'd see that I was saying pretty much the same thing you said when you "corrected" me.
And of course you did it again, oh well.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depending on the stance taken (for instance, if Utilitarian), then it very well can be.

"One guided by the doctrine of the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

It doesn't go against that.

However, I'm not sure how forcing your religious doctrines on others isn't personal gratification,

It doesn't gratify me though. I hate vegetarianism and frequently relapse.

and I say that someone who believes in doing that.

Isn't that a sin?

It is gratifying you by forcing everyone else to live like you; moreover, it makes it very difficult for you to relapse. If you think it were just, for example, a moral issue which individuals can solve on their own, then you would have no reason to want meat-eating banned.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

LaVeyan Satanism is basically voodoo objectivism, which in itself is Ayn Rand's quirky reading of Nietzsche. Satanism is actually kinda cool, but ends up like every movement: with its own set of dogmas and rules, which is incredibly ironic given its individualistic stances.

The church of Satan is a water-downed version of Aleister Crowley's thelemic magick.

[The Parkus Empire]

Socialism is about violent revolution and expropriation. Not really Christian.

What about reformist socialism?

A pipedream

[War Gears]

It is gratifying you by forcing everyone else to live like you; moreover, it makes it very difficult for you to relapse.

give (someone) pleasure or satisfaction.

That's not normally how human desire works.

If you think it were just, for example, a moral issue which individuals can solve on their own, then you would have no reason to want meat-eating banned.

I think rape & murder are moral issues, but I'm certainly not going to leave them to the individual to "solve."

[United Muscovite Nations]

It is gratifying you by forcing everyone else to live like you; moreover, it makes it very difficult for you to relapse.

give (someone) pleasure or satisfaction.

That's not normally how human desire works.

If you think it were just, for example, a moral issue which individuals can solve on their own, then you would have no reason to want meat-eating banned.

I think rape & murder are moral issues, but I'm certainly not going to leave them to the individual to "solve."

Are you really equating eating meat to murder and rape?

[War Gears]

That's not normally how human desire works.


I think rape & murder are moral issues, but I'm certainly not going to leave them to the individual to "solve."

Are you really equating eating meat to murder and rape?

For analogical purposes, yes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Are you really equating eating meat to murder and rape?

For analogical purposes, yes.

Okay.

Why should animals have rights? Especially since they have no responsibilities and don't participate in society at all? Let's go at this from the secular angle.

[War Gears]

Why should animals have rights?

Because they are capable of feeling pain and have sentience like human beings.

Especially since they have no responsibilities

Lots of people don't have responsibilities, such as children and the mentally disabled.

and don't participate in society at all?

Again, there are a lot of people who don't do this. They still possess rights.

Animals interact with human beings and can perform useful functions, such as guide dogs. Farm animals such as cattle provide us with milk. We rely on them a lot.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why should animals have rights?

Because they are capable of feeling pain and have sentience like human beings.

Especially since they have no responsibilities

Lots of people don't have responsibilities, such as children and the mentally disabled.

and don't participate in society at all?

Again, there are a lot of people who don't do this. They still possess rights.

Animals interact with human beings and can perform useful functions, such as guide dogs. Farm animals such as cattle provide us with milk. We rely on them a lot.

Feeling pain is an arbitrary distinction, it's just a reaction to stimuli, and you could argue that even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way. As far as sentience, no, most animals don't possess a self-conceptualization like humans do.

Those people don't have rights. Society has responsibilities to them as a part of human dignity, but they don't have rights.

[War Gears]

Feeling pain is an arbitrary distinction, it's just a reaction to stimuli, and you could argue that even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way.

This is what Jainism argues.

As far as sentience, no, most animals don't possess a self-conceptualization like humans do.

Are you aware of the definition of sentience?

Definition of sentient
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware

Animals do not experience sapience, but to argue they don't have sentience is easily disproven.

Society has responsibilities to them as a part of human dignity, but they don't have rights.

That's a long winded way of saying they have rights.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;

[Salus Maior]

Feeling pain is an arbitrary distinction, it's just a reaction to stimuli, and you could argue that even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way.

This is what Jainism argues.

And that's ridiculous. As one likely kills plenty of simple forms of life simply by breathing, or generally being sanitary.

One can't live without destroying some form of life.

[War Gears]

As one likely kills plenty of simple forms of life simply by breathing, or generally being sanitary.

The fact that we kill life forms every day somehow means that "even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way" is false? That's quite the non-sequitur.

One can't live without destroying some form of life.

