civilized objects

Vielen sagen vegan sein hieße ein “Verzicht” …

Leben zu zerstören – zu töten – ist kein Verzicht?

Leben zu schützen, zu achten, zu respektieren, ist ein Verzicht?

Auf welcher Seite der Gleichung bewegt sich das Denken von Jemandem?

Ist er oder sie pro-Tötung nichtmenschlichem tierischen Lebens? Oder ist er oder sie eins, zusammenfühlend, -denkend und -handelnd mit den so anderen, so bewundernswerten Lebenwesen, die wir Tiere nennen?

Destruktivität ist nicht nur immer Ausdruck  der eigenen Selbstdestruktivität, Destruktivität ist auch die Folge verantwortungslosem Denkens, das ist ein Denken, das nicht fähig ist die großen Bezüge vom “Selbst” hin zur unbegrenzten Außenwelt herzustellen.

Vegan sein heißt Leben zu achten. Das der anderen Lebenwesen, das eigene und das Leben als Ganzes, die ganze Welt in ihrer Komplexität.

Vegan sein ist kein Verzicht.

( Eine ungleiche Gleichung: Töten oder verstehen lernen wollen )

Eine Anmerkung zur Auswahl dieser Grafik: die Frage warum sich das Problem des Tötens bei Raubtieren anders gestaltet als beim Menschen, muss man gesondert thematisieren. Aber eines das ich dazu aber grundsätzlich sagen will ist, das unsere Verantwortlichkeit und undere Rolle auf dieser Welt, und unser Sinn, ein eigener ist und ein selbstgegebener. Wenn nichtmenschliche Tiere andere Tiere töten, liegt das im Bereich ihrer Lebensweise und ihrer Lebensethik. Die Lebensphilosophien allen existierenden Lebens haben Schnittstellen miteinander, die sich auf differenzierte und diefferenzierbare Weise zueinander verhalten können.

Kommentar zu: DOMIAN – Gespräch mit Veganer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgpFrFgUeF0& (der Link öffnet sich in einem neuen Fenster)

Ok, beide haben ein Problem mit Tierrechten, Domian sowieso – denn er ist nicht mal vegan – und der vegane Anrufer auch, denn er hat kein greifendes Argument für Tierrechte, sondern sagt nur “das ist ethisch nicht ok” und “keine Notwendigkeit”. Domian sagt intuitiv richtig, dass der vegane Anrufer etwas postuliere. Die Forderung nach ethischer Berücksichtigung setzt IMMER eine Postulierung voraus. Auch in der Sache von Menschenrechten. Was Tierrechte anbelangt, und dies ist noch mehr als eine Postuliering: es gibt keine TATSÄCHLICHEN Menschenrechte ohne ein Zulassen und eine Anerkennung der vom Menschen in unabhängiger Weise existierenden Rechte nichtmenschlicher Tiere  (die Frage der Existenz und ihres Rechts) .

Tierrechte stehen zum menschlichen Paradigma in einem autonomen Verhältnis.

Recht ist nicht abhängig von der Definition. Es gibt Rechte, auch wenn sie vom Menschen nicht anerkannt werden, nicht verstanden werden, nicht berücksichtigt werden. Am besten lässt sich das beim Verständnis über das ureingenste individuelle Recht nachempfinden (das von der Gemeinschaft beschädigt oder gefährdet werden kann, auch zu “unrecht”, d.h. in einem unvernünftigem Maße). Nun, auch was außerhalb unseres menschlichen Denk- oder eher Erfassungsbereichs liegt hat in sich Berechtigung.

Das Universum ist in sich Gesetz unabhängig von unserem Sein und unserem Begreifen. Wir können der Welt mit Hinwendung und Repekt begegnen und das Dasein und das sich damit koppelnde Recht des Anderen verstehen lernen, akzeptieren und schützen vor ungerechten Übergriffen durch Menschen.

 this year is gonna be amazing. AR is strong and will get even stronger. Veganism is a must by now, yeah and even the moral “musts” take till they take over a world with 7 billion humans. This is no utopic talk, this is the evolution of revolution … .

A HAPPY AND CREATIVE 2012 TO ALL THE GOOD MINDED FRIENDS

Interessant

Für Hannah Arendt sind Freiheit und Wohlstand Antonyme, in dem Moment, in dem man Gefahr liefe, beide zu verwechseln. Wohlstand gewährleistet keine Freiheit. Nur die völlige nackte Armut verhindert die Chance zur Auflehnung überhaupt.

Hannah Arendt: Wahrheit, Macht, Moral By Hans-Martin Schönherr-Mann
In der Freiheit realisiert sich der Sinn alles Politischen, der sich nicht darauf reduzieren darf, Wohlstand zu gewährleisten.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_die_Revolution
Unter Freiheit versteht Arendt nicht Befreiung von Not, Elend oder Furcht. Diese Befreiung sei eher negativer Art, in fast jeder Staatsform möglich und eine gute Voraussetzung für eine Revolution. Positiv verstanden bedeute Freiheit die Möglichkeit, frei zu handeln.

