Fight Speciesism! #4 - Out Now

September issue of the latest anti-speciesist, anti-capitalist, abolitionist direct action news is out now.

We'd also like to remind everyone that the Carnival Against Vivisection is next month in solidarity with Sean Kirtley. Don't forget to make flags and banners etc, or see the link below to buy flags from RoC.

Check out our press release:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403927.html

FS! #4 - TO READ - application/pdf 1.6M

FS! #4 - TO PRINT - application/pdf 1.6M

PRINT / SHARE / DISTRIBUTE

==============
WHO ARE WE?
==============

Antispeciesist Action is a collective of militant antispeciesists and animal rights activists committed to confronting animal abuse, suffering and exploitation of non-human beings through the use of direct action.

We believe in the 'No Compromise' philosophy, veganism and actively support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and animal rights prisoners.

We are opposed to capitalism and the state, understanding that without both entities, the universal exploitation of animals would not be possible.

Until Every Cage Is Empty!

===============
ANTISPE NEWS
===============

Antispe

http://google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22antispe%22+site:indymedia.org.uk&start=0&sa=N

Antispeciesist Action

http://google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22antispeciesist+action%22+site%3Aindymedia.org.uk&meta=

Antispeciesist

http://google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22antispeciesist%22+site%3Aindymedia.org.uk&meta=

==================
FIGHT SPECIESISM!
==================

FS! #1

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400058.html - June
FS! #2

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401410.html - July
FS! #3

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/403623.html - August

=====================
LOOKING FOR A FLAG?
=====================

http://rootsofcompassion.org/shop/product_info.php?products_id=606

==================
SUPPORT ANTISPE!
==================

http://indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/04/397924.gif - Flash Banner

http://indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/04/397559.jpg - Header

==================
ANTISPE FORUM
==================

http://www.veganelinke.antispe.org/viewforum.php?f=40

===================
PRISONER SUPPORT
===================

http://vpsg.org - Vegan Prisoners Support Network (VPSG)

http://alfsg.org - Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group (ALFSG)

http://spiritoffreedom.org.uk - Earth Liberation Prisoners (ELPSN)

http://anarchistblackcross.org - Anarchist Black Cross (ABC)

==============
HOW TO BLOC
==============

1. Find others who look like they are there for the autonomous bloc, for example people with green&black flags and/or wearing bandanas/balaclavas.
2. Join with them. 3. Move as a group joining with others until all groups are as one.

================
ANTISPECIESISM
================

The best detailed description of animal rights and anti-speciesist action can be summed up in the Abolitionist Manifesto parts 1-3:

I. Animal liberation begins in our heads. Animals will never be free unless or until we cease viewing them in instrumental terms. This means that animal liberation hasn’t even begun in the heads of the new welfarists, who endorse measures (e.g. welfare reform and “humane” animal products) that reflect an instrumental view of nonhumans and as such show that they do not — at bottom — reject the property paradigm. 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. As Gandhi said, we must be the change we wish to see.

II. Animal liberation will not merely be enhanced or safeguarded by certain moral relations between humans and nonhuman animals. Rather it will be constituted by certain moral relations — specifically, a concern for animals’ welfare informed (or rather transformed) by respect for their inherent value. Since new welfarists’ compassion and urge to alleviate animal suffering conflicts with respect for animals as rightholders, something which shows itself in their endorsement of supposedly “humane” animal use which is a rights violation, it follows that not only is there no common ground between welfarists and abolitionists, but that new welfarism — necessarily — has nothing to do with animal liberation, since the latter is inherently impracticable without respect for animals’ inherent value which is theoretically informed by the concept of animal rights, i.e. the basic right not to be treated as property, solely as a means to humans’ ends.

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. For the new welfarists, even incremental measures that radically negate animal rights (such as the promotion of “humane” animal use, working with institutional animal enslavers, and supporting speciesist welfare groups) have legitimate instrumental value. But an “animal rights” movement that doesn’t rule out — a priori — those things that conflict with principled antispeciesism and the status of animals as rightholders is not only a pseudo-animal rights movement: it is an expression of counterfeit moral responsiveness to animals.

By contrast, abolitionism is a rights-inspired movement, which means it rules out — in advance — those things that conflict with antispeciesist, animal rights maxims because the latter are taken to be wrong in principle, in particular the promotion of meat and other animal products that were supposedly produced more “humanely” than others.

