Author Topic: Fucked Up Logic  (Read 4393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline caelin

  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Fucked Up Logic
« on: February 03, 2010, 05:16:51 AM »
Your website brings up some interesting points, and while I understand it was written by a mind damaged by betrayal and disillusionment with the parent culture, It is a shame to say the problems are all just too hard so lets encourage someone to build a weapon to destroy all life because all life involves suffering... When you die it makes no difference whether you suffered or not in life and so an equally extremist point of view could be that nothing means anything anyway so do whatever you like because all life dies with no memory of suffering... Both are totally defeatist, life is a unique and interesting bloom of colour in the white noise of chaos, and suffering is equally as beautiful and interesting as any other state of life that has evolved, suffering has its place in the balance. As humans we have the ability to experience empathy and therein lies our responsibility (which matters to no one but ourselves) - to minimize unnecessary suffering, but certainly not to eliminate it in all forms as you propose, hence eliminating all life.

Humans lived for millions of years as part of the balance, capitalism is NOT "too close to human nature" or whatever you said to that effect and can be eliminated, as there is in fact No solid genetic human nature in regards to social or economic structuring, there is only human behavior - and that's always been changed throughout history and across cultures. The Capitalism free market cult itself is responsible for most of the animal suffering you have mentioned and can be replaced with superior modernized systems geared towards true sustainability (and with that comes the elimination of animal agriculture and a switch to global veganism). It is not unrealistic to think that it can and will be replaced. Technology is the way out of the twisted dependence on animal agriculture, along with the elimination of obsolete and deeply diseased social & economic systems, which will either be achieved naturally as humanity pushes its environment to the limits and is forced to redesign, or a gradual shift (less likely). So, things such as veganism and organic farming create precedent for future positive changes even if they are imperfect in the current forms, and while humans are 90% fucked in the head at this point in time, they are only products of their social environment and can be remoulded in any direction over time or through forced adaptation.
As for the idea that all other animals should also be killed because through natural exposure to life they experience suffering is fucked up logic, and relies on the (arguably speciesist human assumption) that pain and suffering in all forms is bad or evil - it would be more logical for you to kill yourself in order to avoid experiencing your pain of witnessing life. Destroying humanity, its consumemachines, its web of profit motivated torture is by all means an understandable desire, but to decide the fate of all life on this planet because you can't understand its balance, or because it is revolting to you personally is ridiculous. The praying mantis that is killed by its mate after fucking, is lucky to have experienced life at all - things die, animals hurt each other, kids are mean. Life is beautiful in all its painful glory, the problem lies in not that suffering exists, but that humans create it consciously and unnecessarily to such detestable extremes. Life systems exist without your approval or condemnation and being a human you only have cause to interfere with human issues, or ideally things which affect the continuation and balance of life systems on this earth...the social interactions of dolphins is none of your concern.

On one hand to whinge about the suffering caused by meat/dairy industry and not attempt to smash it down by force, while on the other hand encouraging the killing of all life on this planet is the logic of a sick mind overwhelmed with the hopelessness of it all.

Your website encourages apathy rather than inspiring budding WMD designers... It is also damaging to positive animal rights campaigns, and provides more excuses for governments to push bullshit mandatory internet censorship laws.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 182
    • View Profile
Re: Fucked Up Logic
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2010, 04:37:42 AM »
Hello i will refer to a few points you made (you in red) and if you feel that i missed some please let me know

It is a shame to say the problems are all just too hard so lets encourage someone to build a weapon to destroy all life because all life involves suffering...