No one disagrees with you.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

LaVeyan Satanism is basically voodoo objectivism, which in itself is Ayn Rand's quirky reading of Nietzsche. Satanism is actually kinda cool, but ends up like every movement: with its own set of dogmas and rules, which is incredibly ironic given its individualistic stances.

The church of Satan is a water-downed version of Aleister Crowley's thelemic magick.

Then again, given that, if I *had* to identify as anything, it'd be a Satanist. I dunno, maybe because I kind of like the idea of Satan? A necessary evil that isn't actually evil, but misunderstood.

[Ostroeuropa]

The church of Satan is a water-downed version of Aleister Crowley's thelemic magick.

Then again, given that, if I *had* to identify as anything, it'd be a Satanist. I dunno, maybe because I kind of like the idea of Satan? A necessary evil that isn't actually evil, but misunderstood.

Satanism makes the mistake of allowing the Abrahamics and their baseless assertions define their worldview. Even if you up and decide to form the opposite of their ethics (carefully, so as to avoid senseless destruction of others), you're still basing your worldview around their pronouncements. The "Left hand path" is pretty much that, a rejection of much of the principles of the abrahamics and following a different route.

Modern secular humanism is more liberated from the religious than the satanic church is imo, though elements of Satanism have influenced my worldview and I consider it to be an important post-religious endorsement of ritual and such being necessary for human wellbeing.

I suppose i'd fall in between Laveyan Satanism and Secular Humanism. I reject the relentlessly individualistic nature of Satanism and skew for the more collective wellbeing focus of Humanism, but I endorse the Satanic interpretations of magic and ritual and their importance to the adherent. It's difficult to quantify in materialistic terms, but there is a poetry to a lot of things that can leave people uncomfortable when that is upended for materialistic reasons (rightly) without replacing it with other rituals. This is why I'm skeptical of things like humanistic condemnation of various styles (like, say, nazis) and artistic choices, and acting like humans are a blank slate. There's a reason people think they look stylish, and we shouldn't cede that ground to a hate ideology. Materialistic condemnations of practices, styles, and rituals shouldn't be given much credence compared to criticism of the underlying narrative of the choices. The left would do better to adopt more style alongside the substance and engage in more ritualism, especially encouraging ritualism and allegory surrounding science and scientific discoveries.

Understanding religion as allegory and ritual to describe human experience and history through imagery, metaphor, etc, doesn't mean we should reject it for cold scientism, pure materialism and critical theories should provide the bare bones of our script, not the entirety of it.

The challenge for adherents is trying to marry style and substance, to construct rituals to allegorically talk about material reality and our place in it in a manner that prompts reflection and improvement, etc.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

A first for me: I completely agree.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Feeling pain is an arbitrary distinction, it's just a reaction to stimuli, and you could argue that even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way.

This is what Jainism argues.

In that case, it would be impossible to hold to such a standard of not harming organisms.

[Salus Maior]

As one likely kills plenty of simple forms of life simply by breathing, or generally being sanitary.

The fact that we kill life forms every day somehow means that "even the simplest forms of life experience pain in an abstract way" is false? That's quite the non-sequitur.

One can't live without destroying some form of life.

No one disagrees with you.

It's not false (well, depending how you interpret "pain"), it's just unavoidable and thus not something anyone should worry about

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I would say cooperatives and distributism are a solution preferable to an absolute state monopoly and ex post facto laws.

According to Marx, coöperatives would be a part of both stages of communism: under a state and under an administration.

{typo corrected}

[Democratic Communist Federation]

And that's ridiculous. As one likely kills plenty of simple forms of life simply by breathing, or generally being sanitary.

One can't live without destroying some form of life.

The Jain interpretation of ahimsa (Sanskrit, अहिम्स, avoidance of injury) was developed long before Louis Pasteur and others developed the germ theory. As a sociologist of religion, I refuse to debunk religions (which is a common ethical principle in my field). I try to limit myself to simply pointing out facts.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Then again, given that, if I *had* to identify as anything, it'd be a Satanist. I dunno, maybe because I kind of like the idea of Satan? A necessary evil that isn't actually evil, but misunderstood.

To LaVey, Satan was a metaphor for what Crowley called thelema, which he defined as the true will. Crowley argued that this true will needed to be discovered. It was not simply the same thing as what I want. I am a 10ᵗʰ-level initiate in Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (which I did in order to study the movement, not because I believe in it). That makes me a perfect magician and a perfect initiate. Of course, I personally reject the views of the Ordo Templi Orientis and its thelemic magick, However, being a 10ᵗʰ-level initiate means I know most of the so-called secrets. (Believe me, they are not a big deal.)