Animal liberation and the left

The problem is not the cost of eating vegetarian, but knowing how to prepare healthy food. I am a vegetarian (although not a strict one) and I do not spend more than 100€ per month on food.

The time it takes is the issue more than the price when I say afford. When you're working 60 hours a week, you barely have time to cook something up for work. And it's not recommended to get veg options at taco bell every day.

Because animals are not human. Intelligent domesticated species like dogs and birds should be treated respectfully as companions, but most are unthinking flesh drones.

that's a total baseless assumption

Can I name my post-rock band this?

cooking rice and beans is tough

do you think proles are too stupid to use google and find recipes or something? the only cuisines that aren't predominantly plant-based are nordic

You couldn't be more wrong.
more vegetarians = more fertile land to grow food for people rather than cattle.
grass-feeding is a huge meme and probably more harmful than your average factory farm.

Nope, if you want to treat your dog well that's your problem, you can't keeps others from eating theirs. all animals are 100% property.

Tankie encourages people to rely on their pets as a food source, what a surprise.

I beleive in animal welfare but "liberation" and "rights" are too much

I'd rather make Pol Pot look like Ghandi to prevent people from eating dogs.

lol do you want to eat rice and beans every day?

Would you do that to prevent people from eating pigs since they're more intelligent?

...

HOLY SHIT I'M AGREEING WITH A NAZBOL!

Probably not because of the immense cognitive dissonance experienced by omnivores.

Sometimes the cognitive dissonance is resolved by doublethink: "I just don't care".

...

...

Dude are rice and beans the only plants you know? You should adopt a more varied diet.

Nice meme, also dogs (generally) are not raised for their meat. Their best utility is as companions and other work. I'm pretty sure some pitbull tastes like shit too.

anything else costs too much

But it's true. Google it.
So because it's not done, it shouldn't be done? Flawless argument.
As determined by you. Also we could grow some dogs to eat and some for companionship just like we do with horses.
Then why do the chinese eat it? They just lack tastebuds?

I'd like you to admit that you're simply arguing from preference, ie: you feel fondly towards dogs but not pigs.

Raising plants and feeding them to animals is strictly an energetic loss, so there are a lot of calories to be gained if you directly eat plants. Not to mention meat goes bad far faster.

I am actually fairly internationalist I just like using this flag, most genuine Nazbols here aren't that racist anyway

love when i try to save up for a ps4 but a sack of potatoes and rigatoni pasta bankrupts me

the >quarter pounders are cheaper than veganism
myth is v wrong btw drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/mar/foodcost.htm

I try to replace most of my meat consuption with chicken because its the most efficient meat, love it to much and cant cook without meat good enough to become a vegetarian. I get sad and depressed without food I like after a while. Also I think that vegetarianism is a deeply individualised solution to a systemic problem that should be solved through collective action and not burdening the individual through moralising.

The only reason why people are hostile towards animal liberation types is because they are often spooked af, constantly try to recruit you through appealing to your conscience, and because they are often liberals that think we should just all act moral and the world will become a great place.

They are mostly right though, I will switch imidiatly to meat from the laboratory or meat replications once they become avaible. Cant be more than 10 years till that happens now.

I'm a veg. I'm arguing it's time consuming to prepare varied meals if you work a lot

I was responding to the guy that said rice and beans was something not time consuming and affordable, you idiot

btw does anyone know how efficient fish production is energy wise and how far along replication is?

Let me hurt my own argument, there is a specific breed that chinks do breed for their meat.

They do so probably because they do not have access to other meat. I think though if we allow dogs to be eaten why not allow humans then or any other animal especially the endangered ones.

Humans are the only animal ethical to eat tbh

Letting people eat endagered animals is bad because it threatens biodiversity.
Farming elephants is cool and should be done asap, gotta have that ivory.

That is EXTREMELY unlikely.

If someone wants to voluntarily be eaten then sure.

Forgot my flag.

