Cambridge Anarchists present: Anarchy, Football and BBQ in the Sun!

Vegan?

02.07.2009 17:14

I hope you are making it vegan. Climate camp is vegan because of the environmental impact of meat, climate change will effect the proletariat first and hardest before the ruling classes. Food that could be fed to poor humans is fed to animals to be killed for rich humans.

Additionally oppression is linked and species oppression is no different. Animal feel pain and suffer just as we do.

Animal Liberation - Human Rights

I hope it's an anti-fascist BBQ

02.07.2009 18:10

Because anti-fascism means anti-speciesism too, not just being against sub-speciesism (racism) and cross-speciesism (sexism) but all speciesism.

veg@n

Building the Revolution!

02.07.2009 19:37

Yeah, I hope you'll emphaise that meat eaters are Fascists (actually, fascist Scum) and that anyone who doesn't understand, straight away, that the Russian Revolution is central to an understanding of history is an Idiot and, as such, unwelcome as part of Our Movement. This has been working so well for us, let's stick with tried and trusted tactics, then wonder why a bunch of skinhead morons are found to be more appealing. Yum.

Heterosexist Speciesist (probably)

I agree

02.07.2009 21:22

Anarchism is about freedom for all and liberation of all imprisoned beings. Meat eating anarchist is like monkey driving a car.

Ninja

small steps, dont push the vegan thing, vegi at most,

03.07.2009 06:14

come on, veganism is cool, but its a big complicated issue, so not always best on a fun day out.Take some free vegan food, moaning is not how veganism became popular, being fun& healthy is+ imformative. That means being honest about b12 & omega oils as soon as appriopriate which means not everyone can be a vegan easily.

Have Fun

hetero, speco, humanist

Veganism is not enough

03.07.2009 06:21

It'll be ok if they eat other predatory and meat-eating species - lions, tigers, cats, magpies, blackbirds and thrushes because it will help to eliminate the species-ist species.

Vegan three

But...

03.07.2009 09:51

"Meat eating anarchist is like monkey driving a car."
But a monkey driving a car would be AWESOME!

anarcho

Vegan food.

03.07.2009 11:42

No one is saying you should talk endlessly about veganism, just make the food vegan. Not pushing any ideas about it, just make all the food vegan and let people eat it. Tell people it's vegan, if they ask why, tell them, otherwise just let them eat it.

I hope this group will do this, its all one fight!

ARC

BTW

03.07.2009 12:38

Cambridge Anarchists is not a veggie or vegan group, though some members do have these dietary habits. Following thi,s people can bring either meat or non-meat based on what they would like to eat. Meat and non-meat will be cooked on seperate bbqs though.

CA member

IMPORTANT- TIME

03.07.2009 14:06

The event is planned to kick off from 1pm!

CA member

To Vegan three

03.07.2009 14:17

"It'll be ok if they eat other predatory and meat-eating species - lions, tigers, cats, magpies, blackbirds and thrushes because it will help to eliminate the species-ist species."

Everyone knows there are speciesist species, just like we know there are sexist species who rape, serial kill, cannibalize and act inherently hierarchically and patriarchally.

Does this mean that we should do/be the same? No, otherwise we play into the hands of popular fascists from previous centuries who justified sexism and speciesism because other species rape females and serial kill for a living. Old theory though, not popular anymore!

We need to accept our biological differences. Humans and some non-humans act best living by equality, other species act best living by hierarchy. It's called a balanced ecosphere.

Equality is an all or nothing idea, not just an idea for some but not for others. It's time to rid ourselves of moral and logical schizophrenia.

veganarchist

@ CA member

03.07.2009 20:04

I'm not saying you need to go vegan, but meat is not appropriate at a radical event. Climate Camp see it (not everyone there is necessarily vegan) Food not Bombs are vegan too. Aside from the issues of the effect on the working class in the poorest parts of the world (would you wear a Nike t-shirt at this BBQ?), it also shows no cross movement solidarity. AR groups remove fascists and show solidarity with other movements but get no solidarity in return, I think times have to change.

ARA

Response

03.07.2009 21:09

Of course I'm only talking in my own capacity here.
You are mistaking radical with lifestylist.
C may practice veganism as it can be eaten by all participants etc. However a large part of this is because it is catered for the event, not a bring and share event like this BBQ is arranged to be. We also are not ignorant to the fact that people enjoy meat and will wish to eat it. This is not an event targetted at the already radically minded but instead anyone whom fancies some warm (and cold!) food and a bit of a kick around. We cannot ask people not to bring the foods they desire to eat, afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice.
Yes, I would wear a nike shirt to the BBQ and nor would I critique someone who did. If anything such moralistic interrogations put people off. 'LIFESTYLIST BBQ! ONLY BRING VEGAN FOOD AND WEAR NON-CONSUMERIST BRANDS! (anyone who does not abide to this shall reaching a very boring lecture).
Anarchism is about creating cultures of resistance that fights against capital and the State through self-organisation with the aim of creating autonomous federalised communities of workers self-management, brought together by solidarity and mutual aid. Whether someone eats meat or wears a nike shirt is redundant in achieving these aims, because you can't 'drop out' of capitalism. Fair enough, don't consume things that you object to but you must remember the limits of that practice and that it is down to individual choice.