Auch hier Kommentare zum Begriff von der Betonung von Freiheit statt Wohlstand bei Hannah Arendt
Die Sorge um die Welt und die Freiheit des Handelns: zur institutionellen … By Jürgen Förster

… siehe auch diesen Auszug aus: Die Pathologie der Moderne- Hannah Arendt und der Verlust der politischen … von Andreas Bock

etc.

Herr K. der kürzlich den H. Arendt Preis erhielt, hat dieses wichtige Axiom bei Arendt politisch nicht verstanden:

http://www.fr-online.de/blob/view/11260676,8499320,data,kermani-arndt-preisrede.pdf.pdf

“Es ist im Sinne der Weltbürgerschaft, die Hannah Arendt für das politische Handeln anmahnte, eine Aufgabe auch für uns – und zwar nicht nur für politische Stiftungen. Was die arabischen Völker jetzt am dringendsten benötigen, ist nicht die Aufklärung über ihre Rechte, sondern handfeste Beiträge zum Abbau der Massenarmut, also etwa die Aufhebung von Zöllen, das Ende subventionierter Agrarexporte, die die lokale Landwirtschaft zerstören, die Entwicklung der Infrastruktur, von Strom, Wasser, Energie, Bildung, natürlich auch Wirtschaftshilfen und eher kurz- als mittelfristig die Integration in den europäischen Binnenmarkt. Ja, das würde teuer, das würde sehr viel mehr kosten als Broschüren, die an die sentimentale Sprache von Tierschutzvereinen erinnern. Aber wieviel wäre für Europa politisch, ökonomisch und strategisch verloren, wenn sich südlich des Mittelmeeres die Geschichte seiner eigenen Revolution wiederholte.”

Vielleicht hätte Herr K. sich nicht an diesem Zitat aufhängen sollen:

“Even worse was that all societies formed for the protection of the Rights of Man, all attempts to arrive at a new bill of human rights were sponsored by marginal figures– by a few international jurists without political experience or professional philanthropists supported by uncertain sentiments of professional idealists. The groups they formed, the declarations they issued, showed an uncanny similarity in language and composition to that of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. No statesman, no political figure of any importance could possibly take them seriously;”
-hannah arendt, origins of totalitarianism, p. 289, 1954 edition.

Und zurück zu der Frage über Wohlstand oder Freiheit:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/arendt/ In the case of the French Revolution, the subordination of political freedom to matters of managing welfare (the “social question”) reduces political institutions to administering the distribution of goods and resources (matters that belong properly in the oikos, dealing as they do with the production and reproduction of human existence). Meanwhile, the American Revolution evaded this fate, and by means of the Constitution managed to found a political society on the basis of comment assent. Yet she saw it only as a partial and limited success. America failed to create an institutional space in which citizens could participate in government, in which they could exercise in common those capacities of free expression, persuasion and judgement that defined political existence. The average citizen, while protected from arbitrary exercise of authority by constitutional checks and balances, was no longer a participant “in judgement and authority,” and so became denied the possibility of exercising his/her political capacities.

also, as quoted here:

“[...] When they appeared on the scene of politics, necessity appeared with them, and the result was that the power of the old regime became impotent and the new republic was stillborn; freedom had to be surrendered to necessity, to the urgency of the life process itself. Revolutionary government became hostage to the (biological) welfare ofthe people (1963, 60). Robespierre referred to it as ‘missing the moment to found freedom’” (Arendt, 1963, 60). http://arts.anu.edu.au/sss/apsa/Papers/walsharendt.pdf

… Arendt insists not only that politics should have nothing to do with welfare or economic justice,  but also that any attention paid to such concerns will jeopardize the ability of politics to deliver the one good – freedom – that is actually in its power to provide. To saddle politics with welfare issues is utterly futile, because politics and political institutions cannot successfully adress such issues. Hannah Arendt: an introduction by John McGowan.

etc.

The Connyland dolphinarium in Lipperswil is the only remaining dolphinarium in Switzerland. Please ask for the closure of this dolphinarium!

Two dolphins were found dead following a rave at Connyland. The Swiss marine park had initially been accused of killing Shadow and Chelmers by allowing a deafening two-day rave to be held just a few yards from the dolphins’ pool. Campaigners had warned that the dolphins could be affected by holding the event so close to the pool, yet the authorities went ahead with the rave. Animal activists from ProWal and The Whale and Dolphin Protection Society recorded noise levels of over 100 decibels outside the park, well within earshot of the dolphins. According to Andreas Morlok from Prowal, this is comparable with that of a pneumatic drill on top volume. It has now been suggested that the dolphins may have been drugged and poisoned by ravers.