Co-authored by James Crump and Karin Hilpisch

http://westernanimalrights.wordpress.com/animal-rights

antispe britain
Homepage: http://indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/animalliberation

Comments

Hide the following 18 comments

Questions

18.08.2008 16:01

I'm interested in your suggestion that capitalism and the state promotes the exploitation of animals. If your definition of exploitation includes the consumption of animals as food, then how would this not exist in, say, a socialist economy? I think this is an individual moral issue, and whilst capitalism worsens the conditions for animals, it don't think it invented meat-eating.

Can antispeciesist activists in your view work with people who are opposed to say, animal experimentation for the purposes of cosmetics and personal care products, but who support experimentation for human medicines? If not, is this not in danger of falling foul of the "absolutist" rules you have defined?

This question probably seems intentionally facile, but I assure you it isn't meant to be. The animal rights movement used to promote the idea (in my view) that meat-eating was an individual choice, but animals bred for the purposes of food nevertheless have a right to a comfortable and free-range existence. However it seems to me that antispeciesism elevates animals to a level equal with the human race. For this to be the case, animals would need to have a higher human-like awareness (self-awareness, appreciation of beauty, an intrinsic care for other lifeforms for its own sake, a moral code unrelated to own welfare etc.) - and yet nature tends to show us that animal behaviour tends to be selfish and committed to its own survival.

The last difficulty is that if we are to define meat-eating as inherently wrong, must antispeciesists condemn animals who eat other animals? Must animals who do so - often with substantial suffering caused to the smaller species - be subject to the same moral code that is applied to human meat-eaters?

Advance thanks to anyone in the movement who replies.

Jon

18.08.2008 20:22

--- "Can antispeciesist activists in your view work with people...who support experimentation for human medicines?"

I wouldn't say antispeciesists work with people to end suffering who support the suffering caused to humans and non-humans by the development of medicines. Antispe is clearly against the exploitation of non-human animals and don't approve of human suffering either. Read the manifesto.

--- "The animal rights movement used to promote the idea (in my view) that meat-eating was an individual choice"

This opinion of the AR movement is I'm afraid completely incorrect and incompatible with the concept of animal rights itself; which is to not value animals as property. The oppressive ideology, treating individuals as property, has been seen throughout social history and is pivotal to the animal slaughter industry. Of course it wasn't right for slaves or women to be viewed as property and there's no "right" for non-human animals either.

As for individual choice, this is pivotal to the AR movement, every individual has the choice not to be exploited, suffer and slaughtered by humans, as most people agree. Meat eating is breaching the animals individual choice not to be used against their will. Just like slaughtering Iraqs is breaching their freedom to life.

--- "For this to be the case, animals would need to have a higher human-like awareness (self-awareness, appreciation of beauty, an intrinsic care for other lifeforms for its own sake, a moral code unrelated to own welfare etc.)"

Please be careful with what you say, as this comes across extremely fascist and discriminatory, whilst curiosity is good, watch what you say doesn't breach the IMC guidelines, like this blatantly does. (It's a justification for human-based domination, not that everyone doesn't make that mistake when questioning AR).

--- The description you give "self-awareness, appreciation..." were exactly the descriptions given to "justify" people with disabilities or children to not be granted rights.

Fortunately, we recognised that rights are not based on intellect, intelligence and reason, which not all people with disabilities and children have, but rights are based on individuality and are based on "right to life", not "right rated by intellect" (a fascist ideology). Otherwise it would be justified to slaughter children for adults gain, as they might not have self-awareness.

--- "must antispeciesists condemn animals who eat other animals"

Animals eat each other because they live in the wild. The laws of the wild are "survival of the fittest". Obviously these are not the laws for human civilization (unless you are a Neo-Nazi who believes such nonsense). Instead humans act in accordance with what would be beneficial for the majority, such as rights for women and non-white people is beneficial for the majority, obviously. Just like a vegan diet is the most sustainable, eco-friendly diet for the planet and its inhabitants, obviously. Answer: We have evolved.

http://www.veganmidlands.org.uk/whyvegan/environment.html

Antispeciesist

jon,awareness issue.

