Seriously, during the communist days, many people liked going to see the animals in the circuses and nobody saw it as something wrong, before PETA ever existed.
To this day in Russia, there are circuses with animals, interestingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tskbF6cM0G4And mostly outcry about circuses with animals is in capitalistic countries.
Back then in communist Poland, circuses with animals used to be liked as well. And up till 90s, 2000s and 2021, they used to be popular for children.
What happened? And please, no reactionary liberal rhetoric.
>>2090693I knew… the liberals hate people and prefer if we starved and had no entertainment. Recently music venues are even more expensive. We are supposed to overwork and our opinions are marginalized.
I used to say that liberals care more for animals (except those in slaughterhouses) than e.g. women, or working men, who can't afford anything,
>>2090696Very true. And vegans conveniently forget about Hitler. Eugenicist movement is also clearly capitalistic.
BTW, petakillsanimals.com
>>2090701PETA is an oil thinktank, I'm quite sure it isn't inherently relevant to the discussion.
>>2090703This too. Animal is a description of cell structure.
>>2090713>Is there something inherent in Marxist communism about animal rights? Communism is about humans, and humans are not animals (sapience and the ability to work). You could argue that the humanistic core in Marx would extend to other species as well, because of a mutual feeling of recognizing each other origin - which diminishes the further we go down the line, we see ourselves more in a tiger or even in a rat than we see ourselves in a jellyfish.Read Marx's Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
Do you think you are that separate from those other animals? No, we are one biosphere and the border between a human brain and even the atmosphere is a lot thinner than you think. If we can aspire so high as to treat non-human animals right, it follows that we will have achieved proper treatment of human animals too.
>>2090696Idealists get the axe.
>>2090812And that difference is…? Being an unusual animal does not make us not animals, and we have much more in common with animals, specifically mammals, and more specifically primates than we do anything else. Even if you want to ignore that we're made of animal cells, our biology is not particularly atypical for a mammal. If you rattled off a list of our organs, chances are good 99% of mammals would share 99% of those organs. We have eyes with lenses, corneas, pupils, and retinas. We have four-chamber hearts. We have lungs with alveoli. We have hair composed of keratin. We have bilaterally symetrical skeletons with spines. The list goes on. All of these traits are equally applicable to your cat as they are you.
If you're the kind of hardcore postmodernist who thinks biology is a social construct, be my guest. But personally, I do believe in biology, and by all counts a human is just as much an animal as any other.
>>2090858>>2091056>>2091106The more I use this site, the more I come to the conclusion that it's a complete joke and that I have absolutely nothing to gain from using it.
>>2091268Newgene here.
I agree with you on both counts.
Man is not above the animals.
And yes most LeftyPol users are just pop culture patrons who think they're above it all.
>>2091268>we have much more in common with animals, specifically mammals, and more specifically primates than we do anything else. Even if you want to ignore that we're made of animal cells, our biology is not particularly atypical for a mammal. If you rattled off a list of our organs, chances are good 99% of mammals would share 99% of those organs.do you really think that? if we made contact with life from outside this planet and their bodies had a completely different way of working compared to our bodies and that of any other being on earth but they had languages and they could figure out our language and vice versa, did calculations, had some type of computation devices, something like the internet, etc would you say that we are closer to earth mammals or closer to this outside species?
what i'm getting at is that we're beyond looking at just "biology", i have much more in common with anything i can speak to compared to some dog or turtle that looks at me when i make noise
>>2091571There's a lot of sapience in the animal kingdom.
Animals can do math, they can draw, they even do acts of worship, or bartering.
>>2091571>Engels ascribed19th centurism.
Animal is just a clade of living being on Earth with a common ancestor. There are also other clades: plants, fungi,… I don't see how this disproves the socioeconomic analysis of Marxism.
>>2091585You are describing alien life. They wouldn't be animals cause they wouldn't have anything to do with the evolutionary history of life on Earth. I think this disscussion is hinging on the fact that "Animal" in popular vocabulary is synonimous with "living being", even tho bacteria and plants are still alive. But in biology, "Animal" is just another clade of living beings with a specific definition based on metabolism and cellular complexity, that all have a common ancestor.
>>2091694>>2091694>19th centurismWe need to make this a term. This larping needs to end eventually.
I'm trying to talk about real life in 2024 and motherfucking 19th century socialist historical reenactors want to talk about the four humours.
