Part of the reason for the USA's failure is MAGA but the other big aspect is a left that does not engage the real enemy
Toxic idealism
Spineless capitulation
Mindless cynicism
"Polite society" "high road" cluelessness
And lazy entitlement
Not financial entitlement but this obtuse entitled foolishness that we have the time and space to criticize some aspect of the left according to deranged standards of perfection when we're facing literal fascism
Make MAGA the target of your venom
@benroyce this reminds me of a recently published argument between Chomsky and Moinbot on whether what happened during the terrible Rwanda wars was a genocide or an atrocity.The letters between them really sounded like they fell out. I think there's a bit of pride in there too.
Appreciate I'm massively simplifying their correspondence. And I say that only to somewhat mitigate fear of trolling, which further highlights your point.
i won't troll you but i will castigate you
never mention #Chomsky again
nevermind him licking #Putin's boots over the invasion of #Ukraine
Noam is in the #EpsteinFiles defending #Epstein
he did this *after* Epstein was revealed as a pedophile human trafficker
Fuck #NoamChomsky
And I am not attacking the left, ironically, in contradiction to what I have said above:
A pedophile/ #imperialism apologist is not of the left
Chomsky is not of the left
Not anymore at least
Ok then, if chomsky isn't on the left because he's a pedophile supporter (agreed) then people who eat other animals aren't on the left either because they perpetuate a globalised violent system of exploitation torture and murder for their own taste preferences in direct contradiction of left principles of justice equality and fairness.
See what non-human victims go through
VVV
https://nationearth.com
#Left #Leftism #Vegan #Veganism #TotalLiberation #Anarchism #Veganarchism #LeftistUnity
@ambiguous_yelp I will not extend the benefit of rights to those who will not reciprocate equal benefits back to me. So fascists and nonsapient animals do not qualify. For the sake of presumptive sentience, I'll avoid eating some species, but I will still not grant them equal rights to humans. Aside from orcas, they ain't out here fighting billionaires.
Sort out the human-on-human predation, and a portion of nonhuman suffering will go with it, with the remainder easier to fight.
Humans learned to torture imprison and murder eachother because we practised on the non-human animals first
From the moment we are born the first kind of hatred we are taught is to hate other animals: we are taught that their lives are insignificant and come second to our trivial interests
If you teach a child that even an ant a small. powerless creature deserves to live and be free from undue pain that goes a long way towards accepting different sizes shapes and colors of humans.
Sapience is a circular logic, it basically means "human-like behaviour" so what you're really saying here is "only those animals that behave superficially like humans deserve a right to life"
Your reciprocation idea would exclude babies and the terminally ill and those with severe disabilities who can be of no benefit to someone who thinks in transactions like this. Unless you think they ought to share rights simply by right of being human, in which case its just arbitrary speciesism:
What specific trait does a chicken lack that a human does not that makes it ok to confine and kill one but not the other?
"
We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.”
"[1]
[1]
<>
Philip Low, edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van, Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch
2012.07.07
The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
Churchill College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
<http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf>
> @ambiguous_yelp:ahimsa.chat
2021.05.11 18:20:00 BST
@ambiguous_yelp Mmmhmm. Cool story, bro. As it happens, I don't think human babies have rights. All the protections they get from me flow from their adult guardians--which are likely coincident with their parents, but not necessarily.
The specific trait I am looking for is moral development sufficient to uphold the moral contract. I know a number of nonhuman species whose rights I respect on this basis, and I am nonhuman myself. Sapience is wisdom, not humanness.
What moral contract do chickens break? What reason would you give to them that they need to die for you?
Chickens are thinking feeling creatures who have preferences fears wants memories, they play games and have friends, they want to live in comfort and peace and avoid pain and death.
Just because they can't verbalise an explicit contract with you doesn't mean that they don't value their own life and find enjoyment in it.
You would take everything from them why because they can't speak your language?
@ambiguous_yelp Your argument does not address my moral premises. You have no argument that can, until you produce a chicken that can adopt a moral code.
Whether they enjoy life or not is entirely irrelevant. If you wish to protect one, use your capacity as a moral entity to become the guardian of a chicken. We have a ready-to-use system in place for this--property. Buy a chicken, make it your property, defend it against all comers, and it is safe from me killing it, forever.
Buying property implies a previous property owner, who was the first property owner of a chicken? Where did their property rights come from?
Treating someone as something is how you end up doing horrible things
And no I'm not trying to produce a chicken that will fulfill your moral code, I'm asking you to consider that creatures that can't speak to you have an internal life, and that they have feelings, the same feelings that you and I have, the same feelings that make life worth living for anyone
@ambiguous_yelp I can consider that separately. With respect to whether those animals have rights, it is a nullity.
"Feelings" is not the source of rights. The moral contract is the source. Creatures incompetent to enter that mutual exchange between equals do not benefit, ever, unless a creature that *can* join is willing to extend the aegis of *their* rights over it. Which usually has a price. And limitations.
You can protect as many chickens as you can afford to keep. No more.
@ambiguous_yelp I am not your professor. Educate yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Yes, the non-aggression principle is a form of social contract. It is not the only one.