Well, I eat meat because i need to, not because i'm some bloodthirsty savage or something. I'm already frail, and i'd fall apart if i spent two days without meat.
Pic unrelated

Morality is spooky, that's true. I do hope you accept the logical conclusion of this reasoning though. For instance, most people here are probably smart enough to take advantage of capitalism and "earn" more from exploiting others than they would earn under communism.

I've already been attacked by tigers twice. Imagine how many times I'd be attacked if I didn't carry my anti-tiger rock everywhere. I need that rock.

this basically. I need it for muscle development and nourishment for my nervous system. There's a plethora of essential nutrients in meats that are difficult or cumbersome to acquire outside of globalist trade or disgusting genetic engineering and fortification processes. I do think industrial farming is repulsive, but there needs to be a balance between rejecting cruelty and understanding that we are indeed omnivores.

Grass feeding is not a huge meme you doofus. Have you seen what most grazing land looks like? It's marginal land, you'd damage the environment far more trying to constantly fertilize and irrigate grazing land in a vain attempt to grow human-edible plants than you ever would letting cattle/sheep roam freely over it to graze.

Boo-hoo, more fucking moralism from the liberal brigades. Cows are meat, dogs are meat, your whole family is meat.

Give it a few generations of selective breeding and we could make the meatiest, dumbest dog you can imagine. Not really economically viable considering the EROEI but whatever.

Technically true, but animals can process all sorts of extremely cheap to grow plant matter that humans simply lack the gut flora to digest.

Nah, they live too long and reproduce too slowly to efficiently breed them into usefulness. At this point it's easier just to print keratin.

The vast majority of 'animal liberation' activism is carried out by idiotic middle-class kids that value the pwecious widdle puppies over the destitute worker down the street.

Why should we value those destitute workers? They are, after all, just meat.

I'm actually more surprised when I see an unironic nazbol then an ironic nazbol

Well you see all humans (aside from you) have the amazing capacity to think! And to consciously labour to modify the world around them. Since we live in a world where production is performed socially, those capacities can help you the more you help them.

Alternate argument: They're your kind of meat.

Alternate alternate argument: Because if it ain't a largely hairless bipedal mammal developed for optimal pursuit predation, it ain't shit.

3xAlternate argument: Because the Lord God did not see fit to imbue animals with eternal souls, only humans.

4xAlternate argument: Because the worker down the street reproduces more slowly and is harder to restrain than a puppy, thus making them a less optimal test subject for toxicity in cosmetics.

That is a reason to exploit them, as the capitalists so wisely do. It is not a reason to help them.
All your other answers are spooky as fuck.

Also, if we were comparing like for like, we'd be experimenting on babies or children. They're fairly easy to restrain.

Now the ALF is trying to shill here?

Yes, the human ability to produce more in a day than what they require to continue living is what capitalists take advantage of. It is also, which you'd know if you'd ever read Marx or Engels, the basis for a society predicated on general abundance, a society that has the capacity to be much more productive than a capitalist society, having removed the fetters of a parasitic owning class and the various wasteful industries geared only to maintaining their dominance over the producers in society.

Yeah, no, the other arguments are silly. Kind of the point? I am deadly serious about the first argument though. Will die on this hill.

No, puppies are much quieter than either babies or children, and not even half as devious. Plus, the lab workers don't seem to have as much trouble squirting chemicals in puppy eyes as they do childrens'? Don't know why.

Society as a whole might be more productive under socialism, but that doesn't matter. You can't possibly argue that individual capitalists would be doing better under socialism.

Anyway, even if we accept your very dubious premise, the fact is that communism isn't happening for at least another 50 years. People are class-cucked as fuck right now, so the best way to live a prosperous life is to join the winning team. Communism is simply a bad choice for an intelligent egoist with a normal human lifespan.

You're right, I can't argue that! And I won't. Because that would be silly. Of course the capitalist class will end up not a insanely rich as they are now. But, I don't care what they think? In the same way my ears are deaf to the cries of the thief when he complains that his loot is taken away.

That's an awfully specific number. Where did you get that from? Is it simply the most reasonable arbitrary number you could think of that would absolve you of any responsibility for actually doing anything? Or do you have some actual reasoning to back that up?