18.08.2008 20:40

With regards to `human awareness`,the principles you state are not traits that the majority of humans either exhibit,practice, have or teach,unfortunately.
Opinions of conscience and demonstrating ones conscience should be the first step in rediscovering what a democratic society should be,this present government ,and the thugs they employ with our money, are doing all they can to deny the voice of dissent.History has a way of repeating itself.
As far as the use of animals for gain,personal or for profit or for experimentation,how can one appreciate beauty then destroy it?
Animal experimentation is misleading,corrupted by politicians,scientists and the companies that pay them all,so how can one be so critical of protest. But then that is your right.

tonto

Thanks both for responses

19.08.2008 12:06

I think the "awareness" thing is our critical difference here. Just because it wasn't right for slaves or women to be viewed as property, I can't see how it follows automatically that the same right exists for animals too. For this to be the case, I believe one has to show that the "choice" an animal makes not to become food is more than just a hardwired survival instinct.

Do animals think of themselves or others in terms of rights or equality? These I think are human constructs. In fact, I contend that animals don't have the awareness that we do - it is our evolution and our ability to think that sets us apart. Incidentally I haven't read the IM rules on anti-discrimination etc. recently but would be hard-pressed to imagine that if I discriminate between humans and animals that there would be a widespread view I had broken posting rules. The rules that *do* exist are to deal with racism, sexism and homophobia against *people* - if you have read more into it than that then that's your own constraint and doesn't form part of the guidelines here, in my view.

There are several issues I would raise in connection with awareness. Firstly the idea that children don't have awareness is ludicrous. In modern psychology there is a strand of thought that says that children have more pure awareness than adults and that later in life, adults tend to suppress their previous "childlike wonder for the world". In any case, children are of the same species as adults, and so have the capacity to turn into "fully formed" thinkers - thus the idea that children are "not properly human" is wrong from the start.

The same goes for people with mental disabilities or people who have difficulty communicating - they are still of the same human species. Given this - and this is arguably the case with young children too - how can you point to a mentally handicapped person and suggest that they are not *experiencing* the same complex thought processes as other humans? The answer is - I believe - that you can't.

The same is not true of animals in general, who have never demonstrated these cognitive abilities. Perhaps this is why one cannot buy chimpanzee at the supermarket: we recognise that the thinking processes that set us apart are also present (to a degree) in this species, and so we don't eat them. In fact if cows were to develop an interest in philosophy then I think people would rather go and talk to cows instead of eating a roast dinner.

Tonto's point that many people don't practise the "higher thinking" traits, in my view, is plain wrong. I am not talking about nuclear physics here, or philosophy, or other kinds of intellectual pursuit - just the *way* in which all humans think. Many people are religious, for example, and yet not all of them would be labelled as "thinkers". Many ordinary folk would give money to a homeless man in the street - an act of selflessness that animals don't replicate in their own environment.

I do understand where you are coming from - and I respect your choice of veganism - but I am not sure you have demonstrated that animals have a consciousness that gives them the same innate "value" as humans. I am happy to carry on the debate if you like though!

Read between the lines

19.08.2008 19:40

"I am not sure you have demonstrated that animals have a consciousness that gives them the same innate "value" as humans"

What is it with people who demand that individuals have a conscious and the rest of it? I swear it's so that they can go ahead and slaughter anyone who didn't think things through properly! It's crazy, yet insanely ridiculous. Does any of this matter? Of course not!

As for the idea that humans have "value" and so fourth, it's the exact argument that surrounds speciesism, just like it did for racism. Value relates(d) to identity, and the rest of it, which scientists have proven animals have, which most humans refuse to accept.

For example animals have a central nervous system, they can and do cry, feel neglect, suffering, pain, you name it that we feel, they do. They are individuals.

Speciesism is the last battle against discrimination.

More examples:

You said: "These I think are human constructs"

Remind 100 years: "These I think are white peoples constructs"

You said: "I contend that animals don't have the awareness that we do - it is our evolution and our ability to think that sets us apart."

Remind 100 years: "I contend that blacks don't have the awareness that we do - it is our evolution and our ability to think that sets us apart."

You said: "The same is not true of animals in general, who have never demonstrated these cognitive abilities"

Remind 100 years: "The same is not true of blacks in general, who have never demonstrated these cognitive abilities"

You said: "In fact if cows were to develop an interest in philosophy then I think people would rather go and talk to cows instead of eating a roast dinner."

Remind 100 years: "In fact if blacks were to develop an interest in philosophy then I think people would rather go and talk to blacks..."

