Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello,

So basically my partner an I don't eat animals and have similar interests in animal rights. We were thinking of cutting an anthro K both for fun but also to be competitive as it will not be expected and it's actually very similar to other solid ks like wilderson etc. I have seen two problems to begin with: A- most have a link of omission and B- because of this perm is extra easy. Any ideas on how I can avoid/answer these? I'm working on it and any ideas would be appreciated :)

Edited by jsourouh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first I would say that it is definitely not the right time to run anthro. The oceans topic last year was fricking amazing for anthro. Like you said, there are practically no links to surveillance or China. However, you could definitely run anthro affs. This year, a zoo aff or something like that. Next year maybe you cooperate with china to end animal abuse or something, I dunno.

 

If you want on the neg, your best bet might be to say use of technology as the solution is anthropocentric (kinda Heidegger link).

 

just my opinion

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

So basically my partner an I don't eat animals and have similar interests in animal rights. We were thinking of cutting an anthro K both for fun but also to be competitive as it will not be expected and it's actually very similar to other solid ks like wilderson etc. I have seen two problems to begin with: A- most have a link of omission and B- because of this perm is extra easy. Any ideas on how I can avoid/answer these? I'm working on it and any ideas would be appreciated :)

anthro is not really similar to wilderson and I really don't reccomend lumping the two together as that could get you into some potentially messy situations, unless you're referring to Weheilye's work on the flesh // the proccess of man-making then I don't know where you're coming from. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anthro is not really similar to wilderson and I really don't reccomend lumping the two together as that could get you into some potentially messy situations, unless you're referring to Weheilye's work on the flesh // the proccess of man-making then I don't know where you're coming from. 

I agree that they shouldn't be lumped. I was just saying they were similar because they both kritik human-centeredness (since the black body is ontologically dead) and they say that non-humans and members of the black body are practically on the same plane.. make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea if this is true but I beg there are some cards out there saying china is really shitty to animals (probably because they are), you could probably cut some cards on how things like this are never considered in international relations and then get a card saying that doing so is an exception to that and that's good.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not an anthro K, but maybe there are some cards that talk about China misusing resources to invest in their economy, which includes animal neglect and harms -- this is more DA-esque, but it really helps against the whole "link of omission" debate that you will inevitably lose on, since LoO are almost never defensible unless there is a major reason for having one (like a transphobia k link of omission) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they shouldn't be lumped. I was just saying they were similar because they both kritik human-centeredness (since the black body is ontologically dead) and they say that non-humans and members of the black body are practically on the same plane.. make sense?

 

Animals could access the positonality of the slave since they meet the three pillars of slavery as described by Orlando Patterson and extended upon by Wilderson in terms of social death; except the problem is that society doesn't sustain itself off of the exploitation of animals in the same way that anti-blackness sustains the coherency of Civil Society, although you could trace modern systems of oppression to being informed off of anthropocentrism, Wilderson's analysis of antiblackness is much more about what happens at the birth of modernity, at the paradigmatic shift that occurs as a result of the Enlightenment (which is itself defined by antiblackness, or the birth of antiblackness as it were) in Europe - it's not anthropocentrism that defines the birth of modernity but rather a power dynamic revolving around, what Wilderson would argue, the ontological entity of the slave (Maldonado-Torress makes a similar argument with regards to the Colony and the Natives who were the literal testing grounds for the darkest limits of modernity).

 

This then means that although animals CAN be socially dead, it doesn't mean that an analysis of anthropocentrism should or ought to precede an analysis of anti-blackness as it isn't anthropocentrism that sustains anti-blackness but rather the other way around. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals could access the positonality of the slave since they meet the three pillars of slavery as described by Orlando Patterson and extended upon by Wilderson in terms of social death; except the problem is that society doesn't sustain itself off of the exploitation of animals in the same way that anti-blackness sustains the coherency of Civil Society, although you could trace modern systems of oppression to being informed off of anthropocentrism, Wilderson's analysis of antiblackness is much more about what happens at the birth of modernity, at the paradigmatic shift that occurs as a result of the Enlightenment (which is itself defined by antiblackness, or the birth of antiblackness as it were) in Europe - it's not anthropocentrism that defines the birth of modernity but rather a power dynamic revolving around, what Wilderson would argue, the ontological entity of the slave (Maldonado-Torress makes a similar argument with regards to the Colony and the Natives who were the literal testing grounds for the darkest limits of modernity).

