Hls

[xGriffox]

Why is property damage okay? Not everybody is going to have the same beliefs as you, so why do you think it is okay to force your opinions on others?

.
I am talking about property damage of companies with the aim of causing them great economic damage and ideally force them to close down, I am not talking about breaking the windows at your house. I'm not forcing my opinions on others because such an action isn't meant to win over support or make people think the way i think, it is meant to get results and cause these companies to no longer be economically viable.

You're a vegan, that is awesome, I have the utmost respect for that.

why is that awesome and why do you have respect for that?

But if I am working in a field that works with animals, I shouldn't have to be afraid of some vegans smashing my windows or causing damage to MY property because they don't live their lives the same way I do.

1. It won't be your property, it will be your workplace's property.

2. If you work in vivisection at this point in the game such is the nature of your "job"; you are a target of anger for those who disapprove of the systematic torture of animals because, well, you actually torture and mistreat animals. You could just as easily have picked a job that didn't involved sewing shut a monkey's eyes in the name of "medical research".

[xGriffox]

Letting animals out without an actual understanding of how the animals will survive is not a great plan, it can have negative impact on the animals being "saved" and other animals and/or areas of animal habitat.

Animal sanctuaries are generally a good place to bring mistreated animals which is what is done in a good number of AL actions.

So, what should be done about HLS then, in your opinion?

[mouseman004]

.
I am talking about property damage of companies with the aim of causing them great economic damage and ideally force them to close down, I am not talking about breaking the windows at your house. I'm not forcing my opinions on others because such an action isn't meant to win over support or make people think the way i think, it is meant to get results and cause these companies to no longer be economically viable.

But why is it your right to make sure these companies are no longer economically viable? And how is it not forcing your opinion on to others if you are trying to eliminate companies with different ideologies and views than you? If I hate mainstream music, do I have the right to go burn down a virgin megastore for condoning something I am opposed to?

.
why is that awesome and why do you have respect for that?

Having enough control and discipline to live a vegan lifestyle in a world that doesn't make it easy is respectable.

.
1. It won't be your property, it will be your workplace's property.

2. If you work in vivisection at this point in the game such is the nature of your "job"; you are a target of anger for those who disapprove of the systematic torture of animals because, well, you actually torture and mistreat animals. You could just as easily have picked a job that didn't involved sewing shut a monkey's eyes in the name of "medical research".

1. a) If I own the company it is my property
b) If I am financially dependent on the company for the welfare of my family, to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life, and you are trying to shut that company down and therefore end my employment, you may as well be throwing rocks through my house window or setting my car on fire.

While I don't necessarily condone "sewing a monkey's eyes shut", it again comes down to belief and ideology. You may see it as torture, while somebody else may look at animal testing and believe that they are helping make the world a better place by looking to cure aids, or cancer or other fatal diseases. I still don't see why you think that your differing views give you the right to destroy property that is not yours.

[xGriffox]

But why is it your right to make sure these companies are no longer economically viable?

why is it their right to exist and profit off of the suffering of animals? In the same way a company feels it has the right to profit by whatever means it chooses so people feel they have the right to stop said companies if they find their methods objectionable or immoral. It would be the same if someone sought to petition for investors to divest from the company: upon what right do they think they can disrupt this company's business?

Having enough control and discipline to live a vegan lifestyle in a world that doesn't make it easy is respectable.

But having enough courage to literally risk incarceration, potentially years of your life, for something you believe in isn't? I don't follow.

1. a) If I own the company it is my property

let's say you own HLS: Due to your own callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals, you deserve everything you've got coming; i hope a tornado destroys your home. If this seems rash to you think of any perpetrator of crimes you deem truly irredeemable and you will then know exactly how i feel.

b) If I am financially dependent on the company for the welfare of my family, to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life, and you are trying to shut that company down and therefore end my employment, you may as well be throwing rocks through my house window or setting my car on fire.

What gives YOU the right in the first place to make your living off of the death of other sentient beings? Until that right is established I don't think this question is very valid.

You may see it as torture, while somebody else may look at animal testing and believe that they are helping make the world a better place by looking to cure aids, or cancer or other fatal diseases. I still don't see why you think that your differing views give you the right to destroy property that is not yours.

around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

[straightXed]

Animal sanctuaries are generally a good place to bring mistreated animals which is what is done in a good number of AL actions.