P.S - The IMC rules deal with discrimination of any kind, given that you haven't even read them I guess it's obvious you haven't realised. Disrimination towards non-human animals is still discrimination. It's commonly is known as speciesism. Read more below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

not so foolish

Frustrating - straw man!

20.08.2008 11:46

You can of course set up an argument that racism in the past was discriminatory, and that it was unjust. Of course it was. But your argument taken to its logical conclusion means that you should happily apply it to anything. Would you apply it to plants and flowers? How about applying it to bacteria and unicellular organisms? Amoeba and plankton? Probably not, given that you are (presumably) vegan.

Furthermore, we need I guess to understand why racism was (and is) wrong - it is that one section of a species determined arbitrarily that it was better than other sections of that species. This is why your example is a canard: we are talking here about *different* species. No antispeciesist activist could disagree with that, given that the very title of the movement recognises the existence of "species" as a basis upon which to categorise different kinds of living organism.

I am happy to submit that value could well be related to the experience of identity - and I go back to saying that I think that requires a certain level of consciousness. In fact I think we may even agree on this point! However what we differ on is whether animals (in the general case) experience identity in the same way that humans do.

I use the phrase "general case" here because - as I conceded earlier - chimpanzees and apes do belong in a special category. They can converse in sign-language, and, as the Independent front cover showed yesterday, it looks like they can experience grief too. But surely you don't believe that fish do so as well? If "scientists have proven animals have [identity]", can you provide references? Moreover, do you think scientists think that all animals (including fish) experience identity to the same level of complexity?

I should point out that you have had a go at me on the basis of misreading what I said. I HAVE read the rules previously, it's just I haven't read them RECENTLY. Read it again! Having gone back to read the line on discrimination, it refers to "racism, fascism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia" - which I believe are intended to deal with hatred targetted at humans. I do not accept that "other forms of discrimination" was intended to deal with differentiation based on species.

Side note: I followed your Wikipedia link and discover that "libertarian extentionists" would apply "the principle of individual rights not only all animals but also objects without a nervous system such as trees, plants, and rocks". On that basis - what am I to have for my lunch? Animals are definitely off the menu, and it seems that plant-based foodstuffs are too. Rumble... looks like I might have to stay hungry for a while!

Surely its obvious!

20.08.2008 13:02

"Would you apply it to plants and flowers?"

Of course not, they are not individuals! They are not animals! Where are their pain receptors?

"Furthermore, we need I guess to understand why racism was (and is) wrong"

Exactly, people completely forget! It's because all humans feel pain and suffering. Just like all animals, they feel pain and suffering, how obvious does it get?

"as the Independent front cover showed yesterday, it looks like they can experience grief too"

Exactly! Animals experience grief, nelgect, torture, suffering, dealth - all emotions, well done!

"I do not accept that "other forms of discrimination" was intended to deal with differentiation based on species."

...just like white supremacists don't accept that "rights" are intended for humans who are non-white. Why? Because they think the 'term' rights was invented for whites so should stay that way. Now others think rights were invented for humans so it should stick with them. From simple racism to simple speciesism, identical logic; "We invented it" --- not justified.

IMC Guidelines: "we reject all systems of domination"

If prisons aren't a system of domination then what the hell is?! Unless individuals imprisoned against their will to be tortured and killed isn't what qualifies imprisonment...? Is Guantanamo really just a theme park? No.

It's fine you think the domination of humans over non-human animals is justified (that's your opinion), as long as you accept that it IS domination and that indymedia rejects it!! No questions or queries about it, you can even email then and double check you like.

"But surely you don't believe that fish do so as well?"

One of the final species our nation accepted that were able to feel pain? The state finally bothered to look at some evidence in 2003, which was accepted as a society. You should probably accept it too and keep up to date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200828512302001

P.S - If you're going to leave a sidenote, don't make it a complete lie? I searched for "libertarian extensionists" and its only ever been used on the internet once! Well done for using it for the second time, but why make up words? I don't really see the point!

P.P.S - I don't see why you have a fascination with "identity" being associated with rights, unless of course you read the Nazi BNP newsletter which wouldn't entirely suprise me...

simplicity at it's finest

Having difficulty discussing this...

20.08.2008 14:11

** Hmm... anyone up for a debate involving some basic logical flow and without periodic ad hominem? Allow me to boil down our various strands of conversation:

Me: Speciesism may be justified because we experience a higher state of consciousness.