Time hasn't stopped. The world hasn't stopped progressing. Stop being such incredibly cringe nerds.
>>2091585>what i'm getting at is that we're beyond looking at just "biology"By my definition, "animal"
is a biological concept, with biology being an extension of chemistry, which is itself an extension of physics. You don't have to agree with my definition, but it is the one I use. Physically, a human has more in common with a tiger than it does a supercomputer, and I prefer to look at things from that perspective.
>>2096170Your problem is conflating human-ness with personhood, a ye olde christian thinktankism for colonizating pagans since animism was irrectonsiliable with monotheism, so making the idea of non-human persons difficult to speak about led to the
dehumanization of non-human animals.
If you despook on that front then there's no issue acknowledging human is just a biological term.
I miss cohost, they were much further along on this discussion in a way that would get me banned for baiting here for even explaining. >>2096334In my view language does not function like that In human language term "human" comes with baggage and then some. Arbitrarily limiting it into biological category is unscientific and innaccurate. Sure you can have a conversation within biological context wherein human is agreed to be biological in all ways that are interesting from biological perspective. Luckily there's no need to handicap ourselves by locking us into only one perspecrive. Language is context based so we can use same words to transmit different meanings. When I say humans are post-biological, that doesn't even need to be literally true. You get what I'm saying, you understand the choice of perspective I'm highlighting and you can either add it to your toolbelt, or discard it.
Understanding humans is fucking difficult, but necessary.
>>2096334P.S. I'd argue humans are
less of a person than other animals are. Animals are pretty much all themselves but we, we are controlled by ideas birthed from mouths long dead.
>>2090806Yep.
If you talk opposite in this place, you are cryptorightwinger.
>>2103975People have a higher psycho functions
conscious, animals not.
>>2104002>confirmedBy whom?
Any animal dont have a effort of will in behavior, they just slaves of genes. Effort of will its inenable part of conscious.
>>2104006>Dolphins have willYour proof does not shaw that dolphins have a will, dude.
What show existence of will in subject? For example, opportunity of suicide. Any animal cant kill self, but people can.
>>2103999It's not at all uncommon for one kind of organism to exhibit traits that other organisms do not. By your logic, Whales aren't mammals because they're fish shaped and live in the ocean, and Venus Fly Traps aren't plants because they're carnivores. And even beyond that, human cognitive differences from other great apes are mostly quantitative, not qualitative. We're much smarter than bonobos and gorillas, but otherwise, they're remarkably close in behavior to us.
Not that any of this matters, by the way. Humanity's taxonomic relationship to other animals has absolutely no bearing on material reality. This is very much one of those things that idealists argue over because it's easier than discussing things that are concrete and real
>For example, opportunity of suicide. Any animal cant kill selfA quick google search proves you wrong lmao
>>2104075>animals at the bare minimum making decisions to stop eating till they die.They stop eating because illness does not let them do it, not because they have a will for reject a food, like people.
>>2104554>Whales More mammals live an water, not only whales.
>Venus Fly Another one, lot a plants eat the insects, not only venus fly.
>quantitative, not qualitativeAmong monkeys have a "feral childs"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_childAny monkey grow a quite normal, if they grow among another animals. If people grow up among another animals, they does not grow a semi normal, no to mention a normal part of people society.
>idealistsLol, dude whith a humanizes fucking animals talk me about idealists.
>A quick google search proves you wrong lmaoI banned in google. Give me this proves, pls.
>>2104603>They stop eating because illness does not let them do it, not because they have a will for reject a food, like people. >Implying humans aren't also doing it because an illness makes them not able or unwilling to eat>A perfectly physically and mentally healthy person can just choose starve for fun, an activity that would be fun to someone in perfect mental condition.
>Any monkey grow a quite normal, if they grow among another animals. If people grow up among another animals, they does not grow a semi normal, no to mention a normal part of people society.No, other social animals do have social norms, perhaps not as sophisticated or violently enforced, but enough that being reintroduced can lead to stress and social outcasting. Pretty sure there's more research about this in other animals than in humans.
>humanizing animals is idealist>but humanizing humans is fine somehowIt's wild that anthropomorphization has just become mysticism. Liberal identity hinges on seeing humanity as an irreplicable abberation in the world of cogs, and even the some of most devout rejectors of liberalism refuse to disensnare themselves from that because it's so integral.
>>2104754>>Implying humans aren't also doing it because an illness makes them not able or unwilling to eatNope.