 

This then means that although animals CAN be socially dead, it doesn't mean that an analysis of anthropocentrism should or ought to precede an analysis of anti-blackness as it isn't anthropocentrism that sustains anti-blackness but rather the other way around. 

The oppression of animals is the end result of ontological death: you mass-produce them, use them, kill them. If we change this, then we change the whole nature of oppression, and will bring more attention to all oppression including that of the black body. Also, the non-human body should be a more urgent priority because at least the black body can represent themselves and create organizations, get government positions (like Obama who is in fact president) etc. and the impacts vs. animals are much larger than ontological death: they are tortured by the masses then all destined to die for the simple happiness of humanity (you could say the same for the black body in certain cases but it happens on a larger scale to animals). Also: when you are beaten up or oppressed you say "im being treated like a dog!" which shows how humanity only cares about itself (including the black body). Honestly you made a good point compared to these mediocre analytics but sadly im not so well versed on philosophy/reading as you so I will have to concede haha. btw I have run wilderson against members of the black body and they have simply read cards that white people cant be anti racist (nopper etc.) which seems bogus but whatevs. thanks for the input.. any recommended reading for me?

 

 

Also, the points above may not reflect my actual views so please don't be offended if you read anything you don't like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run anthro when the other team has an economic benefit as one of their advantages because priortizing economy is anthropocentric

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oppression of animals is the end result of ontological death: you mass-produce them, use them, kill them. If we change this, then we change the whole nature of oppression, and will bring more attention to all oppression including that of the black body. Also, the non-human body should be a more urgent priority because at least the black body can represent themselves and create organizations, get government positions (like Obama who is in fact president) etc. and the impacts vs. animals are much larger than ontological death: they are tortured by the masses then all destined to die for the simple happiness of humanity (you could say the same for the black body in certain cases but it happens on a larger scale to animals). Also: when you are beaten up or oppressed you say "im being treated like a dog!" which shows how humanity only cares about itself (including the black body). Honestly you made a good point compared to these mediocre analytics but sadly im not so well versed on philosophy/reading as you so I will have to concede haha. btw I have run wilderson against members of the black body and they have simply read cards that white people cant be anti racist (nopper etc.) which seems bogus but whatevs. thanks for the input.. any recommended reading for me?

 

 

Also, the points above may not reflect my actual views so please don't be offended if you read anything you don't like

no. so many reasons why, but for now. just, no. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes the nonhuman body?

For anthro it's literally the nonhuman body, but wilderson I would say that, given ontological death arguments, the nonhuman body would include the black body.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how successful is the answer "The black body isn't ontologically dead, empirics prove: the entirety of black people have not attempted suicide" to Wilderson? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how successful is the answer "The black body isn't ontologically dead, empirics prove: the entirety of black people have not attempted suicide" to Wilderson? 

This. This is why people hate lay judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals could access the positonality of the slave since they meet the three pillars of slavery as described by Orlando Patterson and extended upon by Wilderson in terms of social death; except the problem is that society doesn't sustain itself off of the exploitation of animals in the same way that anti-blackness sustains the coherency of Civil Society, although you could trace modern systems of oppression to being informed off of anthropocentrism, Wilderson's analysis of antiblackness is much more about what happens at the birth of modernity, at the paradigmatic shift that occurs as a result of the Enlightenment (which is itself defined by antiblackness, or the birth of antiblackness as it were) in Europe - it's not anthropocentrism that defines the birth of modernity but rather a power dynamic revolving around, what Wilderson would argue, the ontological entity of the slave (Maldonado-Torress makes a similar argument with regards to the Colony and the Natives who were the literal testing grounds for the darkest limits of modernity).