CA member

CF member - You need to clarify your stance!

03.07.2009 23:43

"We also are not ignorant to the fact that people enjoy meat and will wish to eat it."

People also enjoy racism and sexism, enslaving blacks and women, is that ok too?

"We cannot ask people not to bring the foods they desire to eat, afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice."

What if my dietary habit was black people, women, children and especially you, would that be ok? Afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice and all? It seems you are saying personal choice is towards eating non-humans, but persumably not for eating humans?

My point is meat is meat, you can't disciminate against meat eaters just because their choice of animal is human. Would you allow serial killing cannibals to join the BBQ? I'm guessing not. Infact murderers who kill innocent human life would be ejected right?

Simpler to understand even, could I barbeque the pets of those who attend, or is that not ok? I hope cats and dogs are allowed to be consumed, otherwise I will be disappointed. Afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice and that is my rather bizarre habit.

"Fair enough, don't consume things that you object to..."

Nobodys objecting to eating 'things', it's objecting to eating animals who are individuals.

"...it is down to individual choice"

It's really not. If it was, then it'd be down to the animal whether they want to be killed or not. Suprise suprise they'd say fuck no if they could, just like you would if I asked politely.

Two words spring to mind: blatant speciesism. Care to defend your stance? You might think my tone is humorous, therefore not deserving of any answers, but if you are unable to reply and defend your arguments then you're reasoning is quite obviously flawed.

Summary of Questions regarding Dietary Habits at the BBQ:

1. Is eating black people, women, children and CA members acceptable?
2. Is consuminig humans a personal choice just like eating non-humans?
3. Would you aid/initiate the ejection of serial killing cannibals?
4. Could I barbeque the pets of those who attend (please)?

I look forward to your responses!

PS - Meat eaters are not 'fascist scum', they are just fascists. Just like the majority of the population who support border controls are not 'fascist scum', they are just fascists. Butchers, furriers, vivisectors, factory farmers and the like are however fascist scum, just like NF and BNP members are fascist scum. It's the difference between promoting and accepting.

PPS - I am aware this is just one members (somewhat misguided) views and does not represent all Cambridge Anarchists. The intention was not to discredit the group, honest.

the one with a particular dietary habit

You are the one whom seems confused, mate.

04.07.2009 08:50

"People also enjoy racism and sexism, enslaving blacks and women, is that ok too?"

Terrible analogy. I'm a class struggle anarchist, so obviously in the struggle for human liberation these shall have to be confronted. On the other hand, I am not some right on vegan (though I am actually vegan myself)- which flaws your analogy completely.

'What if my dietary habit was black people, women, children and especially you, would that be ok? Afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice and all? It seems you are saying personal choice is towards eating non-humans, but persumably not for eating humans?'

I do not equate humans to animals, so that's also a none issue. However in a public event we want to get allsorts there to come and enjoy themselves. Sure talk about your dietary habits to people, but don't alienate. Again, I stress, not all of CA are veg and it's important to note that CA is an anarchist group, not animal rights group.

'My point is meat is meat, you can't disciminate against meat eaters just because their choice of animal is human. Would you allow serial killing cannibals to join the BBQ? I'm guessing not. Infact murderers who kill innocent human life would be ejected right?'

Yes, that is your point but I don't necessarily agree. Stop assuming that your terrible analogies are going to be taken seriously.

'Simpler to understand even, could I barbeque the pets of those who attend, or is that not ok? I hope cats and dogs are allowed to be consumed, otherwise I will be disappointed. Afterall dietary habits are down to personal choice and that is my rather bizarre habit.'

Are you alright? Yes, people are going to bring their dead pets to eat at the BBQ because it also people to bring meat?! You're having a laugh, mate!

'Nobodys objecting to eating 'things', it's objecting to eating animals who are individuals.'

Fair doo's, that's your position.

'It's really not. If it was, then it'd be down to the animal whether they want to be killed or not. Suprise suprise they'd say fuck no if they could, just like you would if I asked politely.'

Well I do agree. However it is people like you that put me off working with or even keeping up my personal dietary habits. Productive!

'Two words spring to mind: blatant speciesism. Care to defend your stance? You might think my tone is humorous, therefore not deserving of any answers, but if you are unable to reply and defend your arguments then you're reasoning is quite obviously flawed.'

Your tone is not only humorous, it's blatant hyperbole.

'1. Is eating black people, women, children and CA members acceptable?'
2. Is consuminig humans a personal choice just like eating non-humans?
3. Would you aid/initiate the ejection of serial killing cannibals?
4. Could I barbeque the pets of those who attend (please)?'

