Guide to antispeciesist stenciling

Antispe Britain | 02.05.2008 10:56 | Animal Liberation | World

Recently translated from

http://antispe.org. Dated: July 2007.

Antispe Germany

"Such a Stencil seen separately to be transferred not only stylishly but also easily. I will show you how it works. First you should choose a theme. Then start with a simple motive to be implemented, such as the motive that I have chosen."

Click here below for instructions:

http://antispe.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/antispeciesist-stenciling-in-germany

Antispe Britain
Homepage: http://antispe.tk

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

how can you fight antispeciesism,is that antispeciesist?many animals are antispe

02.05.2008 12:35

many animals are antispeciesist, many are cooperative, lets promote cooperativism & evolve GAIA properly, the real threat to all life is climate change & war orientated cnc-computer programmes, the answer that is respect for all life,now!

No need to fight unless you are directly threatened & if you dont want to fight people with guns, becareful because that is what your image looks like & wouldnt that be really good for corporate fascist propaganda? not that all corporations are fascist in the nazi WW2 sense of the word.
We are at least not cannibalising each other anymore, or very rarely & millions more are going veggie, lets not put people off!

Green syndicalist

Back in the real world

02.05.2008 12:37

"An indispensably necessary precondition of animal liberation is thus that we view animals in noninstrumental terms — as inherently valuable bearers of moral rights — and treat them — without exception (including in campaigns) — pursuant to that view."

What do you plan to do about a gnu's "moral right" not to be eaten by a lion?

An animal cannot have moral rights as they are an entirely human construction. However, one can argue that the human has a moral *responsibility* not to cause suffering to the animal.

Say that stamping on puppies is morally wrong and everyone will be on your side - start talking about breaches of canine rights and no-one will want to align themselves with you.

MonkeyBot 5000

...

02.05.2008 15:56

Why don't you (the OP) just convert to Jainism or something. I would at least be able to have some respect for ALF-types if they adopted the position that animal rights were a matter of faith and spirituality rather than being based on the same rational principles as most radical ideology.

Basically the ALF are about an illogical synthesis of the most militant style with the most simplistically emotive issue. It's just a cult for insecure people who need to look and feel as self-righteous as possible.

anonymous

"An animal cannot have moral rights as they are an entirely human construction"

02.05.2008 16:07

OLD NEWS:

1) Black people can't have rights because white people created them.
2) Women can't have rights because men created them.
3) Children can't have rights because adults created them.
4) People with disabilities can't have rights, because those without created them.
5) Gays can't have rights because hetereosexual people created them.

I really do wonder where this is going....IDIOT.

I quite like the paint work, very productive and great guide.

ANTISPE!

To Antispe...

02.05.2008 16:33

You're rather missing the point, aren't you? The reasons 'justifying' not giving rights to blacks/women/etc is NOT that they were a white/male/etc construct.

The poster you replied to is actually presenting a philosophical criticism which does, in some ways, make sense; you have replied by listing other groups who have been/are denied rights by those in power. You've then claimed that the justfication for denying them rights was the same justification as the one given by the poster you were replying to, but that's NOT the case. Blacks/women/etc were denied rights on the basis that they were qualitatively different from whites/men/etc, in some relevant way, which meant that they didn't DESERVE rights, not that they literally COULD NOT have rights.

Most of the arguments used against the animal rights movement are illogical and spurious, but this is a case that can't be dismissed with the counterargument you've used. It's a serious objection that needs a serious answer, if you're going to claim that animals have/deserve rights.

Note, however, monkeybot is not suggesting we should harm animals, but that our moral injunction against harming animals should be based on human responsibilities, not animal rights; certainly an interesting proposal which is wholely compatible with the vegan/anti-vivisection/etc movement in its broadest form. We shouldn't reject and belittle others (eg. calling them idiots) just because they disagree on the exact philosophical intricacies behind the practical/realistic movement.

rogue

fuck 'rights'

02.05.2008 16:48

it's a matter of respect for other beings who are together with you during your existance here.

I am you

Name calling

02.05.2008 16:54

Should defiantely be used towards those who are justifying forms of fascism...along with an educated answer as to why they have made a statement ridiculously out of line.

(A)

Children and disabled people?

02.05.2008 16:59

"Blacks/women/etc were denied rights on the basis that they were qualitatively different from whites/men/etc, in some relevant way, which meant that they didn't DESERVE rights, not that they literally COULD NOT have rights."

