[DJP]

Well that can't be a bad thing, keep at it. Though in all honesty I can't see that on it's own making much difference. I hope I'm proved wrong..

[DJP]

Came across this which I thought was apt, if only as a note to myself

Bertrand Russell – An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish wrote:

If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do. If someone maintains that two and two are five, or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger, unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

You are right "Animal rights" and "anti-speciesism" have nothing to do with vegetarianism. You don't have to be a vegetarian to espouse these

Not sure if that's right. To be none-speciesist would either involve veganism (since if it is not right to eat humans or use them for food products, it is not right to do so to animals either) or cannibalism (since if it is ok to eat animals it is ok to eat humans to). As far as I'm concerned Peter Singer's (that's where this comes from) arguments about speciesism are rather specious, but that doesn't mean I'm pro blood sports or whatever….

[DJP]

sarda karaniwan wrote:

Yeah, you may think there is no greatness and glory with those principles but that's just how the workers will treat us, like them, just human. And if still you don't see the equality there, perhaps you need to go out more.

I could see your "principles" written on the wall of a young conservatives club.For some principles written by workers (who where not afraid of reading books and educating themseleves) that form the basis of a sound understanding of socialism see these:http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/object-and-declaration-principles

[DJP]

John Oswald wrote:

Oh the old thing again: If your house is burning, etc. etc. This is covered simply. Not that such a situation is imminent or likely. My answer would be, the relationship. Rescue a stranger who happens to be human, or my dog whom I love? Simple, my dog

Of course it's not supposed to be based on a real life situation, it's a thought experiment to test a concept…Note in the question I said "we" not "I" or "you" the question is about social moral obligation rather than individual preference.Sure you could choose the dog, but you would face strong moral condemnation for doing so, and I would think this is right.But you seem to have admitted to be a speciesist in the above anyhow…Do you think it is OK to steal babies from their mothers and to keep then in your possesion for your own amusment?If the answer in no then how, by your own anti-speciesist ethics, can it be acceptable to do so with the offspring of other animals?

[DJP]

John Oswald wrote:

sentience ought to be the front line. That is my ethic.

This raises some interesting dilemas though….When the question is "who should we rescue from the burning building first, the dog or the newly born baby?" I'm sure almost everyone wouldn't hesitate and say the baby.But if we use sentience and not species to determine our priorities the answer should be the dog, since presumably dogs are more sentient than newly born infants. I don't about you but to me this is an unacceptable conclusion.So it seems to me that discrimination based soley on the grounds of species is acceptable after all…

[DJP]

John Oswald wrote:

Those wishing to eat meat should maybe be prepared to do their own killing, rather than just be open mouths at the end of a production line of mass misery and murder.

And this is why I am pretty certain that a Socialist society, whilst not being completly vegetarian, will not eat nearly as much meat as is done today. Who wants to spend all day working in a slaughterhouse?

[DJP]

I don't know where you get these 5 principles from, hazarding a guess you've just pulled them out of thin air, but they've got nothing to do with socialism. Perhaps you could add "Work makes free" as number 6?

[DJP]

We can't be all things to all people at all times.There is an important place for ideas to be discussed in depth and detail, which as we are engaged in a battle of ideas, is essential.But then there's also a place for popularising and explaining in simpler terms for those who are new to the subject, this is also essential.Both are equally important.

[DJP]

I think earlier in the thread I mentioned the "Denbunking Handbook". It's main point is compressed into one page here:http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/01/the_biggest_myth_about_debunking_myths.html

[DJP]

Seems like the US senate has taken LBirds advice on board:http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/229381-mcconnell-to-allow-climate-change-amendment-on-keystone-bill

[DJP]

John Oswald wrote:

Someone has written the old slogan: "Our loyalty should be to our own species."  But the interest of our own species is the respect and preservation of the other species. Some might like to imagine a future as all-human, with a few other species individuals kept in captivity as a souvenir of a past era. But you wouldn`t be able to live in such a world, and more to the point, why would you want to? All life is interconnected, as a true materialist would understand. The old "It`s us vs them" (humans vs other animals) doesn`t wash. The only us vs them is workers vs capitalists. It is in the interests of the workers to establish a society and a world of diversity and beauty. Socialists of the world, you have nothing to lose but your outdated, mechanistic, Cartesian chains!

I have the feeling you may be launching another attack at comrade Strawman again (poor sod he get's all the flack). Who are these mechanistic Cartesians? (Though for the record I don't think animals have souls. I don't think humans do either!)But that said I think the idea of "speciesim" is only good as a way of working out the issues but that's it.Racism turns out to be baseless because it turns out there are no grounds on which the basis of it's descrimination are founded.There are however real differences which ground discrimination between species. The suffering of a human, or other more complex animals, is different in kind to the suffering of that of less complex animals. We have to be careful not to anthropomorphsize.In some ways I think "speciesism" is a good thing, I think human infants, the mentally retarded and those in commas etc should be granted special privileges on the basis of there species regardless of the fact that other animals may be in a position to feel more suffering and have a higher level of sentience etc…What our responsibilities to other species and what our needs are can only be settled by human discourse. I do hope we are heading to a world that does treat animals more compassionately…

[DJP]

The troof is out there

[DJP]

See Rule 1. I didn't decide the rules two other comrades did and then it was ratified by the EC. Commenting on a Standard article goes in the "comments" section not "general discussion"….

[DJP]

The correct way to comment on an artilce in the Standard or the website is to go to the page you want to make comment on then either press 'comment' or 'view comments' at the bottom of the article. That will redirect you to the automatically generated thread in the comments section of the forum.Copying a whole article from the Standard and pasting it into the "general discussion" section is not the correct way to do it….

[Author]

Posts