Point being that a good number of situations don't end like that unfortunately. But yes, animal sanctuaries are a good place.

So, what should be done about HLS then, in your opinion?

My stance on that isn't important here, thats another discussion.

[straightXed]

I guess i'm not really sure of the underlying idea. I think its probably a difference of emergency, the dog is suffering in front of my eyes where i can stop it. Whereas the animal whose was tortured for the meat has already suffered and died. Its the past. I think this kinda relates to the Trolley problem in philosophy if you know what i mean. I suppose its just that one action is happening now and can be stopped. that active defense. Whereas the reason for not eating animals is proactive, stopping the NEXT animal to suffer. Their is a kernal of truth to that "just eat this the cow is already dead" shit.

The thing is the people from the ALF are using violence to stop animals suffering in the here and now and essentially in front of their eyes. With this in mind its kind of like you have done a u-turn in your thinking about using physical action in the situations in point. You are entitled to u-turn of course i am just trying to establish where you stand on this, its obviously a diificult one as you have conflicting morals with your understanding that the physical action used is wrong but you want to stop any animals suffering.

The interesting thing here is that, dog beaters, HLS workers and regular meat eaters all are involved in both current suffering and past suffering.

And essentially the logic you have used is what a lot of meat eaters use to justify their action, most would say they would not condone any cruelty they see in front of them but continue to support the sluaghter of animals as its already done and the suffering is dead and burried so to speak.

Absolutelty. Animal Industries operate like any other business in capitalism. They people who get rich exploiting animals, or women, or whatever don;t care what they make money off, only that they make money. If we make animal agriculture unprofitable because 1) we raise consciousness (i think this is best route as ill explain) or 2) freeing their "property" we make it less of an effective way to make money and they will move out.

Now i think consciousness raising is best cause it changes the root cause which is demand, not supply. If we destroy a factory farm, then all the others will just get more business you know. IF we destroy demand then they'll all lose business.

I see, i guess somehow i got the idea that you would be against the action for other reasons other than simply bad press.

So how would you go about raising consciousness in those that demand a supply of meat? And as their demand is the point i was making by switching the dog beater for a meat eater i am at a total loss as to what you fully condone in raising this consciousness?!

[xVeganAnarchistx]

The thing is the people from the ALF are using violence to stop animals suffering in the here and now and essentially in front of their eyes. With this in mind its kind of like you have done a u-turn in your thinking about using physical action in the situations in point. You are entitled to u-turn of course i am just trying to establish where you stand on this, its obviously a diificult one as you have conflicting morals with your understanding that the physical action used is wrong but you want to stop any animals suffering.

The interesting thing here is that, dog beaters, HLS workers and regular meat eaters all are involved in both current suffering and past suffering.

And essentially the logic you have used is what a lot of meat eaters use to justify their action, most would say they would not condone any cruelty they see in front of them but continue to support the sluaghter of animals as its already done and the suffering is dead and burried so to speak.

The ALF as far as i know has a policy of not causing physical harm to any animals, the researchers etc included.

Dog Beaters, and HLS workers are doing the damage currently.

Animal products consumers are doing the damage by raising demand. But the products the are using have already inflicted the suffering. I can't rescue the cow from the leather boots someone is wearing.

I mean, stepping in if its right in front of you seems like a its totally ok to me. But the problem is, in the long run (at least for the cases where there is not widespread agreement on like animal abuse of those animals we call pets (cats and dogs have... ALL THE LUCK)) i think its much better to convince people of the merits of going vegan (or not beating your dog) then just beating them up or rescuing their dogs. It just makes it easier in the long run. And the bad press issue.

I see, i guess somehow i got the idea that you would be against the action for other reasons other than simply bad press.

So how would you go about raising consciousness in those that demand a supply of meat? And as their demand is the point i was making by switching the dog beater for a meat eater i am at a total loss as to what you fully condone in raising this consciousness?!

I'm against physical violence in most cases i think. I don't think its right to beat you up or kill you cause you are killing animals, i just don't think people have really had the time to digest it, animal rights is still a pretty new concept. And i waver on whether i'm into nonviolence so that's that.

You get people to go vegan and the demand disappears. That's the consciousness raising. Beating you up or killing you or someone you love does not raise consciousness. It probably lowers it. Maybe i'll condone violence in like a thousand years haha.

