No shared positions on animal and human ethics

If a high in human ethics is inseparably accompanied by factual animal degradation coming in any form, then such ethics are questionable and can’t be left uncriticized because of the imperative of “humanness”.
antibiologistic antispeciesist animal sociology

Human ethics are questionable in how they function within. To use the notion of “humanness” to legitimate objectifications of animal bodies is part of the prolongment of inner human injustice equally as it is injustice towards nonhumans. The forced, expected exclusive solidarity with “the human” separates the logics of socio-ethical communities from one another.
antibiologistic antispeciesist animal sociology

Destruction by definition

Speciesism = destruction by definition

The “common denominator” is often used to derogate animality:

Like “animals and humans both experience emotions/sensations like pain, joy, hunger, affection” … yet nonhumans are supposedly driven by instinct the same people say at the same time …

The common denominator only is that: a common denominator. It doesn’t explain animality in any sense autonomous from human domination.

Putting ourselves as “humans” in hierarchies over nonhuman animality mostly stays in place with people citing the classic common denominators, where nonhumanity is attributed with any similarities or resemblances we think fit for the nonhuman animal realm.

As long as people explain nonhumanity in terms of biologistic or any other reductive parameters, common denominators aren’t really a step to break up the theoretical disenfranchisement that always makes up the basis for human societies to ‘destroy by definition’.

The common denominator gains its sense when you accept the compared one in their own autonomous and thus inviolable rights.

Deindividualizing subjectivity

Taking animals/animal groups “as a whole” still often deindividualises. Something like an antispeciesist-antibiologistic animal sociology would be a emancipative step against that.
Talking about speciesist injustice means talking single fates –billions of single fates. Routinely blurring out the fate-scope means avoiding the subjective level of ‘nonhumanness’.
Objectification even if “well meant” is derogatory towards nonhumans.
antispeciesist-antibiologistic animal sociology

Institutionalized killing as a ritual killing

Speciesism is not alone the institutionalized killing it’s also the ritualized killing.

It’s the sacrifice – done for the “human good”. The idea of sacrificing the life of the other for my own “greater good”, still holds the facet of the meaning the subjective-other must have had in my eyes, before or as I chose to sacrifice him/her. A sacrifice means to hurt/harm the other, to hurt/harm his/her integrity that is being put below some “other, ‘higher’ needs…”.

If I trace the killing back to pure “utilitary needs” humans had, how do you explain speciesism beyond its institutionalized face, where nonhumans have become pure objects of humans explaining them? That is, how do you explain ritual killings or speciesism in culture, arts, religion? Speciesist sadism/brutality?

The other is there.

Biologistic speciesism and you

We want to satisfy our basic sensual needs, because we’re instinctual beings – unlike you are. We forage, we breed, we think in terms of territory, we are intelligent and sensitive, but all within the frame of instinct. And that’s more or less all you need to know to understand our kind of being human. This is how biologistic speciesism works – in and outside the animal rights movement (…). It applies a reductive lens to your life, where all you do is predetermined by behavioral parameters they tie to their abstract and arbitrary concept of “instinct”. Concepts like “thinking” are understood as bound to biological markers, language is just seen as comparably primitive – again bound to instinctual behaviour, e.g.
Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Collectivism, life, speciesism

How the process of life is being reflected

  • Regarding human life – some sequences are praised in extremes, while some sequences are faded out, being kept cloaked
  • Regarding nonhuman animal life – a taboo-zone within human collectivity , its continuously being suggested that their death is meaningless, compared to ours, considerations of justice are avoided
  • Ecology, discussed simply as something that has to sustain “us” humans

Gruppe Messel, Tierautonomie

Denial is part of the faunacide

Animal Rights keeps getting located too close to biology and the natural sciences, when it comes to explanations and definitions of nonhuman animal life.

Why aren’t Human Rights a matter of mostly natural sciences? Why do we see human actions as expressions of social interactional communicative meaningfulness in terms of culture?

The pure continued act of denying nonhuman animals their own cultures, in particular in context with their natural environments and habitats and the forceful separation of destruction of those respectfully … is part of the ideolgical faunacide.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

بسیاری از مردم
برای آرمان های جمعی آنها.
حیوانات و طبیعت به آنها ثانویه است.
من با چنین افرادی مخالف هستم
من حتی آن را رد می کنم.