As opposed to when, exactly? Luckily, none of the arguments for Marxism rely on people jumping arbitrarily between ideas. Our arguments are based on the actual construction of society - something we don't actually seem to disagree on.

Wow, in the space of three posts we've managed to show that the only actual effect of the Egoist philosophy is the creation of another defender of the status quo.

I think because if the pro-vegan narrative true, it basically turns all of us into nazis just because we like cheeseburgers. It really guilts people. And most people even agree with it, they're against factory farming, but they still can't put in all the constant work needed to transition to a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. It makes them insecure. Personally I don't think we have any moral obligation to animals but I can see why people hate it.

Also if I try bringing up my animals, people get really pissy. Like really really pissy about how I don't care about animals.

Also I really think you should start considering that lots of the vegan community is just so toxic.

Animal liberation is literally moralist dribble. Veganism is okay from an environmentalist standpoint.

Fully synthetic (and affordable) meat from stem cells it's gonna be a thing in the next decade so ironically capitalism will take care of your animal liberation.

The problem is what will happen to all the livestock? will they be set free? genocided?

only if you accept wealth/influence as the highest value, socialism frees everyone from the slaver god capital

this essentially, I'm fully and unashamedly anthropocentrist, but the ecological benefit of a plant-based diet is obvious. Lifestylism will never fix the issue though

Read Darwin

Yeah, cooking rice and beans in a non repetitive and nutricious way is tough.

The reason for taking the piss out of them is that they took it way too far.

The animal libs will murder a guy hunting food for his family out in rural bumfuck nowhere and take that as a "victory" for some delusional off in the distance point where animals are magically no longer oppressed or some shit.

it's literally the same way liberals or antifa will go out and fuck up a trump supporter, thinking they have 'defeated fascism', not realizing its just some random trucker that really bought into some bad propaganda and really isn't a nazi at all

its stupid as hell and these people deserve to be ridiculed for doing this kind of inane shit because it is totally separate from any broad working class movement. it feeds the devolution into mindless lifestylism.

i agree with the general idea of minimizing suffering, sure, but the way they go about it is /full retard/ , literally no better than idpol liberals that whine about veganism and liberation

This as well. They're insanely strict about animal rights and veganism, but wage slavery in the third world is merely a secondary issue to all of that.

They're massive hypocrites in just about all other areas of life in my experience. They use it to feel better about themselves and assuage all that horrible guilt they have for living off of 3rd world exploitation. It's strange and they are indeed toxic to be around because they see themselves as partially absolved of their responsibility to liberate all of humanity. It's seen as a task for "those other people" that are of "lesser morals". It's strange.

I think to a degree you're right here. This is why so many idpollers are kicking around and trump is so popular.

The system is still working to an impressive degree. When it stops, people will drop this shit.

In the meantime, I've slowly noticing myself slipping into more hedonistic, self-indulgent behavior as a way to stay sane amidst all the bullshit propaganda.

It's hard to keep your head in the game at times and still pay your bills and have a decent life I feel.

Plus, te whole "activist" portion of the left always are willing to call you a "sell out" if you work for a living and shit. It's no wonder the right is so popular.

this is really anoying to read, but I agree with the content in general

Because they're elitist, don't respect the masses and their direct action is done on the spot without much planning.
It's an ad hoc response to injustices which doesn't get people on their side, thus they're hated and opposed.
They don't listen to ordinary people and place whatever theory they have before practice.
They try to take over the daily lives of the people by enforcing their lifestyle over the majority.
They don't have a dialogue with the masses and thus aren't dialectical. In its place they force feed their ideas.
Like leftcoms are to the left of communists, these people are more radical than radicals themselves to the point of extremism.

I kind of feel that humans eating animals is just the natural way of things, but I think developing artificially grown meat is the best way forwards under socialism, for environmental and practical purposes.

I don't really understand veganism though. How can you live without cheese?

Oh, I get it. You're thirteen.

It's mystic, you don't have to understand shit

You know cheese is also made from plant-based fats, right?

Disgusting.

Agreed.

