Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

flex24's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I knew that the butterflies weren´t killed specifically for the exhibition. As Daywalker pointed the problem is the support. Is like, for example, find a dead deer in the forest and take him to a family meal for eating him. He was dead, I know, but eating him is promote that we can kill them for sake of taste buds pleasure. Or like supporting a museum with dead animals (taxidermia). If you pay or support them, you encourage them to kill more animals in future (for it mean that the exhibition had success).Or more simply: a piece of cow in the supermarket is dead. If you dont buy it, the cow will not return to life. But you are supporting the meat industry. By the way. I said what i have said because this is a vegan forum. Obviously in a typical non-vegan forum my claim would have been somewhat different.
  2. I apologize with Bigwii and I will consider his conseil (GET A LIFE!! and do something more productive) and also apologize with you. Anyway I should say that his interpretation was very far. I have not said he was a bad father. In fact teaching someone to be speciesist is not to be a bad father (at least for me) because being speciesist is not a problem for the son or daughter but for the non-human animals. In my view being a good father is to do what the majority do (love their children) so I have never said Bigwii is a bad father. Nevertheless I regret that instead of giving arguments for maintain one position many times people say: I disagree period. Respect my position. I dont know if I have the true but I know that there is one true and that two humans with opposite views can´t not have reason at the same time. One of them must be wrong and maybe both. But if there is a negative to argue we will never know.... And finally you have reason when you say that Bigwii said that he didnt want to offend anybody. The problem is that I reply him that the offense is not for the people who post here but for the BUTTERFLIES. In fact, I have never feel offended in this forum.
  3. 1) Malaria Well, the link that you have provided confirm what i have said: ¨Malaria (Medieval Italian: mala aria — "bad air") and formerly called ague or marsh fever in English, is an infectious disease which causes about 350–500 million infections in humans and approximately 1.3–3 million deaths annually[1] — at least one death every 30 seconds.¨ It is clear that malaria is a disease or an illness (as i have said) and not a parasite. 3) Im only sayIng that modern taxonomy does not include Plasmodium in the animal kingdom but in the protist kingdom. Taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary so you can change the criteria.In general definitions are arbitrary. 4) I think you have not undestood my points. I have never said that the more human-like is a being he/she has more right to life. I have said that all sentient beings have to be considered equally in regard to valuing his/her interests. The problem is that I can only say with 100% certainty that I am sentient and for the other beings (humans or non-humans) I can only infer. A fish doesnt resemble very much a human but I consider he/she have equal right to life than a chimp because both are sentient beings and both can experiment the world in a conscius way.
  4. I thought that you mean to use non-humans animals as experimental models but with this quote you have clarified your opinion. Nevertheless I have some points: 1) Malaria is an illness not and parasite. 2) Bacteria are not animals (You say ¨so are bacteria¨) 3) Malaria is caused by a protist (Plasmodium) nor by an animal. Protists are nor animals. 3) The problem is not if they are animals or not but if they are conscius beings (sentient beings) so the previous points are only informational 4) I don´t know how is to be a cow nor a chicken nor my mother, nor my teacher, nor Michael Jordan. But we can infer based on science and philosophy if any individual is a sentient being. Moreover, it doesnt matter how it feels to be a determined sentient being. The fact is that it is a sentient being. If I masturbate i fell pleasure, if a cow eat grass she feels pleasure. Maybe you dont get pleasure masturbating but have other sources of pleasure. If you are sentient you have the possibility of having good an bad experiences. And a sentient beings looks for the good ones and avoid the bad ones. 5) Plasmodium are not sentient beings (they are unicellular) so there are no problem with killing them (as plants or fungi). 6) Science is not sure if mosquitoes are sentient beings as are cows, chickens or fish so here should be considered human interest (because is of life and death). But this is no speciesist. If you are going to kill me I kill you first so if a mosquitoe is going to kill me I kill him. It is self-defense. 7) With regard to the lot of bacteria and protozoa mi inmune system kills I repeat: a) They are not sentient beings b) It is self-defense (Even if they were sentient)
