Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

animals haven't done anything to progress anything. not to be a dirty, capitalist pig or whatever but, animals have quite literally done nothing to progress the world except serve as a food source or testing for medical science. (now, that's not to say that those are justified, but frankly they've done nothing but be vessels for consumption or probing). 

 

whereas, people, moreover blacks, have the ability to communicate and relay thoughts that have contributed to the progression of the world in general. discrimination against them is unwarranted and typically at the foundation of violence. 

 

furthermore, it's proven that some animals don't even have pain receptors, i.e. why some people consider themselves "vegeterian" even though they consume fresh and salt water fish. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've cut an anthro 1ac for next year- working on K version

how would that work? I get banning Zoos, but what would a good anthro case for next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

animals haven't done anything to progress anything. not to be a dirty, capitalist pig or whatever but, animals have quite literally done nothing to progress the world except serve as a food source or testing for medical science. (now, that's not to say that those are justified, but frankly they've done nothing but be vessels for consumption or probing). 

 

whereas, people, moreover blacks, have the ability to communicate and relay thoughts that have contributed to the progression of the world in general. discrimination against them is unwarranted and typically at the foundation of violence. 

 

furthermore, it's proven that some animals don't even have pain receptors, i.e. why some people consider themselves "vegeterian" even though they consume fresh and salt water fish. 

Hey its James/Jsourouh this is just a different account because my school has twitter blocked...

 

Please define "Progress" and "world" because, with my interpretation of those words, you are very wrong... humans have created many scenarios for extinction (climate change, nuke war, etc.) and cause the extinction of millions of animals; so humans have been destructive rather than productive. Also, you define the world as some human entity it would seem. Heck, using your logic, europeans could have justified the treatment of Africans: they were less technologically developed so they hadn't "progressed" the world enough. You say that discrimination against blacks is unwarranted... agreed... but why is it warranted to torture and enslave sentient beings? Also, I doubt that you actually eat the animals that don't have pain receptors. Scientists don't do tests on animals without pain receptors either because generally they're testing to find out if something is painful or its too expensive to get ahold of them. That argument is completely irrelevant.

Btw, I know I'm not changing anyone's opinion haha but its still interesting to talk about.

Check out the article below (i underlined the parts that matter):

http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/anthropocentrism.html

However you look at it, anthropocentrism is more than a little absurd.  The idea that one little species on some speck of dust in the infinite universe should be the most important entity around really reminds me of the old Ptolemaic cosmology, with the sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth.  Indeed, Anthropocentrism is nothing but a modern and socially and intellectually acceptable version of geocentrism.  We know of course that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around (although there are apparently a few crazy flat-earthers out there somewhere).  But we can still see our own species as superior to everything else.  It gives us a bloated sense of self-importance in the infinite cosmos, panders little egos and allows insenstive individuals to abuse and destroy other life-forms on this globe

Which brings us to the dark side of Anthropocentrism.  The dark side of Anthropocentrism is similiar to the dark side of chauvinism.  Any beings that do not belong to the human race are devalued, abused, oppressed, murdered or tortured for the slightest human whim, whether for fashion, palete, or simply sport.  All of the ugliness of man's treatment of nature comes from the arrogant assumption that man has a god-given right to do as he wishes

Interestingly there is a tendency among some worthy Christian theologians (e.g. Matthew Fox and others) to see man as the care-taker of nature, who has responsibilities to God to ensure that nature is well cared for.  But this laudable approach is still unfortunately very much the minority position in the general religious consciousness

I actually find it curious that some of the worst abusers of nature and animals are the secular scientists.  One would think that their understanding of evolution and biotic phylogeny, which shows that man is nothing special on the great Tree of Life, would lead them to a greater humilty and respect for non-human life.  But this sadly is not the case, as indicated by innumerable cruel experiments performed for the sake of "science".  Ultimately I think it all comes down the egotism and the insensitivity of those involved

To continue with anthropocentric chauvinism therefore is to deny both the real discoveries of science, and the compassion of the Heart.  But when we acknowledge these things, our perspective shifts from Anthropocentrism to biocentrism, and empathy with all life.

Edited by Jayms
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, the notion that you need to be "productive" or it's ok to mercilessly slaughter you is high key ridiculous.

 

In part, because the goalposts for productive are completely arbitrary; in part, because measuring productive by "what they did for humans" is the link to the K (nonhuman animals have social orders, structures, norms, affects, and bonds -- plenty of "productive" value); in part because that kills plenty of (dis/abled) humans; in part because fuck you, being productive isn't what makes your life morally valuable.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would that work? I get banning Zoos, but what would a good anthro case for next year?