Although the negative argument does draw a lot of attention, unfortunately to much, it is far from being our main argument. Actually on the personal level neither did I or my partners felt despaired or worn out of our own activity before we started.  Same as with the negative argument (that it is impossible to change the world) so does the despair and hopelessness get much more attention then these elements should. The main argument is that the only way to stop suffering is by definition to stop life as both are inseparable linked together. I know you disagree and I will try to address your disagreement, I am saying it now just to clear that from our perspective the negative arguments to establish this movement are although firm and valid of course, but absolutely secondary to the positive one, a sufferingless world.
It was much more of an enlightenment that we will never stop suffering, that we will never vegnaise the world and that even if we did it wouldn't stop all the suffering, that encouraged us.
Maybe I am getting too personal but it is a little hard to feel sorry for myself when I know that at the same time more than a billion chickens are cramped in a battery cage. I am human it happens that i am down but it goes as fast as it comes. But anyway I agree that some activists come to the same conclusion after realizing the world won’t be vegan not to mention non speciesist.

When you die it makes no difference whether you suffered or not in life and so an equally extremist point of view could be that nothing means anything anyway so do whatever you like because all life dies with no memory of suffering... Both are totally defeatist


I don’t know whether you read the manifest or not so i am quoting from there a small part regarding life’s meaning:
"We see things through binoculars and tend to think in terms of purposes and goals, even when there are none. In life there is no such thing as a purpose. Things simply occur. Just as there is no purpose behind a chemical reaction, burning of sugar for instance, there is no purpose behind birthing, metabolism and DNA duplication. It started out as basic organic chemistry, and along billions of years acquired more and more complexity. One of those "upgrades" was the ability to suffer, feel pain and fear. That’s life. Technical chemical mechanism. Animals are the victims of chemistry."

Life is meaningless in the sense of purpose. There is no goal or aim to life. But in a moral sense they are meaningful. Otherwise why bother?
We agree that when you die it makes no difference (by the way it is an argument that strengthens our ideology not users) however; the fact that billions of creatures suffer form birth to death while they are still alive is the most meaningful thing I can think of. So I fail to see the similarities you made between total nihilism and our point of view which we see as total altruism. I know that philosophically there is a thin line but I don’t see how we crossed it if you were implying that.

life is a unique and interesting bloom of colour in the white noise of chaos, and suffering is equally as beautiful and interesting as any other state of life that has evolved

I strongly recommend you to read our answer to the question: but_life_is_not_only_suffering_there_are_good_parts_too
and if you’ll find the answer insufficient I’ll address that issue here as well. I just don’t to repeat the text.

suffering has its place in the balance

What balance are you talking about? I am sure you don’t mean the balance between the pleasure of one creature with another’s suffering because that would make you a very cruel person especially when I am sure you know there is no balance between the suffering of any creature during their miserable lives in factory farms and the pleasure of humans eating them in the end of it. That would be really ignorant and you don’t sound like one. So to what balance do you refer?


minimize unnecessary suffering


Don’t you find it extremely anthropocentric that humans get to decide when the suffering is unnecessary and it is necessary? Why you get to decide? It is a very power based conception. It is only because humans can. I know it is so worn out that it is almost a cliché but you probably know the famous what if aliens would come to earth and intensively exploit humans as a food resource for vegetarianism, so right back at you, would you find it morally justified that they would decide for humans what is unnecessary suffering and what is necessary? Minimize unnecessary suffering is vivisectors’ terminology. Not that I compare but I do want to ask, if we don’t accept this notion when it comes form them, why should we accept it when it comes from you?
Minimize suffering can only be justified when it is impossible to eliminate suffering. But we don’t know yet that it is impossible. We do know that life without suffering are impossible and therefore can’t be morally justified. How can you justify all the sacrificed animals for your soy milk, tofu and bread? I can’t and I think neither do you. A vegan diet is a very cruel as vastly explained in vegan suffer, and if the best option is so cruel, life can't be morally justified.

For you life is "life is a unique and interesting bloom of colour" but you are a human. I think that billions of chicken would beg the differ. For millions of animals the only color in life is brown form the shit they are soaked in.

