Animal Rights Mega-Thread

[Scholar]

I think there is a bit of a lack of consciousness regarding this topic on this forum in general. It is the cause for most of the suffering and destruction in society, therefore I think we should try to extend our circle of responsibility by dedicating some of our attention to these issues.

 

Conscious Politics must include animals and the environment. The pillar of unity is compassion. Compassion is our way to understand others, and to the degree to which we are ignorance of the suffering and the concerns of others, to that degree we are biased, we are blind. If we want to live in a good world, we must first be able to see the world for what it is, and that means to see and feel the world from the perspective of all individuals. If this is not achieved, your blindness will cause your own suffering, aswell as the suffering of others.

 

The issue with prioritizing humans to such a degree is that it is not a conscious decision, but rather one stemming from bias and ignorance. We do not know why we are prioritizing humans, we simply do. This is a function of lack of awareness, not a function of a holistic view of the world and a conscious decision to do so for the sake of harmony and unity.

 

 

To achieve Unity, we must see everyone, we must include everyone. I would like for everyone to consider this before they post here, to consider how partial their compassion is, how it is skewed, and how one will seek to justify that bias, and to rationalize it. And I want you to consider what this blindness already has done to this world and to humanity. I think what makes humanity special is that we can consciously extend our love to others and other things. That not intelligence is what makes us truly special, but rather that we can fall in love with anything. We can fall in love with ideas and concepts, with people and things, with activities and perceptions. And how we guide that Love will determine how our world will look like, and how much we will prosper.

[Cathal]

not prioritizing human compassion is slower progress for the animals. humans are the priority here, now. 

 

[Preety_India]

Compassion is suffering a global deficit. 

How about we become less insensitive to the suffering of others? 

 

[Windappreciator]

19 hours ago, catcat69123 said:

not prioritizing human compassion is slower progress for the animals. humans are the priority here, now. 

 

it's commutual actually

[Scholar]

On 25.12.2021 at 10:21 PM, catcat69123 said:

not prioritizing human compassion is slower progress for the animals. humans are the priority here, now. 

 

That is precisely the trap of biased empathy. In a world in which white people prioritize compassion for white people, white people do not actually prosper the most, and harmony does optimally flourish. It is precisely the extention of compassion and identity that allows for completely new solutions to arise that were previously not accessible.

 

Due to our lack of compassion for all individuals, we create harm in the world that directly effects us, as it has to be in a world that is interconnected. This is the counter intuitive nature of progress. When there is a school shooting, ironically to create more harmony and unity, we need to extend our compassion to the one who has committed the school shooting, and individuals who have the potential to do so in the future. It is precisely our lack of compassion here that perpetuates this problem, because our lack of compassion, our bias, is blinding us to the solution.

 

A tremendous amount of suffering in the world, especially in the third world, is caused by our inability to extend our identity towards animals. If we did respect animals, we would have to respect nature. The current way we seek to motivate action towards sustainability and against the destruction of nature, is by self-interested fear. You will not solve these issues by that kind of means, as global failure to tackle and resolve existential threats has proven to us.

However, by extending identity, we actually teach people to be less selfish, or in other words to have a more universal sense of self. We do not simply tell them to care about the environment because they might in the future potentially suffer from it if they live long enough, rather it can only happen if they recognize the immediate suffering that presents itself before them. You will never have people care about school shooters out of fear that more school shootings will happen, there has to be genuine compassion for that.

 

Animals are humans, the only difference is morphology and slightly altered minds. Because of this, if you can show no compassion towards an animal, it is inevitable that this blindness will affect humans. The reason for this is that, that which you truly should care about, which is the experiencer, is equal in all individuals. Only once this is recognized will humanity be able to overcome the current issues it is facing. If it will not, it will perish sooner or later, inevitably, and so it should be.

 

The issue is, to truly care about humans, you have to care about animals, because they are the same. If you do not care about animals, you do not truly care about humans. You do not care about the experiencer. And as long as that is the case, your society will be blind to it's own ignorance, to it the unnecessary suffering it is manifesting and perpetuating.

 

If someone you love were to be turned into a pig, you would still care about them, every bit of suffering that pig would feel would be as bad to you as it would if they were a human. And once you realize that, you will realize why you need to care about everyone, no matter the shape of their body or state of their mind. To the degree to which you care less about animals, will be the degree to which you lack compassion towards humans.

This is by the way why identity keeps extending. We see no difference between races, because there is no difference that is relevant. And so it is true for species. If you recognize that which is Truth, you will have complete compassion, not partial, biased compassion. And your idea that you could have ever achieved unity without first realizing this will seem silly to you.

 

 

Here is a good way to showcase how distorted your viewpoint is:

not prioritizing white people compassion  is slower progress for black people, white people are the priority now, here

Edited December 28, 2021 by Scholar

[Cathal]

if you truly cared about animals you would see the best way to help them is to devote yourself to raising the consciousness of humanity

[Scholar]

5 hours ago, catcat69123 said:

if you truly cared about animals you would see the best way to help them is to devote yourself to raising the consciousness of humanity

And that you do by making humans care about animals, by extending their identity.