Society literally sustains itself off the exploitation of animals, what are you talking about? If it's not anthropocentrism but rather antiblackness that defines the birth of modernity, that's only because anthropocentrism is a much more ancient evil. Why does it matter whether a problem is connected to modernity or not? Isn't the important thing just that it's a problem?
 

Hello,

So basically my partner an I don't eat animals and have similar interests in animal rights. We were thinking of cutting an anthro K both for fun but also to be competitive as it will not be expected and it's actually very similar to other solid ks like wilderson etc. I have seen two problems to begin with: A- most have a link of omission and B- because of this perm is extra easy. Any ideas on how I can avoid/answer these? I'm working on it and any ideas would be appreciated  :)


For one thing, it's the People's Republic of China. Animals are explicitly excluded from governmental representation. Another easy link is to say that the economy destroys the environment, especially in China. You could also argue that animals are actively excluded from our conception of diplomacy and cooperation. This is not necessarily a link of omission because you can argue that the automatic default assumption is or ought to be that no species is privileged above any other species, which makes it a non neutral act to narrow in on one particular species as the locus of our understanding of what constitutes diplomacy. Here is a link illustrating the concept I am appealing to: http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/. To give a more relevant example, if I started shouting "white power!" at the top of my lungs, that action would not be compatible with humanism even if a shallow argument to the contrary might be made. And as racism, so speciesm.

Here is a more tenuous argument that might help with brainstorming if nothing else. Etymologically, according to Wikipedia, a diplomat is someone with the official diploma, papers, proving they are an authorized representative of their country. Perhaps it could be argued that this treats literacy and credentialism as a prerequisite to an entity's having a meaningful stake in the world. You could maybe spin it hard enough that this would function as a link to some of Zerzan's criticisms, which would be difficult but interesting to see pulled off somehow.

Just so that it's clear to everyone, I don't believe very many of the arguments I am making in this thread, but I am making them in order to stimulate good conversation.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason anthro and Wilderson are similar is because they're both incredibly essentialist positions that rely on UQ tricks to win debates.

 

Animal rights makes more sense on the aff next year, maybe some kind of economic incentive to curb animal abuses or something. Maybe as a QPQ/Consult CP on the neg.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any anthro debates from this year, but unless they use technology this seems like a stretch.  In fact removing the security apparatus that runs privacy violations is probably a net reduction in privacy.

 

I think going for a rhetoric/reps link in front of most judges for this K may be an uphill battle. (at least on your local circuit, although i don't actually know what local circuit you are on and what % of judges are not as familiar with the K).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any anthro debates from this year, but unless they use technology this seems like a stretch.  In fact removing the security apparatus that runs privacy violations is probably a net reduction in privacy.

 

I think going for a rhetoric/reps link in front of most judges for this K may be an uphill battle. (at least on your local circuit, although i don't actually know what local circuit you are on and what % of judges are not as familiar with the K).

 

One of my teams just dropped to Anthro yesterday so lel - to be fair though, they were running Anti-blackness on Aff 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. so many reasons why, but for now. just, no. 

now tell me lol...

anyway just to quote peter signer real quick

"Although it is true, of course, that we have not overcome racism, sexism or discrimination against people with disabilities, there is at least widespread acceptance that such discrimination is wrong, and there are laws that seek to prevent it. With speciesism, we are very far from reaching that point. If we were to compare attitudes about speciesism today with past racist attitudes, we would have to say that we are back in the days in which the slave trade was still legal, although under challenge by some enlightened voices."

of course, as a human, I empathize more with humans; if I see someone eating meat (which happens quite often) I tend to try not to annoy them; but if a see some racists beating a black person up you best believe ill stand up for them to the extent of my capabilities  ... but if we look at the facts, why are racism sexism and ableism more important than anthropocentrism?

I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...