  5. It isn´t so difficult as you say. I define vegan as putting in practic an antispeciesist mentality. So i consider equally the interests of any sentient being whatever his/her species. If i wouldnt assist to a dead-humans exposition (killed for that exposition) so i do the same with butterflies. The fact that I can not live without doing harm indirectly is completely different to pay directly for using non-human animals as resources. Moreover, the indirect harm that I supposedlly do to other sentient beings is not in based in species. In the same way I could do indirect harm to human beings because the fucking system dont offer me another alternative. I think that in this forum anybody can post : speciesist, murderers, racists, rapists, meat eaters, non-speciesist, lawyers, etc. The problem is not who post but what they post. And if I see that somebody is posting something that promote an unequal consideration of any sentient being I consider I should reply because speciesism is completely incoherent and arbitrary (the same as racism, sexism or xenophobia). The killings of bugs is not product of speciesism because we dont decide in function to species. For example if I buy clothes and in the manufacture were harmed a group o black humans, that it is not a racist attitude. In the other hand, it is clear that paying for a exposition of murdered butterflies it is a direct exploitation. For giving another example: it is different that I pay for meat than to pay for fruit and the person who sells the fruit eats meat or maybe exploit non-human animals for collecting the fruit. False. Being a non-speciesist mean to give equal value to the interest of all beings (more strictly sentient beings because they are the only beings who develop interests) without considering the species they belong. So if a cure for malaria could be found without using sentient beings as resources, there is no problem. But if a sentient being is used as a resource or mean for human ends the activity is not fair because it is based in species and species it is a irrelevant criteria for deciding whose interest should be considered at first. In science the species criteria is always used because with humans there is not involuntary experimentation (at least that is not accepted in theory). Well, the offense is not for the people who post in this forum but for the butterflies murdered (I dont have complete security that butterflies are sentient beings but there are good scientific evidence that they are. So we have to act in consequence). The problem with the butteflies is not how they were killed but why they were killed. Do you think it is ethical to kill someone without pain for making money exhibiting them? A sentient being has interest in life because he/she can enjoy it (by definition of sentient being).
  6. It is definitely a shame. dont know how can be posted that in a vegan forum. Teaching her daughter to be speciesist. What a shame. If vegans do that. What can be done by not-vegans?
  7. Well, it is one of my next projects but now I think is difficult (Maybe if you know someone who is completely bilingual could translate the texts and I will open a English version). Also you could take it as an encouragement to learn spanish By the way, there are two Spanish blogs that have an English version: www.thinkvegan.net www.veganactivist.net But the Spanish version of both blogs is far more complete
  8. Well, im not talking about forcing in any moment. I´m not talking abiut FLA. Moreover, we could not force if we wish so. Each one will change by himself. As they were educated in a speciecist society, we too and you see that we have changed. Talking about equality is neither forcing nor being violent. Radicalism is coherence and as the name say it means ¨going to the root of the problem¨. For example in my country there are 78.1 % against bullfighting. And vegans??? i don´t know. Maybe 0.2%? That is a great damage. People lives believing (as me in certain time) the bullfighters are murders and meat eaters or egg eaters are not. Now I know that neither bullfighters neither omnivores are murders, they are only people educated in a speciesist way. But the other 78%? They will continue thinking bullfighters are the evils and they are the saints. Why??' Because in my country are continously campaigns against bullfighting. And of course many of the campaigners are not vegans. They say that torturing a bull is bad in the arena but for his food is very good. Of course, im working to change that, but people that is now in the movement have to cooperate also. That is because nobody talk about that. It would be very normal if since 1970 people would have promote antispeciescism and veganism as abolitionist principle. I have heard a lot of times that people could see us as crazy freaks but they never say when we should start. Maybe in two hundred years when the number of non-humans animals murdered each year be three times more? If you have good arguments, people will understood you. People that say they are with animal rights are sometimes omnivores, ovo-lacto vegetarian. Animal rights is anything now. That is because nobody explain things as they are (well, now things are changing. All time lost would be recoverd). All people know that non-human animals suffer and feel pain. Also it is important to remember that they not only can suffer but enjoy his life. We can talk about equality and veganism using images, videos or emotional arguments (obviously always with rational arguments first). There is nothing special with bienestarist reforms. Also, getting a few antispeciecist vegans is much much better than a lot of people that thinks animals are resources but we should give them a few cm more of room. It would be a chain reaction. Antispeciescist vegans will get more antispeciecists vegans. On the other hand omnivorous reformists will get more omnivorous reformists. I dont look abolition in any place here....