Please sign this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/dolphins-die-after-rave-at-connyland

I commented this – see below – on this blog (follow link) in regards to the question about who is really represented in the occupy movement. The blogger here holds the view that ethnic minorities get less media attention for their concerns than white protesters get when attacked by the police at the occupy demos. She includes “moslems” as one of these minorities not represented. One commenter added in that context:

Peter Walsh PERMALINK November 24, 2011 6:15 pm
It is no great surprise that the white media would be biased towards whites, similarly, crime in middle class (white) neighbourhoods is taken as more important and serious than crime in working class neighbourhoods. Most people have an allegiance to their own group, what is interesting is where they draw the boundaries of ‘their’ group. Is it their family, their sex, class, nation, their species? I am not defending this but surely you also have a slight bias towards your group? Even if your group is ‘humans’ if not then why are you sympathetic to indigenous people using animals? However, I think it is offensive to call this behaviour supremacist, offensive to the victims of actual supremacist violence. You mention your ‘Muslim’ friends’ which is interesting because you could not find a better example of an actual supremacist force that that of Islam. A religion where everyone is to obey the same religious laws, to eat cruelly slaughtered Halal meat, where women have to cover their faces in public, anti-gay and anti-Jewish.

However, I wrote:

and what about people who are plainly individuals and don’t fit into any of these categories? we keep pushing people back into the pits that they want to climb out of. I agree with many points Peter Walsh has made on here about religion. If you ever lived in a state such as Iran, you would know what religion means (if it becomes politics – no seperation of “church” and state). My best friend is gonna be executed there for blogging. If racism is an issue, then religious hatred is an issue too.The monetary world is one we are all affected by, I think that’s what the 99% percent idea kind of expresses.

Three snippets from my essay “What is an animal and what is a human?”

“We can ask if the interpretations of the characteristics, that are considered to make up the marking dividers within a human-animal hierarchy, are in reality a negation of the autonomous value of otherness in nonhuman animals.”

“We know that the single criterion [against which we measure anything nonhuman animals do] that serves as our standard, is the human parameter, i.e. the human model counts as the ideal, as the standard, for creating norms. So what happens if we put this standard of measurement into doubt?”

“Biology has already determined what the identity of nonhuman animals is, and even the Animal Rights movement has satisfied itself with placing the moral question somewhere out of reach by accepting the explanation of the identity of animals as something strictly biological.”

For more on this, see: http://simorgh.de/niceswine/three-snippets-moving-beyond-the-horizon-of-homocentrism

REMEMBER, REMEMBER

Saturday 5th of November was not just the 406th anniversary of an attempt by a group of religious zealots to seize power, it was also the 10th anniversary of the death of activist Barry Horne (see SchNEWS 330).

Barry died while on hunger strike in Full Sutton Prison, protesting against Neo-Labour’s support of the vivisection industry. This was despite them promising (before they got into power mind) that they would bring the practice to an end. At the time Barry was serving 18 years for firebombing a number of branches of Boots, who were still testing on animals.

Around 200 marched to Huntingdon Life Sciences, while many other demos, actions and gigs (including the SchNEWS benefit) were dedicated to the memory of the man whose commitment brought international media attention and served as motivation for countless activists.

And sadly his battle still needs fighting; HLS are still going – so if you want to carry on Barry’s work see http://speakcampaigns.org

http://www.barryhorne.org

Barry Horne Memorial Demo

cambridge-news.co.uk : HLS demo marks 10th anniversary of activist’s death

source: 11 NOV 2011 # http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news7963.php

HAVING A FIELD DAY

Hunters continue to flout the law on hunting with dogs, and sabs continue to get in their way every week.

On Tuesday 25th October a hound from the Cotswold Vale Farmers Hunt was hit and killed by a lorry on the A34. The pack was illegally pursuing a fox when it attempted to cross the road, sabs managed to prevent further accidents. The hunt have since accused the saboteurs of causing the death. In case there was any doubt that it was the hunt who were guilty of recklessly endangering their dogs, they repeated the same trick of losing control of the pack on a busy road, this time caught on film by hunt monitors (http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/news/archive/320-hunt-saboteurs-association-press-release-7th-november-2011).

On Saturday 5th November the Old Surrey, Burstow & West Kent Fox Hunt was sabbed by a number of different groups. The Burstow has a bit of a reputation for violence and last weekend was no exception. Frustrated hunt supporters attempted to block a narrow bridge that sabs were crossing, other supporters came from behind and one sab was pulled off the bridge and cracked her head on a concrete slab. Police were in attendance and have been given footage of the incident.

The more numbers in the field, the less violence gets inflicted on both foxes and sabs. To find your local sab group and get involved check http://hsa.enviroweb.org

source: 11 NOV 2011 # http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news7963.php

Two comments of the non-ill-thinker

ill and vegan, it’s just ok
A: As a vegan you ought not to fall ill, because if you do, somebody might blame it on your diet.
B: Really?

money makes the values that represent the values of the human system in a “tangible” or “measurable” way
A: I think the monetary system feeds itself also from the demand / consumption pattern, the willingness of people to buy too much. The crux is, without buying power there won’t be any jobs. So either we buy and have jobs, or … what???
B: Something else is the crux, namely that the entire human system bases or an exploitative enmity towards the rest of nature.

fantasy / perspectives

reality / mutual concern