All of this can be summed up in one. CA isn't a veg group. Get fucking used to it, blud. Not all members equate animals to humans. Oh noes! specieists!

'PS - Meat eaters are not 'fascist scum', they are just fascists. Just like the majority of the population who support border controls are not 'fascist scum', they are just fascists. Butchers, furriers, vivisectors, factory farmers and the like are however fascist scum, just like NF and BNP members are fascist scum. It's the difference between promoting and accepting.'

Wow, you clearly don't even know what fascism is. This is getting embarassing

'PPS - I am aware this is just one members (somewhat misguided) views and does not represent all Cambridge Anarchists. The intention was not to discredit the group, honest.'

Don't worry, your type are the ones who will live in some moralistic ghetto for sometime. Hope it's nice and cosy!

CA member

@ CA Member

04.07.2009 13:07

I understand the logic behind allowing people to bring meat to the BBQ because it is a social practice that is considered normal in this society, I also don't know if “the one with a particular dietary habit” made the best case although I share his frustration.

However I would think it wrong if CA members were bring meat themselves, even if they ate meat themselves normal. You can call it lifestylist but it's just a practical application of what we want to see. “Be the change you want to see in the world”. Having said that no one is perfect and I can't say 100% of my clothes are made ethically for example, and I don't expect all radicals to be vegan.

I would say, however, if we were to take the same attitude to issues as you then we would definitely be attacked. Imagine if animal rights groups accepted anyone even if they were members of the BNP or NF? We could say that we are “not a human rights group”. Indeed such a debate was had many years ago – nowadays we are the movement that shows solidarity and has people working across causes. Shame we get little in the way of solidarity back from some sectors.

ARA

WOW- it's only a BBQ

04.07.2009 17:32

I didn't realise that this was going to be such a big issue. "Meat at a BBQ, How shocking". I persoanlly think that the fact CA is stating quite openly that there will be both vegan and non-vegan food at this event, which is a fucking BBQ get some perspective people!, is progressive when we compare it with the rest of society. It may be hard for thise ghettoised in to certain lifestyles that actually veganism is not a rampant social 'dietary choice" I would wager that many people do not know the difference between Vegi and Vegan.
I'm not going to go in to speciesism. This as far as I'm concerned is a non-entity. Yes, animals should be treated with respect and due dignity. No, humans and animals are not equal on my agenda.
And just at the last poster: no all of your clothes are not ethically produced. They cannot be. Short of making your own clothes from your own grown materials, there is not an article of clothing that you own that is not the result of the oppression and wage slavery of the working class. I don't mind people being hard line but kets have hardline everywhere: stop buying in to this fuzzy liberal notion that you can "buy the world better" all 'ethically produced' ofteb menas is that the workers are paid 10p and hour rather than 5p.

I won't be at the BBQ i'm involved in some actually class struggle elsewhere, you know making the change not simple "being it", but I'll be thinking of you as I tuck in to a cheese and bacon burger a food stuff I wouldn't noramlly go near but hey direct action gets the goods.

If eating meat makes me a fascist maybe i should just join up with my fellow fascists, you know the 90% of the population who eat meat, and stop trying to actively improve the lives of workers and bring downs systems of oppression

Another CA member

Humans are animals: A basic biology lesson is required!

04.07.2009 17:40

"I do not equate humans to animals, so that's also a none issue."

Humans are animals. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human and you will realise the biological group we belong is Animalia, better known as Animal.

Not equating humans to animals is the equivilant of not equating blacks/women to humans, or non-humans to animals even. You might think the importance is different but only because of your first incorrect analogy; that humans are not animals. If you don't equate humans to animals, then why can't people not equate black people, woman and children to humans? All oppression is interconnected, here is a fine example of that connection. .

Your stance is simply:

1. Stupidity; not realising that humans are animals, as well as being primates.
2. Ignorance; unwilling to accept that humans are animals.
3. Logical schizophrenia; unable to accept that humans are animals.

Care to let me know which one it is?

"Again, I stress, not all of CA are veg and it's important to note that CA is an anarchist group, not animal rights group."

Don't get stressed. Climate Camp and Smash EDO are not vegan or animal rights groups, but they still have the common sense to not provide and promote oppression. Similar to how vegan and animal rights groups have the common sense not to allow racism and sexism.

"...it is people like you that put me off working with or even keeping up my personal dietary habits. Productive!"

Threats like these are quite pathetic. You're best off not being vegan if you are only doing it for your own sense of well being, instead for all animals (human and non-human). If you stopped being vegan, insurrectionaries for animal liberation wouldn't loose much sleep over it so don't worry about it mate. Lifestyle changes don't make social changes.

veg@n

to another ca member

04.07.2009 18:36

No wonder you're unwilling to disguss speciesism. Most racists last century were (and still are) unwilling to discuss racism. If you can't defend what you believe in, don't believe.