Humans lived for millions of years as part of the balance

No they didn’t. They systematically occupied every piece of land they could. The only difference is that in the first couple of millions they didn’t have the ability to do it like did in the last couple of millenniums, but the motivation was there. Hierarchy, class, male chauvinism, wars, land conquering, deforesting, concreting and stoning every piece of land, domestication, enslaving, and so forth, didn’t start with capitalism but were there all along.

capitalism is NOT "too close to human nature" or whatever you said to that effect and can be eliminated, as there is in fact No solid genetic human nature in regards to social or economic structuring, there is only human behavior

No it doesn’t because that’s not what people want. They want capitalism. You need to meet and talk to more people outside of your group of people. What fail communism is not only the fact that in each of the countries who experimented communism was a violent and totalitarian dictator (except cuba which is a different story) but also because people wanted belongings, they want to purchase and they want to choose what to consume. What to eat, what to drive and what to wear.

Capitalism is most definitely a human characteristic. It couldn’t be such a profound part of society if it didn’t have something to do with human character.
I think the fact that capitalism is by far the most dominant social and economical system in the world is indeed a fact that indicates that it is part of human character. And if to look at old history - to purchase, to own, to gather possessions, to have personal property is as old as humans. To define social status by property is ancient old.

And for the chances of capitalism to disappear, I am sorry but it sounds like your basis for that assumption is you’re desire for that day more than reality because the whole world is going to the other direction. Nothing could stop the war in Iraq for example. If I may quote another member of this forum who wrote:
"I felt like a huge reaction at the time, we all thought there’s no way to ignore such a mass in hundreds of cities. But apparently it was possible. All this noise hardly made any shift in the Bush/Blair policies"
And he goes further:
"The whole world watched as the U.S. invaded Iraq and blackmailed it for valuable natural resources, and this aggressive, predictable move was made in such a blunt manner it didn’t leave any doubt that no one minds a bit of the protests, it will eventually die down and the oil fraudulentness in the disguise of “operation Iraqi freedom” will be successfully activated"

Maybe you should read the entire discussion it is called Imagine and anti war protests
Anyway I am exampling the war in Iraq since it is a capitalistic war par excellence (clearing the way for the oil companies…). So if masses can’t stop something so evident and simple to understand and oppose to as a war that so many people were and are against, what is your basis?

Human behavior doesn’t come from thin air but from genetics. You want to argue that it is only a tiny part of it? o.k you want to say that most of the effect is cultural? o.k
I disagree but at least I can accept it as an argument what I can’t say about saying there is only human behavior as if it is got nothing to do with humans nature, characteristic and genes. I think it is fair to say that most humans in western societies are addicted to shopping. Hang out in shopping malls is much more popular than any other social activity. You practically downgrading humans even more than we do, because you are presenting them as extremely stupid and easily amused and easily persuaded if capitalism harm them personally and it is not in their nature but they still match with corporations, and the advertising industry which is making enormous profits on their expense convincing them that consuming is the best thing they can do in order to be happy. While there is no doubt that it truly happens, it takes some ground in humans’ character to succeed.

It is very easy to lay all the blame on capitalism as if it obligatory. It is not something that is forced on people from the sky. They choose it. Every day they choose it again. You are in a trap because if you think that people are lack a true or even a total of free will than we are right and if they maintain free will and our world is what they choose then we are even righter.

So, things such as veganism and organic farming create precedent for future positive changes even if they are imperfect in the current forms

Do you realize that this idea condemn trillions of creatures into life of suffering all in the name of this ambition that someday maybe life will be better? That is very cruel.
Again, I don’t know if you read the manifest but please read the future argument in the end of it. Every future prediction I read says different than you. All the forecasts are pessimistic from the animals’ perspectives.
"Animal consumption is growing rapidly and persistently. The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was 285 million tons.
Increase in meat consumption is seen everywhere. The industry is gaining more and more power and turn to new markets.
Globally the per capita consumption has more than doubled over the last 40 years.
In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.
Due to increased incomes, population growth, and global rising of per capita consumption of meat - the meat production is projected to double again by 2020."