You: Consciousness has nothing to do with it. It's identity that counts.

Me: OK, but identity comes from consciousness, in my view. That sets us apart from animals.

You: I don't see why you have a fascination with "identity" being associated with rights. Perhaps you're a Nazi.

** Then we have:

You: speciesism is the same as racism, because it discriminates between things that are different.

Me: Racism does not form a parallel illustration, because it is a belief system that differentiates within a species group. Speciesism by definition is a belief system that differentiates *between* species groups. You need to find a parallel example of the latter, not the former.

You: Did I mention white supremacists?

Me: Yes, you've covered racism, but it's a bad example for the reasons I have set out. Try again?

** Perhaps also:

Me: I don't think the IM guidelines were intended to cover animals.

You: The rules deal with *all* forms of discrimination.

Me: Yes, I have read them. But I am saying that I think they were intended to deal with human targets only.

You: Did I mention prisons? Guantanamo?

Me: No, but I don't see how... oh dear.

** Carrying on:

You: here is a Wikipedia link that describes my belief system

Me: That's interesting, it also mentions another belief system that extends individual rights to rocks and plants too. Apparently this system is called "libertarian extension".. I wonder if people who believe in that would be called "libertarian extensionists"?

You: Why are you lying?

Me: Um, I'm not... errr... honestly, it's right there (points to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism desperately)

** Do you see why I am having a hard time discussing this with you?

The answer is obvious!

20.08.2008 15:55

You're arguing from the 'prove me wrong' perspective, but you fail to prove anything...

The only thing you have done is invented your own story, starting with the blatant lie that the person you're arguing with said "It's identity that counts", which is infact what you said! They were arguing that rights are based on individuality, ability to suffer, etc, not identity.

Then you clearly take it back (because of the connection with the BNP newsletter), instead claiming that "identity comes from consciousness", which is still basing rights on identity.

As was previously explained, rights based on identity is a common fascist ideology because it was identity that separated races, gender, etc, from uniting.

I don't see a justification for Human Supremacy, therefore you failed to explain anything. The only difficulty is, you can't justify human domination (Human Supremacy), without also providing the identical justification for White Supremacy. The two go hand in hand, that's why the person showed you the comparison between the two ideologies. Here goes another.

For example, an excuse to why people support White Supremacy:

"But I am saying that I think they were intended to deal with non-Jews only."

For example, an excuse to why people supported Human Supremacy:

"But I am saying that I think they were intend to deal with human targets only."

Discrimination is discrimination and the excuses are all the same!

Same mistakes again...

21.08.2008 11:14

... more ad hominem, misrepresenting my position, and repeating the same arguments that I have already dismantled.

1. When I said "It's identity that counts", I was paraphrasing. The actual phrase used was "Value relates(d) to identity, and the rest of it, which scientists have proven animals have". Hence my representation of it is not inaccurate, and I am certainly not a liar.

2. I am not sure what you think I have taken back (I don't think I have had to concede anything here) and it's certainly nothing to do with the BNP. The only reference I made to fascism is to point out that my opponent(s) have taken rather inconsistent positions of the legitimacy of "identity" deserving rights, and then called me a Nazi for good measure. This is not helpful to the debate.

3. We appear to be using the word "identity" in different ways. It seems to me you are talking about differentiation between race, gender, sexuality ("identity politics") whilst I am talking about the experience of identity - the ego, the id, the self ("I think, therefore I am"). This misunderstanding probably hasn't helped us! It is my contention that animals don't have this experience of identity, hence my position in this debate.

4. You have used your racism example again. I have explained why this does not form a parallel with speciesism - and you have not even tried to knock down my argument. You need to find an example of unacceptable inter-species discrimination to form a parallel. Racism is not inter-species discrimination - it is discrimination *within* a species. By ignoring this point, you are running away from the arguments I am presenting to you.

By the way, I can't help but notice that the anti-speciesist pieces in this thread have become rather hostile. I am happy to continue the debate, but if there is any more name-calling (accusations of lying and fascist tendencies included) then I shall discreetly bow out.

jon..jon..