Imagine if your two statements were slightly different, they would then be offensive:

'I didn't realise that this was going to be such a big issue. "Racism at a BBQ, How shocking".'

'If supporting borders makes me a fascist maybe i should just join up with my fellow fascists, you know the 90% of the population who support borders, and stop trying to actively improve the lives of workers and bring downs systems of oppression'

Shame people can't get to grips with reality, yet. Humans used to (and still do) oppress blacks, women and children because they considered them un-human. We continue to oppress animals because we consider ourselves not to be animals.

a logic comparison

@ another CA member

04.07.2009 19:09

"but I'll be thinking of you as I tuck in to a cheese and bacon burger a food stuff I wouldn't noramlly go near."

I was told you lot were disliked, now I can see why. Am I right in thinking you are eating something just to piss people off? How totally pathetic and childish.

ARC

@ CA Member

04.07.2009 19:15

"Well I do agree. However it is people like you that put me off working with or even keeping up my personal dietary habits. Productive!"

What has someone else got to do with your dietary habits, if you hated most people that were against the state would that discourage you being an anarchist?

ARC

Solidarity

04.07.2009 19:28

Despite the fact that you've have decided to have meat at your BBQ, I would like to wish you all the best in your actions. I've seen some of your posters around town and they are all quite interesting. The more action in Cambridge the better!

Despite this quite heated discussion, we need action, so any action is great.

For the non-human animals. For the human race. Peace.

ARC

meat

04.07.2009 21:31

The day went down MEAT FREE!!!!.
as we had hoped.

it is strange you lot (who didnt show) took such a strong stance.
we were simply open to meat eaters, none came, we had a veggie (not vegan) bbq.(as we had hoped).

so maybe you bastards shud get off yer high horse and get a life?

And to us being disliked. probly just be stupid trot bastards in the area who (in my personal opinion) can fuck off anyway (bar a few who i enjoy the company of and seem to be decent folk).

anarkodood

ARC

04.07.2009 21:38

'I was told you lot were disliked, now I can see why.'

Alienated the trots and liberals in cambridge? Fucking right on, mate. Guess that's what happens when they come into touch with actual working class people.
But yes, this is all getting petty now. Next time come along for a nice chat instead of this public internet stuff.

Workerist Anarchist

@ anarkodood

04.07.2009 22:30

Well, glad you had a good time, etc. it's true I for one didn't come not my sort of thing, but if your taking action on human rights issues, etc I'll get involved. I hope there are no hard feelings from this discussion, I don't know any of you, and I'm sure your OK people. We need as much action as possible so all power to CA.

ARC

Why are we bastards for not turning up?

05.07.2009 01:50

We simply stated our opinion. None of us said we were going to come either way. Maybe you should 'get off your high horse' as none of us made commitments to be there.

"we were simply open to meat eaters"

Not true. You were simply open to meat eating at the BBQ, big difference.

Climate Camp is open to meat eaters, but not to meat eating. Get it yet???

Overall I think this has all been very misunderstood. You can be open to meat eaters without providing meat. Unless of course people are addicted to flesh/blood then it should be fine!

Anyway, well done for having a veggie BBQ. As it wasn't vegan though I have to say it's a shame that certain individuals required breast milk from raped females. Maybe you'll get more anarcha feminists next time if this wasn't the case. A solution to all this shit is just steal and/or dumpster dive the meat/dairy, then its vegan, although obviously not pure veggie (as you would clearly not be buying into animal exploitation, just consuming it).

Better luck next time anyway. No hard feelings, honest. I've got more shit with animal liberationists (who are mainly just non-human liberationists) than I do with fellow anarchists.

veg@n

no one called anyone a bastard for not turnin up

05.07.2009 10:58

called yer bastard for makin such a fuss. you go on 'its ok no hard feelings' then like RAPED BREAST MILK errr good one.

wot vegan stuff can yer even bbq?!? besides peppers and mushrooms, or some stuff that takes ages to prepare in a kitchen? arguably fuck all!

it seems strange yer arguing with anarchists who are vegan and vegetarian over this. if yer gonna waste yer energies , go waste em on people who chew meat or summit. we were never gonna buy meat for people to eat. if i turned up to your precious climate camp chewing on a steak im sure they wudnt say shit all and wud let me get on with it. thats the same as we was doin. as we didnt want a fuckin guilt trippin fight on a good day out.
Sort out , ever heard of fun? or smiling?

anarkodood

@ anarkodood

05.07.2009 12:59

Seriously, we all have strong opinions on different subjects. However they shouldn't be taken personally. A good bit of controversy is good for a group, I'd probably see it as partly a good thing if one of my articles got this level of discussion – all publicity... and all that.

Respect and solidarity for your groups actions for human rights. It's all one fight!

ARC

Some answers

05.07.2009 19:12

"called yer bastard for makin such a fuss. you go on 'its ok no hard feelings' then like RAPED BREAST MILK errr good one."