I haven't cut it yet so you can PM me on the specifics, but most anthro affs next year have to do with China's dismal animal rights record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

animals haven't done anything to progress anything. not to be a dirty, capitalist pig or whatever but, animals have quite literally done nothing to progress the world except serve as a food source or testing for medical science. (now, that's not to say that those are justified, but frankly they've done nothing but be vessels for consumption or probing). 

 

whereas, people, moreover blacks, have the ability to communicate and relay thoughts that have contributed to the progression of the world in general. discrimination against them is unwarranted and typically at the foundation of violence. 

 

furthermore, it's proven that some animals don't even have pain receptors, i.e. why some people consider themselves "vegeterian" even though they consume fresh and salt water fish. 

 
The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer? - J. Bentham
 
If you define all value as utility humans, than first of all heidegger, and second of all that's the kind of mindset that guarantees animal abuse.
 
Sometimes I feel like the language we use to describe the oppression of humans kills an ethical grammar for discussion of animals. If systemic racism is a daily holocaust, than what are factory farms that skin thousands of animals alive? 
 
 
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, because the US is so good at animal rights?

Lol true. Solvency/linking to the resolution is tough for the aff with anthro without link hard af into orientalism/imperialism. You might be able to run some diplomacy solvency on mutual reform in both countries tho.

 

I will say though that even though the US is pretty bad towards animals, China has zero animal welfare/cruelty laws. Look up bear farms, tiger farms, the chinese fur industry, live slaughter, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol true. Solvency/linking to the resolution is tough for the aff with anthro without link hard af into orientalism/imperialism. You might be able to run some diplomacy solvency on mutual reform in both countries tho.

 

I will say though that even though the US is pretty bad towards animals, China has zero animal welfare/cruelty laws. Look up bear farms, tiger farms, the chinese fur industry, live slaughter, etc.

I think the bold-underlined is hardcore true. 

 

There are animal welfare regulations in China, and I'm not especially impressed with the US's regulations, because they also regulate animals as destructible property. You can't slowly torture a dog (or other domesticated animals) to death, but you can kill and eat it. And primarily-food (or just not cute) animals -- well, you can mutilate the fuck out of them at your leisure. 

 

Making it slightly more difficult to kill and consume animals doesn't seem like any step to me - or to the animal, that dies either way. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bold-underlined is hardcore true. 

 

There are animal welfare regulations in China, and I'm not especially impressed with the US's regulations, because they also regulate animals as destructible property. You can't slowly torture a dog (or other domesticated animals) to death, but you can kill and eat it. And primarily-food (or just not cute) animals -- well, you can mutilate the fuck out of them at your leisure. 

 

Making it slightly more difficult to kill and consume animals doesn't seem like any step to me - or to the animal, that dies either way. 

I don't really think that animal treatment in China and the US are comparable for a couple of reasons. 

 

First, the single law of "animal protection" that china has- the one that you linked to- is 100% bullshit. I have a bunch of evidence cut for this, but basically the WPL in China is devoted to the setting the framework for the exploitation of animals. It has like one article relating to protection and the rest of the law is devoted "utilizing wildlife resources". This is the law that literally allows for bear farming and other stuff. Plus, the protection part of the law only has to do with endangered species- there are no cruelty provisions in the law, you can do whatever the hell you want to any non-endangered animal in China.

 

Second, there is a cultural disregard to animals in China. (Orientalism shits on me here.) This can kind of be traced back to Mao when he declared love of animals as western and capitalist, but basically animal cruelty is not just confined to the factory farm in China. I would say that violence against animals occurs on a much more systemic level in China than in the US.

 

Despite this, I think u have still have a point in that the US still probably engages in animal cruelty every day. The reason China gets more public criticism may be because its animal abuse is out in the open, while animal cruelty in the US is behind factory doors. 

 

However, I don't think you can put the US on the same level of animal cruelty as the China. At least the US has humane slaughter regulations etc, in China the law is complicit with animal abuse. In animal rights and other issues, China has used minor US hypocrisy to justify atrocious domestic policies. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey its James/Jsourouh this is just a different account because my school has twitter blocked...