[xGriffox]

Point being that a good number of situations don't end like that unfortunately. But yes, animal sanctuaries are a good place.

The unfortunate thing really is the hack jobs that go on in the name of "animal liberation" which are so poorly planned out (such as those discussed as the chief focus of this thread). The idea is to save animal lives in the most effective fashion possible and stop their suffering in the future, not to vent your anger on the individual employees at their homes.

[straightXed]

The ALF as far as i know has a policy of not causing physical harm to any animals, the researchers etc included.

I think you are being quite naive with that, they struggle to put that idea out there as they really have to from a legal standpoint. Policies existing doesn't equate to policies being adhered to.

Dog Beaters, and HLS workers are doing the damage currently.

So no damage is being done by those in the article and they were sent to prison for nothing? But the meat eater is also doing damage currently. You just don't see it, the demand is killing animals. And thats why it is like the argument a lot of meat eaters use, because they can't see the suffering they react to it differently and continue to eat meat. This is why i want to know how you are changing it.

Animal products consumers are doing the damage by raising demand. But the products the are using have already inflicted the suffering. I can't rescue the cow from the leather boots someone is wearing.

But that doesn't change the fact that their demand ensures continual suffering like i mentioned does it, the point is it animal products consumers are both inflicting as well as have inflicted suffering.

I mean, stepping in if its right in front of you seems like a its totally ok to me. But the problem is, in the long run (at least for the cases where there is not widespread agreement on like animal abuse of those animals we call pets (cats and dogs have... ALL THE LUCK)) i think its much better to convince people of the merits of going vegan (or not beating your dog) then just beating them up or rescuing their dogs. It just makes it easier in the long run. And the bad press issue.

Unfortunately the dog beating example wears a little thin, its obviously a completely different situation. But demand for meat is right in front of you too is it not? Point is you are ok with the HLS attacks and your only concern was the bad PR but the demand isn't at HLS and you mentioned wanting to focus on erradicating the demand. Nice GB's quote! I agree that to educate people of your views is much better than educating people by forcing your views upon them however you can. People will be more open to that. But it remains that animals are slaughtered daily, HLS continues to function and so stepping in there seems like something you are saying you condone but am i right in saying you don't condone stepping in on someone who happily disregards your views without entertaining them and wishes animals to be slaughtered continually for his food? It just seems like its all right in front of you when you think of it. I think i pretty much get where you stand now though so thats good...it was getting a bit confusing.

I'm against physical violence in most cases i think. I don't think its right to beat you up or kill you cause you are killing animals, i just don't think people have really had the time to digest it, animal rights is still a pretty new concept. And i waver on whether i'm into nonviolence so that's that.

Time is really quite subjective but i would say assigning rights to animals is not new at all, people have organised groups that deem the killing and eating of animals is wrong for millennia. Would it be right to use physical violence on me if my taste was for human and i made a demand for the killing of humans to feed my dietry choice? I mean if from that demand you lost a loved one and i took delight in eating that loved one in front of you? Pretty fucked up idea i know but i am wondering if perhaps if this could possibly highlight that maybe all life isn't regarded the same way? I mean, i'm not about to sit down in front of you and eat you wife, brother, sister, mother or even a perfect stranger to you but if i did would you treat me the same way as if i sat down to eat a burger in front of you? What i'm really getting at hear is that even as a vegan you are able to condone a lot of animal suffering, i am wondering if this is something you are continually aware of and if so how do you feel about it? I am sorry about the ludicrous human meat idea but its the only way i could think to show the significance of the demand i guess. I do hope it doesn't get misconstrued and go way off topic.

You get people to go vegan and the demand disappears. That's the consciousness raising. Beating you up or killing you or someone you love does not raise consciousness. It probably lowers it. Maybe i'll condone violence in like a thousand years haha.

Yeah i understand what you think consciousness raising would do but how are you doing it? I'm sat eating a burger (beef, not human!) what would you do, tell me its a dead cow? I am conscious of that already and am happy with it? I guess you could show me some evils of abitoirs or even speak of how awful HLS is and as you agree i could retort and lower any possibility of convincing me by siting the violent attacks. So back to square one and it makes me really wonder how anyone who wants to convince people that veganism is right would condone such actions. I think we kind of mentioned this in our initial few posts but it kind of got dropped. You did agree and then it kind of came accross that you didn't as there was this there and now right in front of you issue but like you have again said, it is probably detrimental to your cause.