Poor you. Somebody disagrees with you so you call them a bastard. Ever heard of manners?

I called cows milk breast milk as if you didn't notice the milk comes from cows breasts. Furthermore I'm guessing you didn't realise cows are artificially inseminated by entering the cows virginas. If entering a females vergina without consent isn't rape, then as somebody else said on another thread, what the fuck is? I didn't call you a rapist did I? I was just being realistic. If you find reality insulting then you probably have a lot to learn!

The reason there's no hard feelings is because you're not the one raping females, just benefiting from their exploitation like the vast majority. If I hated you then I'd hate 90+% of the population who in a variety of ways are fascist. Instead I realise people are fed fascism and that's all they know. It's not their fault, it's the fault of fascist scum who promote and feed them this hatred. I focus my hatred towards fascist scum, not those who don't know better.

"wot vegan stuff can yer even bbq?!? besides peppers and mushrooms, or some stuff that takes ages to prepare in a kitchen? arguably fuck all!"

Are you joking? I really can't tell, seriously. Burgers, sausages, kebabs, etc can all be vegan. Infact most veggie bbq food is vegan anyway, so this really is a non-issue. Regarding taking ages to cook, I don't think anyone can see how using plant-based milk instead of animal-based milk takes any longer to prepare food with, so again, this is a non-issue. If you want to learn about vegan bbqs then get in contact with a vegan group and find out.

I really can't tell if you're taking the piss or whether you lack education therefore basic knowledge. How can breast milk and chickens periods provide a diverse amount of food for a veggie bbq? [insert apology here for using realistic terms here].

"it seems strange yer arguing with anarchists who are vegan and vegetarian over this."

As strange as suffragettes arguing with moderate womens councils, black panthers agruing with moderate civil rights activists or militant antispeciesists arguing with moderate vegans? Historically conflict with social movements is about as common as grass and trees.

"if i turned up to your precious climate camp chewing on a steak im sure they wudnt say shit all and wud let me get on with it. thats the same as we was doin."

Firstly, it's not my climate camp. You know this, I know this, so let's not piss about. For the record I haven't been since 2007, as it's turned into a post-radical post-militant liberalised pacifist social events. Not a place for radicalising any more, only self-satisfying.

Secondly, turning up at climate camp eating steak is a fuck load different to facilitating steak eating at climate camp, so infact its completely different. If somebody turned up eating meat at your bbq then so be it. However facilitating this consumption of exploitation is showing blatant approval.

"we didnt want a fuckin guilt trippin fight on a good day out."

Exactly. You don't want vegans arguing with meat eaters and guilt tripping them over eating dead animals. It'd be a lot easier providing vegan food and therefore decreasing arguments. You either get vegans and meat-eaters arguing (quite often intensely) or meat-eaters complimenting vegans on their good taste in food, acting shocked at the diversity of vegan food and the occasional joke about how they enjoy the taste of flesh.

"Sort out , ever heard of fun? or smiling?"

Yes thanks, I have fun regularly, daily infact. I'm almost always smiling as I'm one of those constantly 'happy types', regardless of how bad a situation can be.

Nice one for stereotyping though, that was really smart. Someone disagrees with you and they're instantly a miserable fuck? Wow.

Anyway, I've said my bit, yet again. If you want to continue this argument that's upto you. I was honestly bored quite a few posts ago, just hate to not refute claims once I've started.

veg@n

fascist?

06.07.2009 10:52

yer lucky this is fuckin internet cus fuckin had enough of you hintin at us bein fash!

maybe yer shud come to a meetin and try tell us we are fash? cus i tell yer bruv yer fuckin crossin a line.

i am a fuckin speciest. so fuckin what! yer tellin me you class humans and animals equal? fuck off! unrealistic. if yer do yer a bit fuckin loops mate. Dont you fuckin dare compare this to rascism either. a humans a human. a dogs a fuckin dog. dont say there the same.

to be fair i dont even know if the food was vegan. i dont check that shit. linda mccartney or summit. who gives a shit, theres more important issues than milk and eggs, maybe pull yer head outta a cows arse and have a look

anarkodood

errrr

06.07.2009 11:42

yer that seems a lot more aggressive than ment. haha (just got bit annoyed at fash shizz)

but yer basically tho, i see it different to you, you see different from me. its gonna happen.
but yer words like fash are being misused and unecasary, but yeah. im gonna leave it at that.

no bad feelings on my part. hope we can work together at some point on summit. if we havent already.

anarkodood

well...

