Are animal rights and anarchism mutually exclusive?

[Mavorpen]

What the fuck? That's not how it works.

If you seriously have no appetite for meat and the ability to survive on wholly non meat products then... Why are you not a herbivore then? As you've already produced proof for, things we consider herbivores can eat meat, they just for whatever reason choose not to...

Because that's not what a herbivore is.

[Mavorpen]

...

In any case, it's pretty retarded to believe animals have "rights" or somesuch nonsense, or to hold that they don't exist to be treated however we see fit.

It's retarded to believe humans have rights or hold that they don't exist to be treated however someone above them sees fit.

See, I can make stupid and baseless claims too.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Apetite for meat is socially constructed. I know people who have grown up vegetarian and never experienced a desire to eat meat and in my three years of being vegan (and two years before that of being vegetarian) I stopped having appetite for meat about 2 months after I stopped eating it. And now meat is as unpalatable to me as a cow patty would be to you.

That's not what a social construct is. At all.

Meat has been socially constructed to be desirous and an object worthy of eating. Deconstruction of that construction in vegans and vegetarians leads to a general apathy towards meat product, an absence of desire to consume them since their status as desirous food has been deconstructed.

[Divair]

That's not what a social construct is. At all.

Meat has been socially constructed to be desirous and an object worthy of eating. Deconstruction of that construction in vegans and vegetarians leads to a general apathy towards meat product, an absence of desire to consume them since their status as desirous food has been deconstructed.

And I have no appetite for vegetables. Thus, it's a social construct.


Marvelous argument, buddy.

[Olivaero]

Okay then incisors mean nothing, I still contend enjoying meat does mean something. It's not necessary for us to talk to other people, we still do it.

What do you mean by "meaning something"? What exactly does it mean? While we have survived on an omnivorous diet for millenia are bodies still maintain the design of a frugivore, despite our curious reliance on B 12 and being unable to derive this from plant foods (you can, however, get plenty of B 12 from milk products which is how vegetarianism has thrived in India).

That meat products have a purpose within our diet.

[Mavorpen]

Meat has been socially constructed to be desirous and an object worthy of eating. Deconstruction of that construction in vegans and vegetarians leads to a general apathy towards meat product, an absence of desire to consume them since their status as desirous food has been deconstructed.

So then vegetarians are socially constructed to like eating vegetables and fruit?

[Olivaero]

If you seriously have no appetite for meat and the ability to survive on wholly non meat products then... Why are you not a herbivore then? As you've already produced proof for, things we consider herbivores can eat meat, they just for whatever reason choose not to...

Because that's not what a herbivore is.

Then what is a herbivore?

[Howdoyoudoland]

...

In any case, it's pretty retarded to believe animals have "rights" or somesuch nonsense, or to hold that they don't exist to be treated however we see fit.

It's retarded to believe humans have rights or hold that they don't exist to be treated however someone above them sees fit.

See, I can make stupid and baseless claims too.

Actually, it's pretty spot on. Humans don't have any intrinsic rights.

[Mavorpen]

It's retarded to believe humans have rights or hold that they don't exist to be treated however someone above them sees fit.

See, I can make stupid and baseless claims too.

Actually, it's pretty spot on. Humans don't have any intrinsic rights.

You... Okay, I'm done until you actually learn to read the posts of others.

[Howdoyoudoland]

With nothing more than "nope", all I'm going to respond with is "yup".

No need for a question mark when making a claim.

It's more like a query, a "yup" with that oh-so-subtle inflection at the end.

And I'm pretty committed to this, so maybe stop responding with "nope"?

Nope.

...Yup?

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Meat has been socially constructed to be desirous and an object worthy of eating. Deconstruction of that construction in vegans and vegetarians leads to a general apathy towards meat product, an absence of desire to consume them since their status as desirous food has been deconstructed.

And I have no appetite for vegetables. Thus, it's a social construct.


Marvelous argument, buddy.

That would be the opposite corollary, yes. While an element of hunger and need for nutrition enters into appetite, the sort of foods one can eat are socially constructed. This is probably why most people in the US are totally grossed out by the prospect of eating bugs while in other cultures it is a completely normal and acceptable form of nutrition.

[Meryuma]

Anarchism means no social hierarchy, not no laws.

I really hate this argument because it involves twisting definitions to make one's opinions seem less crazy than they are commonly accepted as being.

Only anarchists themselves every deny that anarchy equals lawlessness.

It's not twisting definitions because it's what anarchism has historically meant since its inception: a decentralized, self-managed society.

Without the State humans have no rights. That means animals don't have them either.

Anarchy is neither possible nor to be desired. I have not yet met a single anarchist who can tell me how an Anarchist society will not devolve completely into mob rule or tribal warfare.

You don't know what Anarchy is.

In an Anarcho-capitalist society private security companies will enforce moral and ethic mass-agreed laws and customs. with optional courts.