[straightXed]

The unfortunate thing really is the hack jobs that go on in the name of "animal liberation" which are so poorly planned out (such as those discussed as the chief focus of this thread). The idea is to save animal lives in the most effective fashion possible and stop their suffering in the future, not to vent your anger on the individual employees at their homes.

For many years these kind of hack jobs were exactly what the ALF was all about until it had to change its image and "policies" to ensure it was seen to be abiding by the law...kind of like the BNP has to be with any link to the national front. Whats more unfortunate is that these hack jobs are numerous and those that support it are still large in volume and it is still in the name of animal liberation.

The idea sounds a whole lot more savory than the reality, thats for sure.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

I think you are being quite naive with that, they struggle to put that idea out there as they really have to from a legal standpoint. Policies existing doesn't equate to policies being adhered to.

as far as i know their has never been an ALF action that has done anything physically violent to humans.

So no damage is being done by those in the article and they were sent to prison for nothing? But the meat eater is also doing damage currently. You just don't see it, the demand is killing animals. And thats why it is like the argument a lot of meat eaters use, because they can't see the suffering they react to it differently and continue to eat meat. This is why i want to know how you are changing it.

they were probably sent to prison for property damage. To be honest, i think property rights are really fucked up anyone, so i probably don't think they did anything wrong, except for causing animal suffering by doing terrible PR and scaring the shit of some family when we all are responsible for the demand. I wish they would have tried to rescue animals rather than scare them.

But that doesn't change the fact that their demand ensures continual suffering like i mentioned does it, the point is it animal products consumers are both inflicting as well as have inflicted suffering.

yes they are. But what they are consuming at that moment in front of me is already committed suffering. Aside from the fact that they are using animal products as food makes it seem acceptable to use animals as food it doesn't seem the same.

Unfortunately the dog beating example wears a little thin, its obviously a completely different situation. But demand for meat is right in front of you too is it not? Point is you are ok with the HLS attacks and your only concern was the bad PR but the demand isn't at HLS and you mentioned wanting to focus on erradicating the demand. Nice GB's quote! I agree that to educate people of your views is much better than educating people by forcing your views upon them however you can. People will be more open to that. But it remains that animals are slaughtered daily, HLS continues to function and so stepping in there seems like something you are saying you condone but am i right in saying you don't condone stepping in on someone who happily disregards your views without entertaining them and wishes animals to be slaughtered continually for his food? It just seems like its all right in front of you when you think of it. I think i pretty much get where you stand now though so thats good...it was getting a bit confusing.

I want to focus on demand cause i think its best. If we could do supply side stuff without it being counterproductive. I'd be down. Though, i still think even then, its more effective to attack the demand side. It's a zero sum game, we only can devote so much time and money to animal advocacy and getting people to go vegan is the best option. But that is not to say that rescuing an animal being tortured is not a good thing. I just thinks its not the best use of resources.

Time is really quite subjective but i would say assigning rights to animals is not new at all, people have organised groups that deem the killing and eating of animals is wrong for millennia. Would it be right to use physical violence on me if my taste was for human and i made a demand for the killing of humans to feed my dietry choice? I mean if from that demand you lost a loved one and i took delight in eating that loved one in front of you? Pretty fucked up idea i know but i am wondering if perhaps if this could possibly highlight that maybe all life isn't regarded the same way? I mean, i'm not about to sit down in front of you and eat you wife, brother, sister, mother or even a perfect stranger to you but if i did would you treat me the same way as if i sat down to eat a burger in front of you? What i'm really getting at hear is that even as a vegan you are able to condone a lot of animal suffering, i am wondering if this is something you are continually aware of and if so how do you feel about it? I am sorry about the ludicrous human meat idea but its the only way i could think to show the significance of the demand i guess. I do hope it doesn't get misconstrued and go way off topic.

Yea it would, but it would be better to convince you to stop doing it then to beat you up. Demand side is still better.

I don't regard all life as the same, life i have emotional connections to means more to me. And obviously i'm socialized to think humans matter more, but i don't think i can find any reason to think that.

The loved one case is definitely different, i wouldn't beat you up if you killed any dog (probably) but if you killed my dog, then you would likely get some shit.

Yeah i understand what you think consciousness raising would do but how are you doing it? I'm sat eating a burger (beef, not human!) what would you do, tell me its a dead cow? I am conscious of that already and am happy with it? I guess you could show me some evils of abitoirs or even speak of how awful HLS is and as you agree i could retort and lower any possibility of convincing me by siting the violent attacks. So back to square one and it makes me really wonder how anyone who wants to convince people that veganism is right would condone such actions. I think we kind of mentioned this in our initial few posts but it kind of got dropped. You did agree and then it kind of came across that you didn't as there was this there and now right in front of you issue but like you have again said, it is probably detrimental to your cause.

Its not a good idea to tell people what they are doing is wrong as they are doing. But i will have movie screening. And vegan dinners and pass out literature to people. I am ready to talk about veganism or question people about animals when the time shows up.

The HLS stuff does hurt the movement, and that's why i don't condone them, but freeing animals in a vacuum is a good thing

[mouseman004]

why is it their right to exist and profit off of the suffering of animals? In the same way a company feels it has the right to profit by whatever means it chooses so people feel they have the right to stop said companies if they find their methods objectionable or immoral. It would be the same if someone sought to petition for investors to divest from the company: upon what right do they think they can disrupt this company's business?

That is such a slippery slope argument though, where do you draw the line? I noticed you didn't respond to my mainstream music example. You can't just say "well I disagree with it, so I have a right to stop it". That is not the way the real world works. Protest it all you want, that is your legal right, but when it comes to breaking the law, you do NOT have that right.

But having enough courage to literally risk incarceration, potentially years of your life, for something you believe in isn't? I don't follow.

Nope, whether it comes from the left wing or the right wing, I am against extremism. Unless it is based on issues of human rights (racism, blatent corruption in government etc), breaking the law, being violent or trying to force your views on to others is ignorant and wrong. Peope have different beliefs and no one person's beliefs are held to a higher standard than anybody elses. Just because I happen to have a different opinion doesn't mean you have the right to negatively impact my life. If I am unemployed, can't find work and I have a family to provide for and somebody offers me a job testing on animals, you are damn right I would take it. Human Life > Animal Life.


Do you support militant straight edge? Militant edgers feel really strongly about making sure nobody smokes or drinks, so does that give them the right to beat people up for smoking or to try to force their views on others? And I don't want your response to say anything about "oh well I don't condone violence so this is different", because it doesn't matter. Breaking the law is breaking the law whether its graffiti, property damage, burglery or assault.

In my view, breaking the law to try to force your beliefs on others is ignorant.

let's say you own HLS: Due to your own callous disregard for the lives of hundreds of thousands of animals, you deserve everything you've got coming; i hope a tornado destroys your home. If this seems rash to you think of any perpetrator of crimes you deem truly irredeemable and you will then know exactly how i feel.

I am not even going to get in to how fucked up I think this is.

What gives YOU the right in the first place to make your living off of the death of other sentient beings? Until that right is established I don't think this question is very valid.

The fact I am legally allowed to? That right IS established whether or not you agree with it. And the fact that not everybody holds the same view that animals and humans are equal.

around 95% of animal testing has nothing to do with medicine or "making the world a better place", I think anyone would argue they have the right to help stop unnecessary suffering, I don't see why you don't.

If 95% of the population beleived the same things you did then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place and you would have nothing to protest. I don't know why you think I am the wierd one here for not agreeing with your logic.

Your pretentious view of life, and the fact you think that your beliefs somehow put you on a higher plane of existence just blows my mind. This is why I have a problem with the extreme left wing. They make it seem as though everybody who disagrees with them is a bad person or is somehow evil. The rest of the world manages to co-exist with people with different ideologies, so I don't understand why groups like these protestors, and the ALF can't do the same.

[straightXed]

as far as i know their has never been an ALF action that has done anything physically violent to humans.

Well they can't exactly publically lay claim to it if they are trying to stick to this non violent line. But seriously, its incredibly naive to think that all the groups that work in representing the ALF haven't also been involved in violent action to humans. Just because spokes people are quick to dissassociate themselves from any groups found to be intimidating people with violence and terror. So x gets caught and prosecuted for the use of physical violence - Its easy for spokespeople to say that x was not working in the ALF's interests but thats just bullshit. These extremists use all kinds of terror tactics and there is many reports of the threats of the ALF being followed through, when you look at all these stories i really fail to see how anyone can fully buy that the ALF is as clean cut as it tells people it is. I guess your moral choices allows you to be a little more forgiving in your judgement call on them. But i think you are simply being naive.

they were probably sent to prison for property damage. To be honest, i think property rights are really fucked up anyone, so i probably don't think they did anything wrong, except for causing animal suffering by doing terrible PR and scaring the shit of some family when we all are responsible for the demand. I wish they would have tried to rescue animals rather than scare them.

well they were sentenced for the whole hate campaign, the blackmail, the property damage, the costs of about £12m, the paedophile ring stunt, the hate mail, the letter bombs etc. Nothing wrong with that though right, its good to strike fear into and destroy the lives of families who are just going about their lawful lives.

yes they are. But what they are consuming at that moment in front of me is already committed suffering. Aside from the fact that they are using animal products as food makes it seem acceptable to use animals as food it doesn't seem the same.

But what they are demanding is a lifestyle that continually ensures animals being slaughtered...what do you do? I don't think you are going to get the point i have been making here, lets attribute it to being a slightly strenuous explanation on my part.

I want to focus on demand cause i think its best. If we could do supply side stuff without it being counterproductive. I'd be down. Though, i still think even then, its more effective to attack the demand side. It's a zero sum game, we only can devote so much time and money to animal advocacy and getting people to go vegan is the best option. But that is not to say that rescuing an animal being tortured is not a good thing. I just thinks its not the best use of resources.

I guess my feelings on this will depend on your tactics for getting people to go vegan?

Yea it would, but it would be better to convince you to stop doing it then to beat you up. Demand side is still better.

I think the anger and violence ratio to non violence is all over the place...i get get a grasp on how you would really behave at all...i know its hard to actually put yourself in a fabricated situation but your responses do get rather contrasting. Still its interesting to hear what you say nonetheless.

I don't regard all life as the same, life i have emotional connections to means more to me. And obviously i'm socialized to think humans matter more, but i don't think i can find any reason to think that.

Its ok, i think humans matter more too.

The loved one case is definitely different, i wouldn't beat you up if you killed any dog (probably) but if you killed my dog, then you would likely get some shit.

well lets face it, i would be armed with a dead dog. Not really anywhere else to go with that.

Its not a good idea to tell people what they are doing is wrong as they are doing. But i will have movie screening. And vegan dinners and pass out literature to people. I am ready to talk about veganism or question people about animals when the time shows up.

And i'm sure some people become vegan but what of those who don't see any reason to change after you have tried these ways. Is more persistance required or do you just accept their choice? Or is that when the ALF step in and send out the sanitry towels?

The HLS stuff does hurt the movement, and that's why i don't condone them, but freeing animals in a vacuum is a good thing

I think i was replying to the other chap who is posting in this thread about the need to ensure that animal releases are well thought through. There has been some terrible incidents that have occurred where activists haven't fully understood the ramifications of certain releases. Its safe to say not all activists are that smart unfortunately!

[xVeganAnarchistx]

1)I think me and grif are using rights in a way different than you and mouseman. We don't think what is right is whatever the law says (but now, im speaking for myself) but what a reasoned argument compels us to think. Things are right or wrong irrespective of the law. If 95% of people that slavery was just grand, i'd still say they have no right to enslave others (assuming i had heard the well reasoned arguments that i think it is the duty of liberationists of all stripes to explain). For me, and im assuming grif, if the law says i can rape whoever i damn well please, it certainly does not mean i have a right to rape whoever you know.


2)Mouseman, you need to give an argument why humans matters more than animals, and be careful, because if you are arbitrary i'm going to drop some racist or sexist argument on you and make you explain why i should be a racist or sexist, cause its hard work doing all the explaining haha. don't just say cause humans are humans

3)my tactics for getting people to go vegan are reasoned argument, being actually convinced of something keeps you that way for life. Being forced against your will does not, in fact, it often makes you reject reasoned arguments

4)I don't think they do, I feel that humans matter more, but no argument for that position has every convinced me that they actually do
I don't think i have any rational basis for believing that they do. And so i try to not think that. But even if they did, it doesn't really seem to defend us against veganism, cause what does wasteing resources on feeding animals that we bring into existence, animals who live lives of suffering, only so we might be a little happier really have to do with whether animal A is better than animal B or C.