06.07.2009 14:25

truth is I wouldn't have supported this due to the meat thing. Seems like only a few people turned up...not surprising
Cambridge Anarchists, I think you need to understand that whether you're vegan or not, veganism is the lowest common denominator in this situation. You surely don't want to oppress other anarchists with your own political and social choices? For myself and thousands(millions) of others the smell of burning animal flesh and, in fact, the mere thought of the 'meat industry', makes me sick to my stomach and makes my blood boil with rage. This is not a 'hippy-dippy' issue but rather an issue of huge global,social and cultural importance. If you want to meet and exchange views with other anarchists, many of whom ARE vegan, you going to have to get your heads round this

I'd suggest you watch the film 'Earthlings' for a start.

vegan anarchist in Cambridge

@ anarkodood

06.07.2009 16:41

I think what we have to all get past if that we all have, very different and indeed extreme poler opposite views, no need to take it personally. Society strongly disagrees with both of our communities anyway.

I agree that v@gan's use of the word fascist is probably not accurate. However I do equate racism with speciesism and don't assume that I take racism lightly because I'm mixed race and have been attack in the street because of my race before.

This is in no way meant as a personal attack on you, those are just my beliefs. I'm not saying animals should have the same rights as people, but just that equal suffering should be given equal weight regardless of the victim.

ARC

yeah

06.07.2009 16:47

but basically youve missed point. im veggie (goin vegan when my living arrangements change), other CA member whos arguing is vegan.

The food was mainly vegan with some veggie and some stuff i believe was freegan so yeah... youve missed the point somewhere along the line. sorry. maybe next time come along, bring some tasty vegan food and try to positively encourage people to join your cause? would be a lot more effective than calling people rapists and fascists.

but yer i cant be fucked with this anymore.

anarkodood

@ anarkodood

06.07.2009 17:12

For the record I didn't call anyone “rapists and fascists”, I didn't even use those terms. Don't conflate me with other posters.

ARC

A few more replies

07.07.2009 00:21

"i am a fuckin speciest. so fuckin what!"

Speciesism promotes racism and sexism, not to mention all other oppression, as we all know here that all oppression is interconnected. Being speciesist (not speciest) biologically (i.e. scientifically) promotes oppression against primary-species, sub-species (races) and cross-species (genders). I.e. a racist is a sub-speciesist, a sexist is a cross-speciesist. Both are speciesists is the point. By being speciesist you indirectly promote other speciesisms (racism and sexism), not to mention other forms of oppression. Being a speciesist anti-racist and anti-sexist is somewhat oxymoronic to say the least.

"yer tellin me you class humans and animals equal? fuck off! unrealistic."

Demand the impossible, the unrealistic, the unimaginable - nothing less. Do you not find people criticise you as being unrealistic for being an anarchist instead of a socialist?

As for eqaulity, yes I believe in it. It's not a case of classing humans and animals as equal, as humans are animals, but humans and non-humans as equal, which I do. No shit mr(s).

"Dont you fuckin dare compare this to rascism either. a humans a human. a dogs a fuckin dog. dont say there the same."

I think it's fair to compare speciesisms. People compare racisms, or sexisms, so why not compare speciesisms (primary, sub and cross)? PS; I've heard of more challenging dare's.

I'm not saying a dogs the same as a human. They are generally of different sizes, abilities, intelligence and most notably number of legs for example.

You are saying equality is based on being the same. Hetero and homosexuals, children and adults, disabled and abled people are the same. Bullshit! We shouldn't stereotype but there are clear differences otherwise we would belong to mono-races-genders-preferences-ages-abilites-etc. That would be delusional to say the least!

Because a dog and human are of a different size, ability and intelligence, does that mean we can disciminate against dogs? If so then we pave the path for discrimination against people of a different size, ability and intelligence. That would be plain fascist no?

"but yer words like fash are being misused and unecasary"

Fascism is fascism: its oppression towards a social group primarily because they are different. Women are a social group, blacks are a social group, homosexuals are a social group, disabled people are a social group, transgender people are a social group, children are a social gorup, non-humans are a social group, the list goes on. Simple as. Non-human animals are sociable, it's oppression and if you were them then you'd definitely agree.

"no bad feelings on my part. hope we can work together at some point on summit. if we havent already."

Of course! As I said before, none of my part either. There is a state to bring down afterall.

"youve missed the point somewhere along the line. sorry"

Indeed I have, freeganism is an evolved form of veganism so good on you, apology accepted.

"would be a lot more effective than calling people rapists and fascists."

I never called anyone a rapist. I called dairy farmers rapists, not dairy consumers. I apologise that calling you fascist is offensive, I understand it's not the most effective tactic. Just when a social group is disciminated against because they are different then sometimes it slips out. Because in all honesty, as I said before, most people are fascists in a variety of ways.

I second the recommendation of Earthlings. Watching it all that is, not just the start.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142

veg@n

Lol, vegans

08.07.2009 00:31

So basically, what the vegans on this comment thread are saying is that black people are exactly like animals. Got it.

JH

@veg@n

08.07.2009 00:49

Races are not "sub-species", because racism has no real biological basis. Race is a social construct, whereas the difference between two different species is a matter of scientific fact. That you fail to see how trying to reclassify racism as "sub-species speciesism" basically reinforces racist and white supremicist narritives around biology and race speaks to your immense ignorance of politics beyond the animal rights "movement".

