Speciesism is just another form of collectivism—all animals are individuals, it's a spook(just like the authority of the State is) to believe humans are not another form of animal.
Vegetarianism goes hand in hand with self-interest, individualism, and anarchism as it places ones health as a supreme value. The point of life is to be free to do as you please without hurting others, Spencer called this the law of equal freedom and Rand the non-aggression principle. Nevertheless, you also need to healthy in order to enjoy freedom. Some of the early American anarchists were even influenced by transcendentalistss notably Amos Bronson Alcott, who practiced a pythagorean diet or what they call veganism today.
Thank you for naming Amos Bronson Alcott, I will research the individual.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Your welcome, Alcott along wth Charles Lane are very overlooked in American history and anarchist literature.
I am always grateful to be directed toward history references. Have a very nice day.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Are animals rational, acting individuals? No. Although I am opposed personally to harming cetaceans, cephalopods, and primates due to their apparent capacity for more primitive reasoning and purposeful action.
Applying the moral code of intraspecies relations to interspecies relations is quite a leap in logic.
How are you suppose to know that some non-human animals not are "rational" acting individuals? You could say some humans like infants or retards aren't rational either, so should they not be subject to the same moral code? Not to mention, it seems like the majority of adults in this world aren't very "rational" as well, given the state of society and the general malady of civilization. Drawing the line between who gets to be treated the same seems to be very subjective.
Now you are shifting the burden of proof and asking me to peove a negative. Nice try.
Again, you are conflicting intraspecies traits with interspecies traits in an effort to muddy the waters. Again, nice try.
Government is not society. Despite governmental abuses (where people with evil intent act quite rationally to achieve their desired ends, BTW) humanity has progressed measurably. You aren't really making an argument. Nice try.
Making a distinction between human beings and non-human beings is not at all subjective. Nice try.
It doesn't matter whether or not animals are 'rational acting individuals'. You should not kill animals for the same reason you shouldn't kill retards.
If it is wrong to kill and eat retards (those who are lower in intelligence than animals), why is it OK to kill and eat non-humans?
The Golden Rule is very simple: That which is harmful to you, do not do to others. Unless you are emotionally retarded, it is clear to see that cows, pigs, chickens, and many other farmed creatures do NOT want to be violated or killed against their will. They cry, scream, wail, and try to escape. Why cause these creatures such immense suffering when you can choose to eat plant-based alternatives?
The burden of proof is on you to explain why it is OK to kill and eat animals for taste pleasure.
Again, you are conflating two different things as if they are one and the same. Your argument is too flawed to warrant a response.
While humans differ in their capacities for reason, and some may have developmental disabilities, the shared species traits remain. Other species have not been shown to share the same traits. You haven't made any arguments to support your position other than appeals to emotion and a pile of outright fallacies.
If you don't want honest, rational discussion, say so. In which case:
nice try
Though answer this is you can:
How do you know this?
There is nothing to answer. That was not presented in the form of an argument, but as an opinion based on uncertainty.
Are they human? No. Biology is a thing.
Do they show evidence of rational choice and resultant purposeful action? I am not certain, but what I have seen indicates that they may, so I err on the side of non-harm while acknowledging that others may disagree.
Can you respond to any of the points I actually made?
The State is separate from society I agree, but the government is ultimately made up of people who come from society. These people and their control schemes have become more powerful than ever.
And as fas as humanity progressing, this depends how you want to evaluate it. Perhaps in a material sense many people have more wealth, products, access to technology, and the general run-of-the-mill features of consumerist society, yet does this really mean human progression? Looking around it seems many people are fearful, stressed, and unhappy about their life circumstances regardless of their economic position. Remember also that we are just coming out of the century of democide where the State killed over 250 million of it's own citizens not including war with others.
Of course you can make a distinction between humans and other animals. Just like you could between a human with Asian or European descent. What I said was drawing the line between what type of species gets treated as a moral equivalent is subjective, and it's often interpreted through cultural norms. Some people get upset when dogs are eaten as food but think it's ok for cows to be eaten. What if an alien population came to earth, how would humans determine if they are a worthy species for the law of equal freedom or non-violence to be applicable to?
Who is in the position to determine if a certain species is capable or not capable of "rational" choice or "purposeful action". Shouldn't your uncertainty make you err on the side of non-harm to all sentient animals? Collectivists have used the same argument to justify domination and superiority over certain groups of people because they are not worthy enough.
The free market is nice because it allows things to go unplanned by central authorities; it errs on the side of a vernacular or spontaneous order when it comes to enterprise and other economic activity, letting all individuals be worthy enough to associate freely because of the uncertain and subjective nature of value.
Excellent progression of questioning. Pity the self-diminished intellectual capacity of the herd (humans) that have been emptied of empathy, reduced to chickenshit conformity within dystopic society(s). It's no wonder Tesla died penniless and the sheep are content to shear their lives away calling slavery freedom and sophistry philosophy.
What is does not compare to what should be. Focused misanthropy remains rational.
Thank you for your discussions here. Your words have come to confirm the realizations arising within me to know that as long as humans avoid spiritual bonds with non-humans, devolution will continue and secure mankind's extinction.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Conflating species differences with racism is intellectually dishonest. The fact that authoritarians use bad arguments to justify their totalitarianism does not justify using even worse arguments to support your position.
How so? What does that even mean that i'm being "intellectually dishonest"? Ad hominems aren't very convincing.
cognitive dissonance.
Your implied assumption that humans are rational, acting individuals is being diminished daily by the popular chosen pathological narcissism stereotype that characterizes the species.
Form is not life, form is simply the art of living. I am not human, I am no-"thing". I simply am. The human life-form is highly overrated. I am comforted by the promise of an inevitable rescue by death. I hope the option to choose consciousness devoid of matter is available when this human body expires. It would surely be a sentence of hell to be returned within a human life-form.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com
Humans apply reason to choose actions they believe will achieve their desired ends, whether you approve of those ends or not. The quality of the information on which they base their reason does not negate the fact that reason is used to interpret that information. The fact that self-interest drives that reasoning neither disproves rationality nor proves that it is "pathological narcissism." Applying a stereotype is lazy reasoning on your part, and the very fact that politicians appeal to concern for others in their real pathological narcissism proves that people in general believe that helping others serves their own interests. The fact that people disagree on the means for this is irrelevant.
"Form is not life, form is simply the art of living. I am not human, I am no-"thing". I simply am."
You think, therefore you exist? And therefore all life forms are equivalent? You're skipping a step in your argument there, or else I am misunderstanding your argument. You seem to be trying to make a philosophical point, but the manner of your communication lacks clarity.
If you reread my posts you may realize I expressed that all life-forms are interconnected and the context I expressed in detail was "threat of near-term planetary omnicide" manifest from pathological narcissism of humans not non-humans. I also provided a link to a youtube video uploaded by geoengineeringwatch.org. The fact that non-humans are not responsible for the cataclysms created by climate engineering is as relevant as the guilt of humans including those exhibiting silent complicity.
Perhaps your manner of rationalization avoids clarity? That's ok, I'm not an altruist and do not seek the conversion of others and in kind am not vulnerable to conversion by others. I'm committed to the pursuit of infinite truth. I'm inclined to respect your attempt to escape clarity as you have not attempted to display posture of benchmarking your behavior to the non-aggression principle. But then you only escape confronting your ego which is fruitless as there is never dialogue between true self and ego. True self arises as ego dies.
Yes I do not approve of pathological narcissistic human actions manifesting threat of near term planetary omnicide through ongoing climate engineering destroying the insects, habitat and all life on Earth. You appear to be trying to posture cold indifference but the manner of your communication inhibits dialogue (flow of meaning). What is more lazy than ego-misidentification?
Take heart though, maybe John Lennon was right and instant Karma's really gonna get you. If not you are still right where you have chosen to stay, irrational.
Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
woodchuckpirate.com