[Flowerfaeiry]

On 12/25/2021 at 0:46 PM, Scholar said:

It is the cause for most of the suffering and destruction in society,

The suffering of animals in our current system is a reflection of the way humans have been treating the earth for hundreds of years. We disconnected from our roots and began living out of harmony with nature. 
 

We can’t fix this through animal liberation first. That’s backwards. We need begin to listen to nature and break down current systems that oppress ALL. 
 

 

[Terell Kirby]

6 hours ago, catcat69123 said:

if you truly cared about animals you would see the best way to help them is to devote yourself to raising the consciousness of humanity

Depends on what you mean by raising consciousness.

There are humans who care about animal rights, but have no idea that they are living in a dream .. but that's not necessary per say when it comes to animal rights advocacy.

Information sharing is a very basic method of raising awareness towards animal rights. And there are plenty institutions, and organizations that do this. i would recommend either joining or donating such groups that advocated for causes you are passionate about.

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Flowerfaeiry said:

The suffering of animals in our current system is a reflection of the way humans have been treating the earth for hundreds of years. We disconnected from our roots and began living out of harmony with nature. 
 

We can’t fix this through animal liberation first. That’s backwards. We need begin to listen to nature and break down current systems that oppress ALL. 
 

 

I don't agree with this, humanity never really lived in harmony with nature, we have caused extinctions and destruction for tens of thousands of years, aswell as killing each other in tribalistic manners. Identity has expanded over time, and it is now more expansive than it has ever been before. It is precisely because of nature that we behave this way. Our fear, our selfishness, is informed by our legacy. Nature does not mind rape, murder, torture, selfishness, sexism, racism, speciesism. Nature thrives in suffering and ignorance. Nature's wisdom is of a different kind, the kind that made us what we are today.

[Terell Kirby]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't agree with this, humanity never really lived in harmony with nature, we have caused extinctions and destruction for tens of thousands of years, aswell as killing each other in tribalistic manners. Identity has expanded over time, and it is now more expansive than it has ever been before. It is precisely because of nature that we behave this way. Our fear, our selfishness, is informed by our legacy. Nature does not mind rape, murder, torture, selfishness, sexism, racism, speciesism. Nature thrives in suffering and ignorance. Nature's wisdom is of a different kind, the kind that made us what we are today.

Sounds like you have a significant dislike for humanity.

Keep and mind that they've done (and still do) a lot of great things too.

[Flowerfaeiry]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

Nature thrives in suffering and ignorance

I’m sorry you feel that way. 

[Danioover9000]

8 hours ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

Why only animals? What about plants and rocks? Even rocks have their own way of being.

   Let's not forget Alien species that might live in different planets, plus ones that have technology to space travel and have visited humans in the past, and allegedly to this day.

[Scholar]

18 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

Sounds like you have a significant dislike for humanity.

Keep and mind that they've done (and still do) a lot of great things too.

I don't dislike humanity, did you read my initial post?

[Scholar]

 

 

 

This is a very good example of how biased people are when it comes to these topics. I hear Leo make similar arguments. In the conversation, the person attempted to relativize their choice of being a meat-eater by saying that veganism causes harm to humans because for plant agriculture migrant workers are exploited. It is then explained to her that not only do migrant workers get exploited in the same way in the animal agriculture (as it requires more crops to produce to feed the animals) but that it also causes significant harm to people who work in slaughterhouses.

The person then proceeds to completely ignore this point, and ignore the reason why they even brought it up, and then proceed to ask why the vegans are not focusing on the human suffering first and have that as a priority. Suddenly, they claimed that we needed to help humans so that they can help us (which she included herself in) to help animals. And remember, this was an argument for why she is not vegan, and why she isn't helping animals.

This is how the mind works, it will do anything to avoid responsibility including contradicting itself and making itself look like a complete fool. I this is such obvious nonsense that any mindful person would laugh at themselves if they heard themselves think this way.

 

This is what she said:

"I am not vegan because actually veganism causes exploitation to humans, but actually it does cause less exploitation to humans, so I am not vegan so that I can tell you to focus on humans so that they can help us turn everyone vegan!"

That's absurd, and that's precisely how cognitive dissonance works. It twists and distorts and perverts everything. It has only one goal, to uphold the contradiction, and it will use your own reasoning, your intellect, to achieve that goal at all costs. Your own mind is trying to convince you of the bullshit it is telling you so you can remain being ignorant of your bias and selfishness.

 

 

In this instance we can observe cognitive dissonance as a result of wanting to uphold a positive self-image. When you seek to feel like you are a good person, and cherish that image, no matter what you do, your mind will protect that image. This is why when you poke them in the area they actually know they are wrong, they get so upset. It reveals to them their own evil, which makes them suffer.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

A main hurdle is the idealism aspect. There is no way meat is getting phased out anytime soon, no matter how hard you push, and meat-eaters can always default to that when their dialogue tree gets deconstructed. It's not like Women's rights. The cows won't rise up to defend themselves. You won't be able to hold the policy makers' feet to the fire in the same way with regards to ethics (but there is always the more sexy environmental argument). That doesn't mean you shouldn't try though.