The relationship between society as a whole and a "non-human animal" (I use this term only because I can't be arsed with tedious arguments about the definition of the word "animal") is fundamentally different to the relationship between a human being and society as a whole. There are reasonable arguments to be made for veganism (even if I don't necessarily agree with them) but this "speciesist" lark is pure sophistry, a wordgame played by mostly white and middle class animal rights activists in an attempt to hijack working class anti-racist politics.

Fuxakes

@ Fuxakes

08.07.2009 14:19

Well as I said before, I'm not white and I lived in a council flat for a lot of my life, so that's that stereotype out of the window in my case.

The word Speciesism isn't about hijacking anything. It is simply an acknowledgement that equal suffering should be given equal weight. This is in no way saying non-human animals are the same as human animals.

There are very good reasons that non-human animals and people should be treated differently. However such differences exist within our species as well young children and some mentally disabled people do not have the same level of awareness as most adult humans. We still accord them consideration.

While there are real differences between animals they are not relevant in whether there interests should be given consideration. To deny consideration on the basis that another is of a different species is simply discriminatory and any objective test (such as awareness) would exclude some humans too.

ARC

Symptomatic

08.07.2009 15:37

This bizarre discussion is symptomatic of the appalling state of the anarchist scene in Britain. Aside from decent folk like Cambridge Anarchists, Afed, SolfFed, etc, there's a real dodgy swamp of total mentalists and inadequates who have completely lost touch with anything beyond their narrow political and dietary hobby horse. I sometimes think we've got more in common with trots (much as I dislike trots) than these proselytising puritanical dickheads. Actually, gimme the trots any day and let's just barbeque the veganist fundamentalist nutters.

King Pleb

ARC

08.07.2009 15:57

I don't think I called anybody white or middle class, I just stated a fact about the animal rights scene and its theorists, it's a hugely white and middle class demographic.

Anyway, the degree to which "non-human animals" suffer is irrelevant in terms of whether "speciesism" can be considered as a form of oppression analogous to racism or sexism. This is the major problem with animal rights, it confuses revolutionary politics with moral outrage.

What makes racism and sexism different to "speciesism" is the simple fact that the relationship between humans and other species is necessarily one of either exploitation, competition or mutual ignorance, nothing else is possible, you may not like that fact, but it remains a fact nonetheless. That's not to say that it's right for human beings to mistreat "non-human animals", but to frame the issue in terms of narratives of oppression and rights (itself a deeply problematic concept) is to miss the point entirely.

Fuxakes

OMG

08.07.2009 16:23

Vegan anti-speciests think non-whites are the same as dogs!?!?!?!?!?!?! o' dear

OMG

@ Fuxakes

08.07.2009 17:32

The animal rights movement is primarily white (much like the anarchist or socialist scene) as you say. However it is not primarily middle class, there seems to be more working class activists in the AR movement than many so-called “working class” movements. AR activists are from across the class spectrum.

Rights are simply flip sides of moral obligations, I have a moral obligation not to kill you for fun and therefore you can be said to have a right not to be killed for fun by me.

On what basis do you feel rights should be granted? Only to humans? Why? Awareness? That would exclude some humans too. How do you justify excluding other animals?

ARC

@ARC

08.07.2009 18:56

I don't supoprt the idea of rights, based as they are on the idea that freedom results from an imagined social contract between the state and the individual, rather than from the collective activity of society as a whole. Rights are for liberals, I'm an anarchist.

My objection is to the idea of "speciesism" as something on a par with racism or patriarchy (as well as with the idiotic, misanthropic and frequently racist remarks from certain animal rights activists on this thread), differences between species are a matter of scientific fact, race and gender are social constructs.

Fuxakes

@ Fuxakes

08.07.2009 20:43

Rights (when seen as flip sides of moral responsibilities) do not need to have anything to do with the state, in an anarchist society people would still have moral responsibilities. In any case if you prefer you can use the word liberation instead of rights, still the question remains.

Race maybe a social construct, gender is not. While gender stereotypes are social constructs there are clearly physical and biological differences between the sexes for example. The thing is we understand those differences to be irrelevant to there liberation.

Animals must have a different sort of liberation to most adult humans. Similarly young children and those with some mental disabilities have a different sort of liberation to most adults humans, although they are equal.

ARC

Comments

08.07.2009 23:10

"So basically, what the vegans on this comment thread are saying is that black people are exactly like animals. Got it."

Black people are humans. Humans are animals. Do I have to spell it out?? We've been through this and you are now looking very stupid now. Keep up.

"Race is a social construct"

Unlike gender which can be chosen, race and species are not social constructs, because they can't be changed. They are hereditary, that's basic biologically, not racism. This is not to say that people of different races have "traits" etc, but that races are biological, not social.