I know what the social contract is in relation to political philosophy, I'm familiar with Hobbes, what I'm curious about is how it relates to your personal understanding of why you get to hurt innocent chickens
What precisely about the specific social contract you are invoking means that you should be allowed to hurt chickens who have done nothing to hurt you
#Ethics #ThomasHobbes #SocialContract #PoliticalPhilosophy #Chickens #Speciesism #HumanSupremacy
@ambiguous_yelp Chickens are neither innocent nor guilty. They lack the moral capacity for it. Their defense against being eaten by human or cryptid is the same as their defense against being eaten by a fox--roost somewhere safe.
They have zero access to the social contract. They are not moral actors. If a person kills a chicken, it is not murder; it is predation.
I could hurt chickens, if I wanted. I don't. As you say, they have neat little personalities. But they are not *people*.
Non-human animals not having responsible agency doesn’t resolve the pick the trait objection because some humans also lack responsible agency. Suffering inflicted in nature by predation is also bad just like predation by humans.
@jlou @ambiguous_yelp Nevertheless, the chicken's problems are not my problems, and vice versa. Asserting that "suffering is bad" does not address whether I have a moral responsibility to the chicken. I do not.
Your current argument is to question whether some humans, who lack responsible agency, should have rights. This does not help the chicken. It seems to be a distraction to get me talking about species.
To this, I would remind everyone that I am a fungal holobiont.
Suffering is bad means you shouldn't needlessly cause suffering. Chickens feel things and would prefer not to suffer, so you shouldn't do it to them, we all bleed the same
The Hippocratic Oath is perhaps the oldest recorded moral rule: First, do no harm.
And then there's: Treat others as you'd like to be treated
@ambiguous_yelp Humanity has ever been in thrall to its own pareidolia--seeing patterns and meaning in randomness. That's the basis of Foil Hat. Such a pity that it's still nephrotoxic to humans. I'm working on it.
You have projected your humanity on to a chicken. And much less effectively than Aardman's "Chicken Run", I might add. That heartfelt "But I don't want to be a pie!" argues better than you. Go watch. It's fun.
Golden rule is novice-level morality. Grow more.
My point with some humans lack responsible agency is that the responsible agency doesn’t even cover all humans. Presumably, you think that all humans are deserving of moral consideration. There is no morally relevant trait that can give all humans moral consideration without also accepting non-human animals’ moral value.
Suffering being bad implies that reducing suffering is good. Certainly, actions that you can reasonably expect will cause suffering would be bad
@jlou @ambiguous_yelp Incorrect. Humans that violate my social contract, namely fascists, can fuck right off.
I do not frame my morality in terms of bad and good. Those are training wheels for more sophisticated thought. And utilitarianism is bunkum. Ouchie points are not a valid basis for modeling morality.
@log @ambiguous_yelp I’m not a utilitarian. I just recognize that suffering is deserving of some moral consideration.
I’m not talking about humans that violate the social contract. I’m talking about humans that lack responsibility for the results of their actions due to a medical condition. These humans together with non-human animals form the category of moral patients.
Why can't a chicken decide to act morally?
Here are some clips of non-human animals acting altruistically plus the attached video
Dog saves stranded bird by carrying them outside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vCm-ZOWVrc
Hippo saves baby impala from dogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OI6qGPW1Nw
Pig brings food to sick brother
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R8fbIlWiDj0
Its called a counter example. You said they can't make moral decisions, I gave many counter examples of them making moral decisions therefore your premise was false
So chickens deserve to die because you can't read their minds? What reasoning from a chicken would convince you they deserve a right to life?
"
Rats free trapped companions, even when given choice of chocolate instead
"[1]
[1]
https://news.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/term/49941
2011.12.08 XX:XX:XX
Helping your fellow rat: Rodents show empathy-driven behavior
UChicago News
<https://news.uchicago.edu/story/helping-your-fellow-rat-rodents-show-empathy-driven-behavior>
> @ambiguous_yelp:ahimsa.chat
2026.02.06 17:XX:XX XXX
@ambiguous_yelp Deserving death and having the right to not be killed while participating in civilization are two *completely* different standards. I am utterly indifferent as to whether any individual chicken lives or dies. They're on their own against any threat to their continued existence. Chickens, in short, are not my problem. Nor can they meaningfully assist with any of the very real and non-frivolous problems I do have--such as American fascism.
Are you done yet?
"The fastest way to lose your rights is to only care about your own"
And you obviously are not indifferent because you eat other animals so you have a motivated reasoning to maintain your privilege of eating your preferred sandwich filling.
This "not my problem" thinking is exactly how privileged people let fascism slide because they are either unaffected or benefited by fascism.
The way of looking at the world you have detailed over this thread is one where no one but you really matters, and if someone can't profit you then they might as well be dead to you, and in fact you will pay for someone to murder them.
And if you want to say that affairs that ultimately benefit or harm you are the only ones worth moral consideration well then why can't the chicken say the same thing, you can't both be right. You are not the center of the universe. Others have feelings and preferences outside of your perspective that are just as valid as yours.
@ambiguous_yelp To reach that conclusion, you must equate food animals with people, which I have repeatedly stated is not the case. So, again, I must ask whether you made that invalid leap of logic maliciously, or accidentally.
Animals that cannot uphold the social contract do not benefit from any rights included in it. That is the principle. You have not yet restated it back to me in your own words, such that it indicates to me you understand what that means.
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
TenPastTwo
🌱🏴🅰️🏳️⚧️🐧🔧📎 Ambiyelp
Log 🪵
J Lou