This.
I could care less about life outside of the human society tbh, it's all just a spook to divert human attention from another fellow humans to some fucking animals that do not matter in the slightest in society.

Because I don't need the help of animals to end my exploitation. Also, while I care about humans I don't really feel for animals. That said, if it should be absolutely necessary for climate change reasons or a large chunk of the population in a communist society decides to protest because of it I'm on board with vegetarianism or veganism.

The food-chain is heirachical
Anarcho-primitivism is a lie
No gods, no kings of the jungle
We have nothing to lose but our bread

Not if you're a microorganism that eats decomposing matter, then all dead life is equally delicious.

BECAUSE ITS RETARDED AND HUMANS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANIMALS

This, more than likely.
The sad truth is many animals born in captivity as food animals are either selectivity bred or genetically altered (or both) to the point that they simply can't exist outside of captivity.

If you believe that inflicting suffering is wrong at all, then it doesn't make sense to not include animals since they suffer just as we do.

On the other hand, if you don't think inflicting suffering is wrong, only refrain from inflicting suffering on humans out of self interest, and don't actually think it would be wrong for yourself to suffer you probably have no self worth tbh

I agree veganism alone isn't the answer/it's individualising a systemic problem, but it does spare some animals from suffering and is a good thing. Saying animals' suffering doesn't matter is surely inconsistent with saying humans' suffering does matter. There's nothing relevant separating us. Why should it matter that humans are more intelligent or have different thoughts as long as animals can actually feel, which they can?

If aliens came to earth who were much more intelligent than humans, would it be OK for them to factory farm humans?

This.

All of this thread is pointless. We will have synthetic meat anyways.

Anthropocentrism is fucking spooky. The belief that humans are somehow above everyone else and therefore should disregard the liberation of nonhuman-animals is retarded enough on its own, but it's fucking hypocritical to see someone who cares about what is and isn't a spook going on about how humans are somehow more valuable than any nonhuman animals. Value does not exist.

...

prove it
humans are literally retarded shit tier creatures that will go extinct and no one will ever fucking care about them and MUH TECHNOLOGY

It's a fucking spook to say that animals do not matter in the slightest but humans do. Mattering is a spook.

Forgot your flag dipshit ^

See

peak moralism

You are fucking retarded. Plants and animals have destroyed habitats time and time again, but because of natural selection, you dont see those destroyed ecosystems anymore. We are just one other species that is destroying its own habitat. Early life nearly went extinct because it consumed all the food, until some autotroph evolved.

As if. We are the species that breeds animals instead of killing them, we are the species that deliberately doesnt eat the largest fruits so we can improve the population of our crops, we are the animals that figured out how to keep our farms healthy by crop rotation. We have fixed so many problems we created ourselves, and you are a fucking idiot by saying "hurr muh nature fallacy everything humans do is destructive". Meanwhile, populations of "natural animals" are destroying natural habitat because they lack predators. I don't see deer choosing not to have more children, or swine. No, they just keep fucking breeding until the entire forrest is dead because they ate all the saplings. Meanwhile "muh dumb humans" are working their ass off protecting sapling and culling these animals so the rest of them have something of a habitat left.

Fucking kill yourself you fucking hippie.

You don't know what spooks are, fuckface.

Well, while I believe there is such a thing as animal rights, they obviously aren't as broad as human rights (and by human rights I mean a Marxist interpretation of such, not bourgeois liberal human rights).

The difference between humans and animals is mostly that the latter aren't reflecting on their own existence: Which means, an exploited animal doesn't know it's exploited. That being said, pretty much every mammal and bird can feel happiness or sadness - out of these assumptions, I'd argue there are some standards (animal rights) which should be implemented:

- the right to be protected from physical pain

- the right to live out their genetic instincts and drives, simulating wildlife as much as possible (for a dog it would be: Running arround in nature)

- depending on the level of their genetic pack mentality: the right to have social interaction with other animals or humans

- the right to have a respectable lifetime (e.g. not being killed as a puppy)

Once these conditions are guaranteed, there is nothing wrong with exploiting animals for food. From a Marxist perspective, one must ask if animals can suffer from alienation when in captivity. Especially wild animals which aren't for domestication should not be held in captivity (monkeys, wolfs…) as they die younger in such - I'd say this is pretty much proof that alienation amongst animals does exist. If there were zoos in socialism, they'd have to tremendously bigger and nice as the ones we have today.