>>A perfectly physically and mentally healthy person can just choose starve for fun, an activity that would be fun to someone in perfect mental condition.For example, well normal man in prison can go on a hunger strike, because cops torturing him. He did these not because he ill, he want give a publicity on torturing prison.
>NoIn your opinion, human growed without a contact at other people can adapt in their society same, like monkey growed without a contact at other monkeys in their society…
Its really genius!
>HUMANS ITS NOT HUMANS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEFine.
>>2104844>normal man in prisonhigh stress, isolative environment
>because cops torturing himeffecting his mental state
>he want give a publicity on torturing prisonConvincing himself, within the confines of a prison, that it would even work.
>In your opinion, human growed without a contact at other people can adapt in their society sameI made no mention of such. I'm honestly not sure how you would begin to construct such a reading.
>HUMANS ITS NOT HUMANS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEDo you not question the etymology of words you use, and how they would potentially shape your worldview? What, concretely, is being attributed when you "humanize" a non-human subject in this context, and why do you believe humans have this attribute(s) to begin with? Every time I've seen someone attempt to answer this the veer towards the metaphysical.
>>2107185>high stressOmg, billions other people same feel a high stress. I guess, you dont understand what is concept of normal, dude.
>isolative environmentAnd concept of prison…
>Do you not question the etymology of words you use, and how they would potentially shape your worldview?Maybe, should guess this question to you, not you to me.
>humanizeYou attribute a animals humans qualities, like will and labor.
>why do you believe humans have this attribute(s) to begin withPeople dont have a will and labor? Dude, maybe i should prove you a exist of metter?
So where is a examples of animal suicides?
>>2107490Normal =/= healthy. It is normal to be mentally ill.
>willSo metaphysics. You're hiding a "does free will exist" philosophical mugging under a vaguely defined buzzword.
>labourDidn't mention it. Many animals are exploited for labour, not as much now because motor vehicles, but there are still many that do. In fact the thread topic is an example.
>People dont have a willMetaphysical schizobabble. The concept of free will only exists to suggest it's abscence. Someone that thinks materialistically, let alone in first person isn't contemplating the concept of will.
>labourNot a uniquely human quality and thus irrelevant.
>animal suicides>suicide is an athropomorphic characteristicLMAO, but sure here's an article
https://manvsclock.com/tarsier-suicidal-monkey-bohol/#11_The_tarsier_suicide_claim_is_correct_and_commonNot that it's relevant but it was so odd to bring up I felt like looking it up.
And a wikipedia to point ya toward further research.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicideAnd just all examples of human suicides since without bring metaphysics into the equasion humans are animals.
>>2091579This. so many people are just becoming outright little fashoids revolting against science
people should read chapter 3 of this book
https://www.marxists.org/archive/dutt/1935/fascism-social-revolution-2.pdfparticularly the section titled "the revolt against science"
>>2090696Hitler was not vegetarian or vegan; this was propaganda concocted by Goebbels to make Hitler appear akin to that of Gandhi.
Non-human animals are based, have complex phenomenological experiences, and many of which are loving towards their human counterparts. Liberal vegans, zionist vegans, these all exist. But Marxist vegans exist to.
Don't allow shitlibs to dominate veganism as an ethical approach.
>>2108105Hitler was vegetarian, Gobbles didn't make that up, obviosly the nazis didn't even want to portray Hitler like Gandhi, a pacifist
>>2108106It's not, obviously the info comes from nazis because no one else really had an access to hitler's personal life, but it wasn't "propaganda" as it was from their diaries.
>>2159243Because liberals are shit.
That's why we can't have nice things.
>>2159371normal person: me likey cheese burger
vegans/vegetarians: you are the moral and ethical equivalent of a cannibal murderer
normal people: lmao
how does it feel to know that people will still be eating meat from factory farms in 100 years
>>2159375Im starting to hate the word "empathy" because the people who preach it are usually vitriolic.
"Empathy" is just used a paternalistic insult used against those who disagree with ones opinion.
>>2159398normal person: Me likey Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
leftists/libtards: You are the moral and ethical equivalent of a fascist
normal people: Lmao
How does it feel to know that capitalism will still exist in 100 years?
>>2159243>So, returning to this discussion, why is possesing wild animals or even non-abusive circuses with animals compared to cruelest forms of slaughterhouses and hunting (more specifically poaching)?Answer me.
Hey, you have to discuss this.
Unique IPs: 56