5)I think convincing comes in levels, some of us are predisposed to think any one who can suffer should not have to endure suffering for others comfort. Some are far from that. But the more we talk to people, the more that will be convinced. For the small minority that might always be unreachable, we'll treat them like nazi skins, just build a society where its nearly impossible to be a racist fuck.

[straightXed]

1)I think me and grif are using rights in a way different than you and mouseman. We don't think what is right is whatever the law says (but now, im speaking for myself) but what a reasoned argument compels us to think. Things are right or wrong irrespective of the law. If 95% of people that slavery was just grand, i'd still say they have no right to enslave others (assuming i had heard the well reasoned arguments that i think it is the duty of liberationists of all stripes to explain). For me, and im assuming grif, if the law says i can rape whoever i damn well please, it certainly does not mean i have a right to rape whoever you know.

Oddly enough i reasoned argument is what i use to constitute my belief also. But fortunately the reasoning i use takes into consideration the structured society i live in and attempts to consider everyone in its reasoning. Theres some wild statements flying around here that don't seem to do that, see if you can spot them.

2)Mouseman, you need to give an argument why humans matters more than animals, and be careful, because if you are arbitrary i'm going to drop some racist or sexist argument on you and make you explain why i should be a racist or sexist, cause its hard work doing all the explaining haha. don't just say cause humans are humans

He did give an example that was akin to things you yourself have said. He spoke of looking after immediate family and how they are more important to him. And you yourself said similar things about how you have more connections emotionally. This is just an observation and i shall of course let mouseman answer as he sees fit.

3)my tactics for getting people to go vegan are reasoned argument, being actually convinced of something keeps you that way for life. Being forced against your will does not, in fact, it often makes you reject reasoned arguments

That really is great and all but it doesn't answer where you go after your "tactics" are not convincing someone. Do you then accept someone elses opinion and accept that while you think they are wrong that you can't convince them because they are just as sure of their opinion as you are of yours. At that point where no matter what you do with reasoned argument gets you no where, what is your next choice given that they continue to eat meat?

4)I don't think they do, I feel that humans matter more, but no argument for that position has every convinced me that they actually do
I don't think i have any rational basis for believing that they do. And so i try to not think that. But even if they did, it doesn't really seem to defend us against veganism, cause what does wasteing resources on feeding animals that we bring into existence, animals who live lives of suffering, only so we might be a little happier really have to do with whether animal A is better than animal B or C.

you really should stick with the quoting system when posting, as well as making it easier to follow it also shows consideration for the person/s you are addressing.

to be honest the issue you are having with feeling more for humans is not really what i was getting at, its just gone off the point. i was originally discussing the actions you condone and the ways you deal with the actions you don't etc. this seems to just be born from my human meat example. Which i knew had the potential to leave the actual point i was discussing behind but hoped it wouldn't go to far without getting back on track. so you are of course welcome to list what you consider a waste of resources but its not the direction i was going. sorry about that. That is of course if this paragraph was related to my post?!

5)I think convincing comes in levels, some of us are predisposed to think any one who can suffer should not have to endure suffering for others comfort. Some are far from that. But the more we talk to people, the more that will be convinced. For the small minority that might always be unreachable, we'll treat them like nazi skins, just build a society where its nearly impossible to be a racist fuck.

wow, i'd love to be living in this society where its nearly impossible to be a racist, just this past week there have been reports on local news about racial hate and race related killings of shop owners here. Its all too common and i live in a place that doesn't have a lot of this compared to other areas. I will say that, at this juncture, the more you are talking to me the less you are convincing me that you are open and reasonable and i think thats important in allowing me to make a free choice to feel you are right (or wrong) about being vegan. I am detecting a lot of anger emerging, i am remaining open to your discussion but in the last sentence you basically likened meat eaters to "nazi fucks" and honestly thats not a convincing attitude. I think when people become vegan they eventually forget they were not always one and treat those that still aren't with considerable contempt, its understandable, as meat eaters are doing what you find so awful. But i guess thats your cross to bear, it must be hard to be considerate and respectful to people you probably have grown to think are disgusting in their actions