21.08.2008 21:40

Hold up a moment,If we,humans?,have a value then surely why not all animals? The difference between humans can be seen and sometimes felt and sometimes sensed.The overwhelming ignorance of the many that foolishly believe the drivel of the bible in all its editions,languages,and faiths is surely proof that stupidity is the most common trait humans exhibit. How anyone can believe such an old trick and swallow it,fed to them by manipulative profiteers,then give the church money that they do not need so they can have flamboyant costumes and appear as the voice of `GOD`.
There a`int no god, its all a load of bol****s.
But if you want to believe it then thats up to you.
One thing you should try to believe is that other animals do have a conscience self, an ability to think, an ability to learn, and an ability to feel pain,enjoyment etc.etc. You will no doubt think I have left out the ability to reason...I have not. The ability to reason is part of the basic animal set of senses that allowed them to survive, unlike humans who, it is being demonstrated,throughout history have striven to bugger up the planet and to make endless wars against one and other.Is this what you mean by human ability above animals.
As a,I have now become ashamed to say so,human I have had the opportunity to study a wide range of animals, all different. By that I mean within types and have observed levels of individuality not observed in humans,I have also observed animal ability to show grief,avoidance of certain situations,or try to! and also the need for affection. If you have not discovered for yourself the foregoing then I pity you.
None of the above mentioned animals showed the slightest interest in religion.
Is that your reason for denial?

Jon.on meat from animals other than human.

21.08.2008 21:58

The eating of meat has been a contribution to endless medical papers with the link to many diseases including cancer,heart problems and the breakdown of immune systems et al.being established. Eating meat is big business controlling you and what you eat,it is an industry that needs you,you don`t need it and would be fitter without it.
As is religion.
As is capitalism.
And we certainly do not need that little prick cameron,Brown,or any of the barristers on the front benches or the fuc***g freemasons.

Inter-species discrimination; racism & sexism

22.08.2008 12:01

Just the other day on channel 4. I was quite shocked, mainstream media actually comparing an animal industry with the Nazi holocaust.

Dog Breeding - ‘Nazi Style’

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_pets//1859//

This is also representative of the diary industry, which kill particular breeds of cows because they are not what is on demand. Furthermore the calves are either shot and killed or exported abroad for veal, if they are deemed to have value. This is sexism; disposing of males and constantly pregnating females to use as mechanical-mothers, who have their children removed each time within days. It's obviously unequal to say the very least.

A few final points:

You said: "my opponent(s)...called me a Nazi for good measure"

They actually said: "unless you are a Neo-Nazi", "unless of course you read the Nazi BNP newsletter", "Perhaps you're a Nazi"........when did they call you a Nazi sorry?

You said: "You have used your racism example again. I have explained why this does not form a parallel with speciesism - and you have not even tried to knock down my argument"

Animal rights movement - Civil rights movement

Notice any "parallel" here? They are both RIGHTS movements?

Watch Earthlings. If you can't be bothered to watch it all, at least watch the first 10-15 minutes. It best explains the connection between discriminating against race, gender and species

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw

eco-vegan

Strategy for arguing that animal rights and civil rights are equal in value

26.08.2008 13:33

I cited religion as an example of a higher kind of thinking, which involves a search for meaning and taking pleasure from historical tradition and practice. The question here is whether animals can do the same: do they stop to consider why they are on the planet? Do they consider their purpose, such as making life better for other animals? It is my contention that they don't do this, and nor can they. That you disapprove of religion is not at all relevant (I am not religious, if it matters). In fact, if antispeciesism rests on the principle of atheism, then it would not be possible to be both vegan and religious, and yet I would venture that there are plenty of people who practise both veganism and religion.

I think the same argument can be applied to the stupidity of mankind: the destruction of the planet, rape of natural resources, militarism and genocide etc. are examples of greed. They don't demonstrate that mankind is unable to experience higher-levels of thinking and reasoning (George Bush notwithstanding, of course).

I am not sure I feel much care inherent in Tonto's pity; in fact, I see statements like that simply as name-calling that occurs after arguments are exhausted. I'm after a debate here, not personal attacks, as I have already made clear.

Whether a meat-based diet is unhealthy for humans is not really the issue: after all, a person's health is mostly their own business, and if they munch a beefburger that is not very healthy, that's their problem, isn't it? This is a debate about the morality of killing animals for their meat.

eco-vegan: some clarification on the Nazi issue (though I rather see this as a distraction: I was merely pointing out that name-calling is unhelpful to the debate). Said "simplicity at its finest": "... unless of course you read the Nazi BNP newsletter which wouldn't entirely surprise me". If it is the case that this person would not be surprised that I read the BNP newsletter (I find that contention doubtful) then what they are implying is that I might be a fascist. I hope this quote demonstrates I have not made an incorrect assertion on this point.