And that’s just the first paragraph.

Here is another one:
"Every year more animals are being exploited. And it is not only a quantitative matter, every year the industry manages to make the exploitation more efficient on the expense of the animals’ broken bodies. The genetic invasion is getting more harmful and more violent every year. Farm animals are already deformed freaks - born to be cripples. "

You have no basis to state that things will get better. If you will read the future argument in the manifest and even more so the sources where we toke the predictions from and you will know that it is going to get even worse.

while humans are 90% fucked in the head at this point in time, they are only products of their social environment and can be remoulded in any direction over time or through forced adaptation.

And billions should suffer during this process?! I really don’t get it. Why do humans worth all this pain and suffering? Why should billions or even one animal should pay the tuition? How can that be justified?

If we can’t practically stop one form of hunting, dog fights, cockfights, the cruel Animal Olympics games before the Olympiad, the various rituals in various places in the world where goats are tossed out of towers, blindfolded eagles are tied to a running bull and sheep’s heads are cut of and football on horses is played with their corpses and etc, when will we stop the milk industry? And more important for me right now than convincing you that it is impossible, is to convince you that it is not moral to wait even if it was possible. Dismiss the tendency to work with humans and the dependency on their willingness to stop abusing. It is not about them. Even if changes were possible, this world is horrible enough that you must try to destroy it, not try to change it.

As for the idea that all other animals should also be killed because through natural exposure to life they experience suffering is fucked up logic, and relies on the (arguably speciesist human assumption)

How can it be speciesist if we feel that way about all the species? Where is the discrimination? Humans are the first to go form our stand point so how can it be speciesist?

it would be more logical for you to kill yourself in order to avoid experiencing your pain of witnessing life


Not really and it would be very egoistic and cruel. Life is very hard for me because of what I know and aware of but can you compare that to what the ones who actually go through with what I know and aware of endure? No way.
It is not about us. I should live as much as I can to help the ones who are in a much worse place, and frankly it is most of the creatures in the world, so it is not so logical to me.

but to decide the fate of all life on this planet because you can't understand its balance,

No I really can’t understand its balance. Can you please explain me where do you find this balance and why is it good?
Where is the balance when hyenas tear slices off gazelles while they run for their lives?
Where is the balance when capybara is slowly digested by anaconda after he swallowed him wholly and fully conscious?
Is a lion violently attacking small cabs and kill them so the lioness would be reheated is your idea of balance? Because too me it is a cruel fact of life that we mustn’t accept just as we mustn't accept suffering just because it happens in what we call nature, and to non human animals by other non human animals. Suffering is bad when it is considered natural just as much as when it is considered artificial. Natural doesn’t equal good.
Injecting eggs into a live spider’s body to ensure that when the descendants hatch they will have breakfast is very natural for a hornet but does it make it good? I don’t think that the eaten from within spider would feel that way.
Where is the balance in the powerfully male fights over territory and for the "right" to mate?
And where is it when insects chemically liquefy each other in their endless chemical wars?
You can find thousands of examples and no could be justify by the magical word natural.

Every single second somewhere in what you call nature, a giant hornet fights a mantis, a shark fights an octopus, a white belly sea eagle fights a banded sea snake, a ginat weta fights a bat and if the bat prevail the other bats will fight him over the weta, thunder lizards fight each other, a crown eagle fights a chevrotain, a blue crab fights ameloctopus, a giant centipedes fights an iguana, a galapagos snake fights a marine iguana, a polar bear fights a ringed seal, an arctic tern fights a polar bear (beating their noses when they come for their eggs), bat falcon fights other bats, a hawk fights a viper, a numbat devour termites, a crocodile an egret, a shoebill a lungfish, the mexican long tailed bat an insect, a coyote hunts a rabbit and an anaconda crushes a capybara to death or griping so tight that the blood can't even circulate and so the poor capybara slowly suffocate to death.