You don't grow into a race, you are born into a race. Your race is not from interacting with other individuals, it's passed down from your biological parents, unless you know different?

We are more than willing to say non-human "breeds" are sub-species, we need to start getting to grips with basic reality and accept that races are sub-species. Unless you can tell me someone who has changed their race? Didn't think so.

"I don't supoprt the idea of rights, based as they are on the idea that freedom results from an imagined social contract between the state and the individual, rather than from the collective activity of society as a whole. Rights are for liberals, I'm an anarchist."

Agreed. I don't believe/support animal rights, only animal liberation (human and non-human).

PS - Speciesism is not a wordgame, it's quite simple; discrimination based on species membership. If you accept it then you are speciest, if you don't then you're anti-speciesist. It's not a case of debating whether the term is valid or not, it has been defined for decades.

Furthermore, it's not an attempt to hijack anything apart from common sense. Anti-sexists who compared sexism to racism were called exactly the same by anti-racist sexists. It's no suprise that anti-racist speciesists think the same today. I'd be suprised if they didn't infact.

veg@n

Gender and race as social constructs

09.07.2009 00:11

@ARC, you're conflating gender and biological sex there, the two are not necessarily the same thing. When I say that gender is a social construct, I don't mean that the biological differences between the two commonly recognised sexes are socially constructed, but the construction of two rigid categories around those biological differences.

@Veg@an, again, while races are constructed around biological difference, this is not because there is any scientific basis to the idea of race. Taken outside of the historical roots of racism (the need for the larger empires to create a separate "other" category for the victims of their empire building), the traits that are grouped together as races are entirely arbitrary. If, in the 19th century, Africa had been populated almost entirely by people with blond hair and blue eyes and Europe had been populated almost entirely by people with ginger hair and green eyes, we'd be discussing whether or not the existence of a blond race and a ginger race is a matter of biological fact or social construction.

The difference between species, on the other hand, exists outside of any social context and is defined by the fact that two animals of different species cannot produce viable offspring.

Fuxakes

@ Fuxakes

09.07.2009 14:35

But there is a scientific (biological) difference between the sexes as you acknowledge, this manifests in physical appearance, etc. We know these physical differences do not justify withholding liberation from either sex – despite knowing they exist.

Similarly the fact species are different from each other in many ways does not equate to an argument to withhold liberation to conscious species.

ARC

Bottom line

09.07.2009 19:17

"while races are constructed around biological difference, this is not because there is any scientific basis to the idea of race"

This is purely oxymoronic. Races are biological but with no scientific basis? Has nobody told you that biology is science? You don't choose your race, its hereditary, pure and simple.

"The difference between species, on the other hand, exists outside of any social context and is defined by the fact that two animals of different species cannot produce viable offspring."

You can't define the 'difference between species' by the 'difference between species'. You might as well say the definition of species is species? This is truely illogical!

Taking out the incorrect analogy, you are basically saying the difference between species is the ability to produce viable offspring, which is obviously untrue. People who are infertile or in homosexual relationships are also unable to produce viable offspring. The difference between species is the separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool.

veg@n

vegan anarchist in Cambridge

10.07.2009 19:22

I'd watch your mouth with such uncomradely remarks.

A Tetchy Cambridge Anarchist

@veg@n

11.07.2009 11:00

There is a genetic difference between somebody with black skin and somebody with white skin. There is also a genetic difference between somebody who can roll their tongue and somebody who cannot. The point is not whether those differences exist, but whether there is any scientific basis for categorising people using those differences.

And inconvenient as it may be to you, reproductive isolation is part of the definition of species, the fact that some individuals within a species might be unable to produce offspring at all or that two individuals of the same sex cannot produce offspring together is irrelevant. You're making it increasingly obvious that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Fuxakes

@ARC

11.07.2009 11:08

As I've already said, I was talking about *gender* not sex, the two are not necessarily synonymous.

In any case, I wasn't saying that biological difference justifies discrimination against anyone or anything, I was just stating a fact, while gender and race are social constructs, species is a matter of scientific fact.

Fuxakes

@ Fuxakes

11.07.2009 16:59

"In any case, I wasn't saying that biological difference justifies discrimination against anyone or anything, I was just stating a fact, while gender and race are social constructs, species is a matter of scientific fact."

But sex is a "matter of scientific fact" so sex discrimination is comparable to speciesism even by your narrow outlook. Also if the “ biological difference” does not “ justifies discrimination” then the types of discrimination are comparable even though not identical.

ARC

no

13.07.2009 09:26

women are biologically different, but not a different species. (at least the ones ive met, dunno bout weirdo vegan girls)

sexism is different to racism, as speciesm is different to sexism.
sexism isnt a form of speciesm

you vegans fundamentalists 'ent half full of foolish remarks.

lolzord

@ lolzord

14.07.2009 16:04

I simple said they were comparable.

ARC