 

Please define "Progress" and "world" because, with my interpretation of those words, you are very wrong... humans have created many scenarios for extinction (climate change, nuke war, etc.) and cause the extinction of millions of animals; so humans have been destructive rather than productive. Also, you define the world as some human entity it would seem. Heck, using your logic, europeans could have justified the treatment of Africans: they were less technologically developed so they hadn't "progressed" the world enough. You say that discrimination against blacks is unwarranted... agreed... but why is it warranted to torture and enslave sentient beings? Also, I doubt that you actually eat the animals that don't have pain receptors. Scientists don't do tests on animals without pain receptors either because generally they're testing to find out if something is painful or its too expensive to get ahold of them. That argument is completely irrelevant.

Btw, I know I'm not changing anyone's opinion haha but its still interesting to talk about.

Check out the article below (i underlined the parts that matter):

http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/anthropocentrism.html

However you look at it, anthropocentrism is more than a little absurd.  The idea that one little species on some speck of dust in the infinite universe should be the most important entity around really reminds me of the old Ptolemaic cosmology, with the sun and all the planets revolving around the Earth.  Indeed, Anthropocentrism is nothing but a modern and socially and intellectually acceptable version of geocentrism.  We know of course that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around (although there are apparently a few crazy flat-earthers out there somewhere).  But we can still see our own species as superior to everything else.  It gives us a bloated sense of self-importance in the infinite cosmos, panders little egos and allows insenstive individuals to abuse and destroy other life-forms on this globe

Which brings us to the dark side of Anthropocentrism.  The dark side of Anthropocentrism is similiar to the dark side of chauvinism.  Any beings that do not belong to the human race are devalued, abused, oppressed, murdered or tortured for the slightest human whim, whether for fashion, palete, or simply sport.  All of the ugliness of man's treatment of nature comes from the arrogant assumption that man has a god-given right to do as he wishes

Interestingly there is a tendency among some worthy Christian theologians (e.g. Matthew Fox and others) to see man as the care-taker of nature, who has responsibilities to God to ensure that nature is well cared for.  But this laudable approach is still unfortunately very much the minority position in the general religious consciousness

I actually find it curious that some of the worst abusers of nature and animals are the secular scientists.  One would think that their understanding of evolution and biotic phylogeny, which shows that man is nothing special on the great Tree of Life, would lead them to a greater humilty and respect for non-human life.  But this sadly is not the case, as indicated by innumerable cruel experiments performed for the sake of "science".  Ultimately I think it all comes down the egotism and the insensitivity of those involved

To continue with anthropocentric chauvinism therefore is to deny both the real discoveries of science, and the compassion of the Heart.  But when we acknowledge these things, our perspective shifts from Anthropocentrism to biocentrism, and empathy with all life.

 

I definitely never defended humans as being intrinsically good, and have probably screwed up everything, ever. I'm not even saying they've done more good than bad, rather that they have done some good, whereas I can't think of (and if you could point to an example, please do) where animals have improved anything. The internal link to your slavery argument is fundamentally incoherent because it assumes a state of zero intelligibility whereas the dutch/portuguese slave traders understood that African Americans had a culture, and were able to negotiate with them to buy prisoners of tribal war, which means there was a recognition of communication at the least. (this is not at all to say that slavery wasn't hella screwed up, or that whites didn't demonize blacks, rather they recognized that they weren't utterly incapable of interaction)

 

Also, ethical dilemma: is it worse for a human or a tiger/leopard/etc. to kill a deer/antelope/gazelle/etc.? (not trying to screw w/ you, just genuinely wondering)

 

also, the notion that you need to be "productive" or it's ok to mercilessly slaughter you is high key ridiculous.

 

In part, because the goalposts for productive are completely arbitrary; in part, because measuring productive by "what they did for humans" is the link to the K (nonhuman animals have social orders, structures, norms, affects, and bonds -- plenty of "productive" value); in part because that kills plenty of (dis/abled) humans; in part because fuck you, being productive isn't what makes your life morally valuable.  

progression is distinct from productive in the sense that one sustains a system (which can be good or bad) and the other accelerates beyond it's limitations. productivity can definitely be bad, and you shouldn't be defined by what you do for capitalism, the world, etc. however, I think not defining an entity based on how they progressed something, even if it just their intimate surroundings through things like generally being nice, caring, and generally making your environment a more livable place etc., is problematic insofar that it means people/animals (for lack of a better term that I can think of) are able to feel good about themselves for being total shitbags. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

furthermore, it's proven that some animals don't even have pain receptors, i.e. why some people consider themselves "vegeterian" even though they consume fresh and salt water fish. 