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

A main hurdle is the idealism aspect. There is no way meat is getting phased out anytime soon, no matter how hard you push, and meat-eaters can always default to that when their dialogue tree gets deconstructed. It's not like Women's rights. The cows won't rise up to defend themselves. You won't be able to hold the policy makers' feet to the fire in the same way with regards to ethics (but there is always the more sexy environmental argument). That doesn't mean you shouldn't try though.

That's not a hurdle though. Every individual can be vegan. We also won't ever get rid of all rape and murder, doesn't mean that makes it in any way harder to not rape and murder people.

See, your mind will use the excuse that everything will never be perfect, therefore it's futile to try. That is an appeal to futility. Firstly, you don't know whether it is futile or not. The more people do feel they are obligated to follow ethical rules, the more likely it becomes that institutions will change.

I don't think people voted slavery away because slaves rose up and defended themselves. I think people voted slavery away because they realized it was wrong. Environmental arguments are a red-herring because they don't really speak to animal rights at all. You could argue factory farms are better for the environment than free range farms that require huge amounts of land for grazing for example.

 

Using the fact that people are seeking an ideal to dismiss it I think is not a very wise thing to do, because every social justice movement starts with an ideal. And humanity has to be more sensitive in their compassion than only giving those rights who have the power to defend themselves. But it all starts with people changing their view towards animals, and view them as individuals, recognizing that they are the same as us in terms of being experiencers, the only difference being the structure of their mind and body.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

That's not a hurdle though. Every individual can be vegan. We also won't ever get rid of all rape and murder, doesn't mean that makes it in any way harder to not rape and murder people.

Yes it is. Rape doesn't have a trillion dollar financial market. But hurdles are not mountains.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

See, your mind will use the excuse that everything will never be perfect, therefore it's futile to try. That is an appeal to futility. Firstly, you don't know whether it is futile or not. The more people do feel they are obligated to follow ethical rules, the more likely it becomes that institutions will change.

My mind? I said you shouldn't stop trying.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I don't think people voted slavery away because slaves rose up and defended themselves. I think people voted slavery away because they realized it was wrong.

Were there no black abolitionists?

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Environmental arguments are a red-herring because they don't really speak to animal rights at all. You could argue factory farms are better for the environment than free range farms that require huge amounts of land for grazing for example.

Are free range farms vegan? 

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

Using the fact that people are seeking an ideal to dismiss it I think is not a very wise thing to do, because every social justice movement starts with an ideal. 

I'm not dismissing it.

[Scholar]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes it is. Rape doesn't have a trillion dollar financial market. But hurdles are not mountains.

What I mean by hurdle is in the context of abiding by animal rights. Each individual can do so, it doesn't require institutions. You can go vegan whether or not there is a trillion dollar financial market, and in the end all this is about you not wanting to go vegan.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

My mind? I said you shouldn't stop trying

You basically said "Well it's all futile and it won't change any time soon so why even try haha? But guess you can try you stupid idiot you won't change anything, you are a naive idealist", in a nice way.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Were there no black abolitionists?

My point is that I think society would have changed independent of whether there were black abolitionists. The fact that black abolitionists were allowed to exist already required a stance that viewed black people as individuals.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Are free range farms vegan? 

Why would they be vegan? I am saying that environmentalism doesn't have you arrive at animal rights, infact it might be the opposite in many cases like factory farming for example. We should not give animals the rights not to be tortured because it would be bad for the environment if we did free-range farming. In this case animal rights are not restricted to veganism.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm not dismissing it.

Aside from stating the obvious that veganism, like any other social justice movement, will meet resistance, what exactly was your motivation to post this?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

What I mean by hurdle is in the context of abiding by animal rights. Each individual can do so, it doesn't require institutions. You can go vegan whether or not there is a trillion dollar financial market, and in the end all this is about you not wanting to go vegan.

I specifically brought up that individual meat eaters are able to use the fact that meat is deeply established in our society as a last cowardly retreat from having to recognize their fallible reasoning and change their habits.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

You basically said "Well it's all futile and it won't change any time soon so why even try haha? But guess you can try you stupid idiot you won't change anything, you are a naive idealist", in a nice way.

No. I said this is the reality we have to face. Activism on the individual level is one thing. Structural change, policy change, is another.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

My point is that I think society would have changed independent of whether there were black abolitionists. The fact that black abolitionists were allowed to exist already required a stance that viewed black people as individuals.

And I'm saying black abolitionists played a crucial role.

I get it. You interpreted my points as a hostile dismissal of veganism rather than the neutral assessment that I intended it to be. I should've been more cognizant that you were already in defense mode earlier in the thread and worded myself differently.