There are exceptions (sup Roderick Long, sup Sam Konkin) but most people in the ancap intellectual tradition don't advocate anarchy in a practically meaningful sense.

I don't think health would stand in the way to animal liberation becoming a moral consensus.

It could become a moral supermajority, but not a moral consensus.

I am a living example of this.

Let me give you all the vegan-friendly foods I am not allowed to eat.

Class 2 allergies - to be eaten only in very small amounts:

barley
broccoli
eggplant
lettuce
malt
black walnut

Class 3 allergies - avoid altogether:

carrots
cashews
cauliflower
coconut
gluten
peanuts

Crohn's-based allergies - if I eat significant amounts of these, I will have a Crohn's Syndrome relapse (I currently exhibit no symptoms):

refined sugar
any starch
any grains
any soy

Veganism is simply not an option for me. I tried being vegetarian (not even vegan) before I knew about these health issues and it lasted about 2 weeks. I completely sympathize with the dedication to that cause shown by other anarchists and like-minded people on this site and elsewhere, and I can't and won't deny that most people can be perfectly healthy and happy on a vegan diet (one of my best friends has "vegan." tattooed on his wrist). I'm just the exception that proves the rule,

[Divair]

It's more like a query, a "yup" with that oh-so-subtle inflection at the end.

A query is a question. How many times must I answer it for you to understand my answer?

...Yup?

Nope.

[Howdoyoudoland]

Actually, it's pretty spot on. Humans don't have any intrinsic rights.

You... Okay, I'm done until you actually learn to read the posts of others.

You said something absolutely correct though. Humans have no right, and don't exist except to be treated by however others see fit to treat them.

You're learning, which is important. You shouldn't reel from that, embrace it!

[Howdoyoudoland]

It's more like a query, a "yup" with that oh-so-subtle inflection at the end.

A query is a question. How many times must I answer it for you to understand my answer?

Yet a question can assert something all the same as a statement, if only subtly.

...Yup?

Nope.[/quote]
...Yup?

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

What do you mean by "meaning something"? What exactly does it mean? While we have survived on an omnivorous diet for millenia are bodies still maintain the design of a frugivore, despite our curious reliance on B 12 and being unable to derive this from plant foods (you can, however, get plenty of B 12 from milk products which is how vegetarianism has thrived in India).

That meat products have a purpose within our diet.

And that purpose is "they taste good", ie gustatory pleasure? I'm afraid such a purpose is not strong enough to challenge the animal rights ethic.

[Mavorpen]

You said something absolutely correct though. Humans have no right, and don't exist except to be treated by however others see fit to treat them.

You're learning, which is important. You shouldn't reel from that, embrace it!

Again, reply back when you've learned to read others' posts.

[Divair]

Yet a question can assert something all the same as a statement, if only subtly.

Repeating a question on the basis that it is your statement indicates an inability to read.

...Yup?

Nope.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Anarcho-Communist here. While I am not vegan or vegetarian, I do sympathise with anarchists who take up the animal liberation position. I wouldn't say I fully uphold that position I am strongly against all kinds of needless animal cruelty.

Do you think animal rights could work in an anarcho-communist system?

[Howdoyoudoland]

You said something absolutely correct though. Humans have no right, and don't exist except to be treated by however others see fit to treat them.

You're learning, which is important. You shouldn't reel from that, embrace it!

Again, reply back when you've learned to read others' posts.

Don't fight that feeling.

[Buddha Punk Robot Monks]

Meat has been socially constructed to be desirous and an object worthy of eating. Deconstruction of that construction in vegans and vegetarians leads to a general apathy towards meat product, an absence of desire to consume them since their status as desirous food has been deconstructed.

So then vegetarians are socially constructed to like eating vegetables and fruit?

Of course. I was a very picky eater and didn't like a lot of vegetables until I became vegetarian/ vegan. They became desirable foods because of the deconstruction I was going through.

[Howdoyoudoland]

Yet a question can assert something all the same as a statement, if only subtly.

Repeating a question on the basis that it is your statement indicates an inability to read.

Not really, just think about it and it will all make sense.

...Yup?

Nope.

...Yup?

[Olivaero]

That meat products have a purpose within our diet.

And that purpose is "they taste good", ie gustatory pleasure? I'm afraid such a purpose is not strong enough to challenge the animal rights ethic.

Not to you it isn't, but considering ethics are subjective, taste for others is miles stronger than any ethic you could devise.

[Mavorpen]

And that purpose is "they taste good", ie gustatory pleasure? I'm afraid such a purpose is not strong enough to challenge the animal rights ethic.

Not to you it isn't, but considering ethics are subjective, taste for others is miles stronger than any ethic you could devise.

So we can slaughter humans for food?

[Euronion]

Well I don't quite understand how one could be both, I mean you seek laws to defend animals but in Anarchy there is no law, so it would be merely up to you and you alone and I don't think that makes much of a difference given the scope and size of the average country.