 

Can you be more specific or link to evidence on this? I thought that fish had pain receptors. Probably depends on thorny issues like how you define pain, of course.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be more specific or link to evidence on this? I thought that fish had pain receptors. Probably depends on thorny issues like how you define pain, of course.

I don't know the specifics, so I could definitely be incorrect, but I remember seeing an article, as well as meeting a person who told me the same things. It's something about the way they understand pain through neurons. (I'm really not a science person so I'm not sure how to articulate it). 

 

maybe this will help: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123719.htm

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, ethical dilemma: is it worse for a human or a tiger/leopard/etc. to kill a deer/antelope/gazelle/etc.? (not trying to screw w/ you, just genuinely wondering)

On the ethical dilemma--- worse for a human to kill the deer/antelope/gazelle IMO because humans can survive without doing so. You don't need to kill a deer to survive (or have a factory farm for chickens for that matter) because we are no longer cavemen. You could be perfectly healthy (research suggests even MORE healthy) not eating the meat; so the meat is a commodity for you. The animal suffered and lost its life for your pleasure vs the survival of an other animal. That's the reason that what we do to animals is so fucked up--- we don't need fur, milk, eggs, or meat, it's merely for our pleasure.

At least, that's how I look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can kind of be traced back to Mao when he declared love of animals as western and capitalist, but basically animal cruelty is not just confined to the factory farm in China. 

I think that he would have loved sparrows had he known their impact ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely never defended humans as being intrinsically good, and have probably screwed up everything, ever. I'm not even saying they've done more good than bad, rather that they have done some good, whereas I can't think of (and if you could point to an example, please do) where animals have improved anything. The internal link to your slavery argument is fundamentally incoherent because it assumes a state of zero intelligibility whereas the dutch/portuguese slave traders understood that African Americans had a culture, and were able to negotiate with them to buy prisoners of tribal war, which means there was a recognition of communication at the least. (this is not at all to say that slavery wasn't hella screwed up, or that whites didn't demonize blacks, rather they recognized that they weren't utterly incapable of interaction)

 

Also, ethical dilemma: is it worse for a human or a tiger/leopard/etc. to kill a deer/antelope/gazelle/etc.? (not trying to screw w/ you, just genuinely wondering)

 

progression is distinct from productive in the sense that one sustains a system (which can be good or bad) and the other accelerates beyond it's limitations. productivity can definitely be bad, and you shouldn't be defined by what you do for capitalism, the world, etc. however, I think not defining an entity based on how they progressed something, even if it just their intimate surroundings through things like generally being nice, caring, and generally making your environment a more livable place etc., is problematic insofar that it means people/animals (for lack of a better term that I can think of) are able to feel good about themselves for being total shitbags. 

It may seem like a worthless example but a number of animals (elephants, crows, cats, gorillas, etc the list is here http://news.discovery.com/animals/elephants-added-to-list-of-animals-that-show-empathy-140218.htm) are empathetic. If a member of their group or a relative is hurt, they will sometimes stay near them and bring them food and protect them etc (too lazy to find an example but I will if you need me to). That's doing good in a moral sense; you're improving the life of another. Cure polio? no, ill concede that non-humans probably don't understand science or can't create the complex cures and whatsoever that we can. But, again, if there is a human that decides to do drugs and eat doritos and play video games all day, they definitely aren't being productive/progressing the world, I am quite sure you will not walk up to them and start cooking and eating them, or use them as slaves. Also you say that something shouldn't "feel good" about itself if it doesn't make progress... well, as you have pointed out, it is likely that animals have never "done good" so it is very likely that non-humans are incapable of such things (by your definition). Why would you make something feel bad for not doing something it can't do? Sounds like some form of ableism... I realize this is a bit repetitive but I didn't really feel it was answered in the previous post, also I wrote this in a total of 30 seconds lol so there may be some flaws in my reasoning grammar etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need fur to survive in winters? are you kidding me?

No. I have a jacket made of cotton. 

 

But I think in many respects it is inevitable that animals will suffer for human pleasure- all we can do is attempt to mitigate that suffering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that he would have loved sparrows had he known their impact ;)

Lol yeah. Sparrows eat grains, but also insects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I have a jacket made of cotton. 

 

But I think in many respects it is inevitable that animals will suffer for human pleasure- all we can do is attempt to mitigate that suffering. 

i would agree I only liked the post because I thought it was a joke haha

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...