Another thing I'd like to add is the question of property. Most European law codes already don't regard animals as property (even though they are to be treated as such unless there is interference with animal protection laws). Common ownership of the means of production (farms) would imply, that one could not abuse his domestic animals as the farm would be under the standards of public property, which the community would state for themselves. So, it is save to say that in communism, farm animals would be treated better.

But dogs are literally one of the few animals where their genetic instinct is to be around humans and play and hunt with humans. Its thoroughly domesticated, moreso that other animals, because we selectively bred them to be so, unlike cows, which are just bred for meat and milk.

But what about animals such as mosquitoes and rats? Animals that destroy human prosperity and are a danger to humans (or other animals)? Shouldn't it be better to categorise these animals into different strata? What about culling higher intelligence animals to protect their own herd or our farms?

I would argue that an important measure would be the limit in which animals posses the capability to be concious of their existence and its affect on others. For example, I would bet an elephant is intelligent enough that we can come to non-verbal arrangement about habitat and stuff, seeing as they can differentiate humans based on clothing and actively seek our human veterinarians they never met, which they were told about by their group members. Other animals should have such capabilities to to some extend, and I think this ability should greatly affect the range of agency we ascribe these animals. The same is done in human society anyway. A human that is a danger for other humans has its agency taken away and is kept in a controlled environment or monitored and limited in its freedom.
Would we need to make more special arrangement for intelligent animals such as elephants, dolphins, whales and apes? Doplhins, whales and elephants are generally not dangerous to humans, with the exception being elephants, but i spoke about them earlier. Apes can be dangerous as male apes, especially gorillas and chimps, are very aggressive and powerful and are known to attack humans. Dealing with these kind of animals is tricky, but i remember reading an article once that talked about how a group of chimps became unaggressive and very social once the aggressive alpha males got killed by villagers.
These topics are probably the thing our descendants will look back upon and wonder how we could be so primitive. IMO, insects and non-thinking beings dont deserve any agency, since they cannot feel pain at all or consider the effect of themselves on others. As such, insects, bacteria, plants etc, should be subject to full control and usability by humans. They are no more than fleshy animatronics. As we move further up the chain on intelligence, it will be different. Thats why I think a categorisation system of sorts should be in place, if only in order to make laws about what you are and aren't allowed to do to certain animals.

I agree with you on the other points though.

I'd restrict my agenda to mammals and birds. Insects are in no way sentinent. However, I'd say we ought to protect the biodiversity of the class of the insects as we should see it as part of the heritage that nature leaves for us. I'm aware this is really spooky and a Stirnerite might call me out on this. But kust killing bugs is absolutely fine, I'd be crazy to say otherwise.

I wouldn't expand my point about lifetime on rats and other rodents. However, I don't see killing rats conflicting with my other points, as they live in their natural habitat which are the sewers. It's not different from killing a pig on a farm.

In general, when animals infringe the welfare of humans, they should of course be dealt with in an appropriate (!) way. The same way you are allowed to beat up a robber - it's a state of emergency which is already established within our contemporary law.

Animal liberation takes a backseat until FALC

Most animalists are misanthropes, so no.

Stirner wouldn't abide by this shit my man

ALF is alright.

So they aren't vegans. They just eat *little* meat.

Plenty of good utilitarian reasons for eating less meat, but not a single one for eating no meat. You need feels > reals for full veganism.

Vegetarians, vegans, animal liberators, whatever, are not animal friendly. They're mammal supremacists that doesn't give a single flying fuck for non-mammal life like insects and plants.
How many of our plant comrades have not been slaughtered, chopped, munched and digested? how many of our mosquito brethren have not been slapped to death by these intolerant monsters, these inhumane genocidal mammal supremacists, and they call themselves leftists, smh.