Said the same person: "Animal rights movement - Civil rights movement". Aha, well done: you've found two phrases both ending in "rights movement", and considered that a QED for your argument! Unfortunately that doesn't prove anything. See, I could say "white rights movement", which you and I would both find abhorrent as a concept, and that would render your example useless. The idea that animal rights are equal in value to (human) civil rights, just because the movement names sound the same, is completely laughable.

You need to show **why** you believe animal rights and civil rights to be of equal value, and in a way I am trying to help you. As I have stated, your strategy could be to show an example of inter-species discrimination that people would be likely to find objectionable, and then demonstrate why there is no difference between that and example, and humans vs. animals.

Alternatively, you could cite research that demonstrates that animals have a sense of "self" or "self worth" equal to humans. Do they feel a sense of gross injustice as they are led to the abattoir? If this is the case, I think more people would stop eating meat.

Lastly you could try to argue that the level of thinking that animals can or do practice is irrelevant, and all creatures with a brain should be afforded equal rights. Here you would need to explain why you believe this is so. (This I suppose could be equal to the belief system outlined in the Wikipedia article which suggests that animals can still be moral patients without having to be moral agents).

PS thanks for the video link, I will watch that when I get a moment.

Completely agree Jon

28.08.2008 01:16

Quote: "The question here is whether animals can do the same: do they stop to consider why they are on the planet? Do they consider their purpose, such as making life better for other animals?"

I couldn't of put it better myself as a veganarchist and antispeciesist.

Within the last decade society has correctly accepted that the ability to; think, CONSIDER, estimate, debate, reason, etc, are all NOT vital in ensuring a right to life and liberty. Whether people have cognitive or intellectual impairment, a mental disorder, or any other lack of ability, it makes than NO LESS of an individual. It's because they are sentient individuals who feel pain and suffering, therefore deserve to be protected and not exploited for profit.

How you could try and say the above quote, written by yourself, is not an example of fascism (whether recognised or not), is not quite clear. Discrimination against human beings is a clear example of fascism, which as I described above; you have clearly justified, whether intentionally or not. Whether its racism, sexism, homophobia, or otherwise, if its intentionally or not, it really doesn't matter. Its an example of injustice and it will be confronted by all.

More information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabilities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_rights_movement

Note - You could give an example of the "white rights" movement being compared to the animal rights movement, but it's best compared to the "slave ownership rights", which just like the fascist movement - didn't last long at all! AR is growing however, the green scare against the AR and eco movement is only just begining; just like the red scare against the civil rights movement. COINTELPRO all over again and its becoming a part of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Scare

Green is the new Red!

"One day the absurdity of the almost universal human belief in the slavery of other animals will be palpable. We shall then have discovered our souls and become worthier of sharing this planet with them."

- MARTIN LUTHER KING Jr, prominent ANIMAL RIGHTS activist and leader in the American CIVIL RIGHTS movement.

More info: Animal Liberation and Social Revolution

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/407644.html

veganarchist

Gaps in logical connections here

28.08.2008 13:21

Thanks for your reply, veganarchist. Let me come back to some of your points.

> Within the last decade society has correctly accepted that the ability to; think
> CONSIDER, estimate, debate, reason, etc, are all NOT vital in ensuring a right
> to life and liberty.

For humans, yes. Is it your view that society has come to that conclusion for animals too? I don't think it has (whether it should, of course, is at the heart of this discussion).

> Whether people have cognitive or intellectual impairment, a mental disorder, or
> any other lack of ability, it makes than NO LESS of an individual.

I agree. But I am taking a clear differentiating line (based on species) that says that if an example exists within a species of cognitive or intellectual ability, it is not fair to assume that someone who is disabled does not (or will never) experience these higher thought processes. Therefore, it is wrong to kill or enslave an individual human based on their lack of thinking ability.

> How you could try and say the above quote [whether animals ... stop to consider
> why they are on the planet ... [and] consider their purpose, such as making life
> better for other animals] written by yourself, is not an example of fascism (whether
> recognised or not), is not quite clear.

This is the core of our problem. It is not clear to *you* why I don't agree that my statement is fascist in nature. It does not necessarily follow that people not aligned with your movement would agree with you.