In many ways, the reason children and people with disabilities were not given rights for so long is because of the "moral capability" argument; thus that you are using, identifying that individuals may not be able to utilize rights or be able to maximum their rights in comparison to others, but should be granted them in name of equality. Otherwise by having different rights for different individuals, you end up with inequality and imbalance.

Veganarchist

Avoid the word speciesism

03.05.2008 09:44

Did I even spell it right? I know it kind of explains our position well but I think the word will never catch on. It's a tongue twister and souds so silly.

Ruby

depends on how you look at it

03.05.2008 13:20

its only only to grow in popularity with more laws that are 'supposed' to help animals, because people naturally turn against law breakers...

the animal rights movement is diverse, which is good and bad, because on the other scale of it there are vegetarians and new/old/modern welfarists, who are even largely vegan. therefore the ar movement is infact partly, if not mainly built up of welfarisits, which of course is not good! of course the veggies and vegans aren't bad... but they are not representing the wishes of the animals....this is the point, animals want rights not welfare!

"III. Abolitionism is principled antispeciesism, which in turn is a moral imperative. Maintaining a moral imperative is not about being fundamentalist, fanatical, purist, absolutist, elitist, extremist. It is about being radically opposed to the corrupt instrumentalization of reason which pervades the new welfarist movement and which manifests itself in the way the latter has no moral baselines — no principles — and rules nothing out in advance."

-Abolitionist Manifesto.

http://www.stopanimalcruelty.co.uk/warn/ar.asp

Depends whether you want to represent animal rights&welfare, or the true meaning of rights for animals. antispeciesism is not veganism, being vegan is the normal response to recognising animal abuse and suffering. antispeciesists believe in "no compromise", thus understanding that abolition is the only approach in order to end the exploitation of non-human animals, in turn liberating the human race.

antispe

But (s)he wasn't justifying a form of racism

03.05.2008 13:37

(S)he was just saying that that philosophical position (animal RIGHTS) can't be the reason not to treat animals badly - human RESPONSIBILITIES makes more sense.

However, I'd say that given the premise that rights are a human construct, it makes perfect sense for humans to therefore 'project' them onto other species. To say that they're a human construct is to say they're an invention or a way of interpreting the world, and there's nothing stopping us applying our invention to other animals or interpreting them as having rights.

That's not to say that rights ARE a human construct, I'm simply following the argument from the starting point that claims they are.

rogue

Rights were invented by humans and humans are animals

03.05.2008 14:46

True story. There's no basis for the argument that humans animals invented rights, so they can't be granted to non-human animals. Unity makes a lot more sense...

Greeny

There is as much basis in the argument

03.05.2008 18:18

as there is in the argument that animals cannot have property since property is a human construct.
No more, no less.

rogue

Ruby,

03.05.2008 23:15

Antispeciesm was a term coined in the 60's. Or at least that is my first reference to it. It was portrayed comedically as extremist. The standard joke would be to ridicule unimagitinative feminists who at that point insisted the word 'chairman' was replaced by the word 'chairperson'. In order to avoid being 'speciest' the comic would refer to the 'chair-entitity'. Boom boom, big laughs.

"First they ridicule you..."

My own opinion is that any larger brained mammal is my equal morally. We all draw our own lines in the sands of our lives. The pigs and cows I have eaten have been murders - there are people who I have met who I would rather were dead than those 'animals'.

all good things,

RAW

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Animals and the disabled

04.05.2008 18:46

Those who make a moral equation between disabled human beings and animals should think seriously about what they're saying before they call other people fascists. Go fuck yourselves, you Peter Singer reading pricks.

fuck antispe

RAW and Ruby

05.05.2008 11:56

RAW ; what do you know of the origin of the word "speciesism / speciesist", in a serious context at least? I've seen it attributed to Richard Ryder (the RSPCA / Lib-Dem chap, not the pro-hunting Tory MP) in his book "Victims of Science" in the early 1970s, but do you know of an earlier usage?

Your anecdote reminds me a bit of the reference in certain circles to "Rothpersons" cigarettes ;0)

Ruby: I tend to agree with you. I don't like the term much either (sounds a bit clumsy and dated, IMHO), though it IS a useful concept. I'm a bit surprised to see it surfacing again. I remember it being used a bit by activists in the late 1970's and early 1980's, but it soon seemed to fall out of fashion and never made it into mainstream jargon (unlike the concept of "animal rights" that is now widely known).

Whatever, I wish luck to those opposing speciesism (whatever you call it) and supporting animal rights (whether or not they exist) :0)

Gregor S

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments