@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.

@TenPastTwo

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

@benroyce

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.

@log

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

#Speciesism #HumanSupremacy

@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.

@log

What moral contract do chickens break? What reason would you give to them that they need to die for you?

#Speciesism #HumanSupremacy #Chickens #Ethics

@log

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?

#Ethics #Speciesism #HumanSupremacy #Chickens

@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.

@log

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

#Ethics #Speciesism #HumanSupremacy

@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.

@log

Why do you care about a moral contract anyway what is the contract? Something like a non aggression principle?

#Ethics

@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.

@log

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*.