Incidentally I looked up "fascism" on wikipedia (since it seems to be a popular reference source here) and couldn't find anything that would lead a reasonable non-aligned person to call someone who does not believe in equating animal rights with civil rights a "fascist". However it does mention that the word has become a slur (as we would all agree) and is often applied in cases when it is not genuinely applicable (as is the case here, I think).

> It's because they are sentient individuals who feel pain and suffering

Well, for you and I, that sums up our disagreement. I think your statement is wrong, since this implies that the reason we believe human life is precious simply because humans are able to feel pain and suffering. As sentient traits go, this is substantially below our remarkable ability to reason for the sake of it, to foster an individual sense of self-worth and identity, to desire to reduce the suffering of others (humans and non-humans) non-selfishly, and to search for higher meaning within our existence. Animals are discriminated against, I think, because it is felt that they do not do these things.

Still, thanks for your comments, it has given me much to think about. I shall periodically check this thread if you or anyone else wishes to keep it going!

Punchline

28.08.2008 18:26

You said: "For humans, yes. Is it your view that society has come to that conclusion for animals too? I don't think it has (whether it should, of course, is at the heart of this discussion)."

YES IT HAS --- HUMANS ARE ANIMALS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You said: "The question here is whether animals can do the same: do they stop to consider why they are on the planet? Do they consider their purpose, such as making life better for other animals?"

You said: "I don't agree that my statement is fascist in nature."

But if your statement was... "The question here is whether black people can do the same: do they stop to consider why they are on the planet? Do they consider their purpose, such as making life better for other humans?"

You'd agree this is fascist right? Because it's antagonizing over rights for black people, based on intellect; something you claim is not relevant in the argument. Would an intellect test for black people be acceptable? NO. Does intellect matter? Of course not.

As we all know, humans are animals, so the first statement is justifying the second! If you agree that animals should be granted rights based on intellect, as described in your statement, then you justify human-animals rights being based on intellect (humans are animals too remember). You justify YOUR rights being based on intellect. You are an animal!

As previously mentioned; White Supremacy and Male Supremacy are both ideologies entrenched in Human Supremacy; the domination of human animals over non-human animals.

This is why you cannot justify Human Supremacy (Anti-Animal Rights), without also justifying supremacy for white people and men for example. As Anti-AR is Anti-HR, as HR is part of AR... because Humans are Animals. In the same way white & male supremacy will never be defeated until human supremacy is eventually abolished.

Result: Racism and sexism will never be defeated until speciesism ends.

veg

Not a convincing punchline...

04.09.2008 15:28

(Apologies for the delay - there was an IM problem that was preventing posting.)

If society had really come to the conclusion that "the ability to consider, estimate, debate, reason are all not vital in ensuring a right to life and liberty" *and* this principle was applied to non-human animals, then humans would have stopped eating meat. Humans haven't stopped eating meat, hence, society has not come to this conclusion. You can call humans "animals", or you can call us "squishy hairy blobs" if you prefer - it still won't change this situation.

Your question on whether "black people can do the same" is fascist in one regard, because it suggests there is doubt about the matter. Since we are all agreed that humans of all races and colours have the same abilities to think in the way we've previously described, it is considered offensive (quite rightly) to imply that one section of the world populace may not have such an ability. However from a non-emotional perspective, the question is not fascist, so long as the answer is a firm "yes" i.e. people of one particular race or colour DO have the same ability as other races and colours.

From this, we can derive these principles: humans (of all races and colours) have a well-developed ability to think (in the various ways I've previously described) and so should all be afforded the same rights equally. None shall be bonded into slavery or killed for their meat. Their lives are all intrinsically precious and they all ought to look after one another (that this does not happen is of course another discussion). However animals do not fit into this category, as I have put forward many times before, for the reasons I have already stated. I am not sure why you think I believe intellect is NOT relevant: I do think it is relevant. In short, humans have it, animals don't.

Most of the rest of your piece rests on your certainty that humans are animals. However this is just semantics - you are just calling humans animals so that you can be certain that "we are just the same". It is my contention that we are not, and you need to do more than call us animals to prove otherwise.

Lastly your suggestion that racism and sexism are dependent on speciesism is the best piece of utter codswallop I have heard on IM in ages. Why on earth do you think this is the case? Womens' rights campaigners and anti-racists would be very surprised to find out that their causes are worthless without veganism!