If that’s balance I prefer the most imbalanced system possible.
Moral people do not stand idly while helpless creatures suffer. And that brings me to the most disappointing and weird thing you wrote.

the problem lies in not that suffering exists, but that humans create it consciously and unnecessarily to such detestable extremes. Life systems exist without your approval or condemnation and being a human you only have cause to interfere with human issues, or ideally things which affect the continuation and balance of life systems on this earth...the social interactions of dolphins is none of your concern.

First of all the "consciously" issue is one I don’t get.
If someone eats a lobster unaware of the fact that lobsters live in a cage in seabed for decades and then when they are big enough from humans’ appetite one will be boiled alive especially for him, it is o.k to consume the lobster? No it is not and you know that as much as I do. This notion you argue is so human oriented, so speciesist! Everything evolves humans for you. It is not about humans and their conscious. Many people don’t know about many bad things they participate in and according to your logic not only that they are not morally responsible which I can agree to some extent there was no moral crime made at all?! It seems that for you the victim play a very marginal role, if the human is aware of their existence it is not right but if they are not aware they are not even victims! Nothing bad happened and it is not even a problem? The lobster suffering regardless of the awareness of the human who caused it. The lobsters don’t care if it was consciously or not they want to stop being boiled alive and cut alive.

I am pretty sure that white abolitionist who fought against enslaving black people have constantly heard the same sentence you wrote here - "being a human you only have cause to interfere with human issues". And that’s the same sentence that activists who are fighting against female genital mutilation are hearing from Muslims who perform this act claiming they don’t understand their culture. According to this logic every abused child would still get beaten by his parents because no one outside of the family is allowed to interfere within family business right? Do you buy fair trade products? Why it is issues that occur in different continent?
I am not a speciesist therefore Serbs soldiers raping Bosnian women and children as a military strategy is no more or less of something that bothers me as dolphin raping as reproduction strategy.
You don’t think that non Muslim shouldn’t interfere with FGM? of course you do, because religion shouldn’t be a categorical boundary for morality right? The same goes for white people who fought against blacks being enslaved in America, because race too is not categorical boundary for morality and the same goes for abused children and geographic location. If you hear your neighbor child getting beaten by his parents you would probably talk to them or to the police or welfare institution, But by your logic you should do nothing. And you are saying that our logic is fucked?
I am sure you don’t feel that way. Family as well is not categorical boundary for morality. But for some reason for you species is. And that is speciesism. That is discrimination on the basis of species. You oppose killing women in extreme Islamic group for hurting the respect of the family (i hope) but have no problem with dolphins even though both are cultures you don’t understand. So you are not that far from us form the perspective of approving an intervention with “other” creature’s culture. You approve it in some cases and oppose with others and it seems that your distinction is totally arbitrary.
Why is it o.k. with religion, race, age and etc but not with species?
I think there is only one categorical boundary for morality and it is suffering. I understand by your message that you disagree with that but you don’t offer a rational substitute.

You can’t be morally passive. There is no such state. You can be - not aware of suffering taking place and therefore not responsible for it, but from the moment you become aware of it, you have responsibility towards it. And according to this logic we are not only responsible for the suffering humans inflict on non humans or on other humans but for all the suffering that exists in the world, including the suffering non humans inflict on other non humans. We know it is there, so we can't ignore it. We can’t be passive because it is another species involved.

Your website encourages apathy rather than inspiring budding WMD designers...

None of the visitors of the website should get depressed by the website but highly inspired. So far they dealt and thought in a relatively small scale, now they are asked to take responsiblity for all the suffering in the world.
The way i see it the image of a world with no battery cages, no slaughterhouses, restraining devices or wars is the strongest motivation of all.
And we will just have to wait and see about the WMD designers…
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:37:11 AM by O.O.S »

Offline santa

  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Fucked Up Logic
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2010, 08:27:36 AM »
i sure wish u would get in touch with me (sigh) as i agree with u

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015