  9. Well if you agree, it is better that consider working promoting veganism and equality. I know that PETA or HSUS would never change its tendencies but you really can. I don´t know if there are some organization in USA that have abolitionist strategies but you could in any case initiate your own organization. It is easy and funny, only you have to look for a few people that are antispeciscists vegans. You dont have to earn a lot of money or a very famous organization. The promotion is better at a local level, getting vegan after vegan, one by one. I´m sure that way you will do much more in the same time.
  10. The problem is that advocating those reforms: 1) Will show people that isn´t interested in non-human animals that the problem is how we treat them instead of ¿why they are exploited at all?. Moreover, they will consume animal products (meat, eggs, leather, etc) with more tranquility because they believe that the animals are well-treated. Historically it has been showed that bienestarist reforms only got perpetuating the injustice. 2) As i have said previously those reforms get only minor improvements. We can note that in thirty years of reforms we have get 25 squared cm more for laying hens. 3) All efforts we do in getting minor improvements could be directed toward promoting animal equality and and veganism. As i have said that would save much more animals. I myself direct my efforts to doing so, and now there are few organizations that do that. That is the reason because in thirty-five years instead of decrease animal explotaition, it has increased. Here are a few examples of abolitionist organizations: www.liberanimales.org (Perú) www.igualdadanimal.org (Spain) www.defensanimal.org (Spain) www.abolitionist-online.com (I think it is USA). http://www.anima.org.ar/ (Argentina) www.rightsforanimals.org (Spain) If the ¨monsters¨ as PETA or HSUS that has a lot of economical resources would change its strategy, the situation would be very different. If all were so, there would be much less people that surprise so much when they hear that some ¨crazy¨ says that human interests and non-human animal´s interests should be considered in a egalitarian way. Much more people would be vegan of course.
  11. What happens is that making bienestarist reforms will in the majority of cases get only minor improvements in the quality of life of the birds. If you compare the damage to the movement as a whole of promoting a reforming mentality with the real improvements, you could easily realize that the strategy is a very bad one.. On the other hand, much more animals are saved by making a vegan (specially an antispeciecist one) than looking for reforms. All could be good intentions. But we should analize strategy and that one is not a good one. Again I invite you to read Gary Francione interview: http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1) http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2) P.D. They dont deserve mercy, they deserve justice.
  12. It is a step for promoting the mentality that birds are objects or resources. Bienestarist reforms are the worst that could have happened to the animal rights movement. If many human animals are not vegan now is because very few (if any) are promoting animal equality and veganism as an abolishing principle instead of wait that the law looks for better condition for non-human animals. All our efforts should be directed for abolition and education. It is the best way to maximizing results with the same resources and time. Maybe it is better that you read Gary Francione interview: http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml (part 1) http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03_gary.francione_march.2006.shtml (part 2)
  13. KFC is not worst than any other industry that use non-human animals as resources. Go vegan!!!!
  14. Humane slaughter??? Let´s promote veganism and antispeciescism. Reforming injustice is perpetuating injustice.
  • Create New...