AnarchyBoard

Natapoc wrote:

In this case, I reject the premise.
It is false to claim that governments are particularly welcoming to refugees. The state and capital thrive on causing the very oppression that the people you speak of are attempting to flee.
Instead of talking about the problems of refugees, why not speak instead of the policies which create conditions that force people to abandon their homes? The fact is, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan, Northern Africa are all hot spots of western imperialism.

Yes. There resides the majority of the problem : the state spreading it's counter-terrorist propaganda, claiming that they're occupying Middle East in order to destroy the great "heart of terrorism". While Islamic terrorism started by the occupation of US armies in Irak'n Afghanistan, and Oussama Ben Laden warning Bush that if he does not stop his colonialist policy, they will strike back.

Speaking of borders, I agree that the idea of imagining inexistent things is obsolete (like governments, God, authority, etc). But federal libertarian socialist ideals like the ones of Proudhon, who proposed federalism as a key of self-management, seems pretty interesting.

Instead of creating (like most leftists want) one big union, why not create lots of tiny countries to make easier worker's self-management of the given territory ? I know that you seem to not appreciate the idea of division, but if people tend to love a specific place and wanna keep a strong identity feeling, I think we should let them do so.

Irontown ii wrote:

I vote for being able to choose more than one option for the above poll :)

Which one ?

Green anarchism for plants, animals and human beings altogether!

Nice ;]

Queer anarchism, as well for anarcha-feminism, aren't eventually forms of society, but rather the act of giving up state social justice to start taking direct action. Gays and women shall not call the state to help them in their emancipation, but shall rather do it by themselves in order to make the change they wanna see in their very life. The state can't play the role of parenting or babysitting the ones who remain "below"... It shall not exist in the first place.

As an add on, people that do not belong to these groups should be a part of anti racist/sexist/homophobic struggles.These struggles should not be thought of as concerns for only these groups

God in heaven wrote:

The anti-war and anti-industrial movement i grew up in was awesome, and it collapsed and vanished almost overnight.
Peace.

Explain :]

DEN Puppet wrote:

*blink*

Hi there!

Irontown ii wrote:

An addition: not all humans have full moral agency either. Babies, some people with significant cognitive disabilities/mental health issues that would affect their ability to understand concepts of right and wrong and even perhaps future generations (making our environment/the earth more inhospitable to us in the future could be said to harm the people who do not exist yet but who will. They would not be moral agents because they cannot act morally or immorally, but of course they matter).
Humans are not automatically considered moral agents simply because they are humans

Sorry for the delayed response; I never argue philosophy while sober (such is extemely unsafe) and, unfortunately, my tastes are expensive. Now that this proletarian has saved up a bit, let us continue:

Variation in intellectual capacity (to wit, "intelligence") is precisely why capacity for suffering is the better standard. The ability to reason cannot be the basis of moral status, as then infants, children, and the intellectually disabled may be tortured and murdered with impunity. Nevermind non-humans. Moral relativism also leads to this horror, and my response to that case, as expressed in a post long ago, remains: FU*KING NEVER.

So, humans and non-humans are instead morally relevant to the extent that they can be made to suffer. In this state of equality it necessarily follows that humans do not automatically prevail merely because they are human (or, human supremacy must be rejected). But it must also necessarily follow that non-humans do not automatically prevail either (non-human supremacy must also be rejected).

Therefore, it cannot be *always* wrong to use non-humans for human purposes. For instance, I think equine-derived vaccines, benefiting humans and non-humans alike, are ethically defensable (where great care is normally and reasonably taken to ensure the welfare of the equine in question to the greatest extent possible, of course.)

It's my impression that "animal liberation" is frequently a cover for non-human supremacy. I must reject this position not only because it is indefensable by reason, but also because it creates a safe space for supremacy of any sort. Including that of homo sapiens.

Renewed dissonance wrote:

Sorry for the delayed response; I never argue philosophy while sober (such is extemely unsafe) and, unfortunately, my tastes are expensive. Now that this proletarian has saved up a bit, let us continue:
Variation in intellectual capacity (to wit, "intelligence") is precisely why capacity for suffering is the better standard. The ability to reason cannot be the basis of moral status, as then infants, children, and the intellectually disabled may be tortured and murdered with impunity. Nevermind non-humans. Moral relativism also leads to this horror, and my response to that case, as expressed in a post long ago, remains: FU*KING NEVER.
So, humans and non-humans are instead morally relevant to the extent that they can be made to suffer. In this state of equality it necessarily follows that humans do not automatically prevail merely because they are human (or, human supremacy must be rejected). But it must also necessarily follow that non-humans do not automatically prevail either (non-human supremacy must also be rejected).
Therefore, it cannot be *always* wrong to use non-humans for human purposes. For instance, I think equine-derived vaccines, benefiting humans and non-humans alike, are ethically defensable (where great care is normally and reasonably taken to ensure the welfare of the equine in question to the greatest extent possible, of course.)
It's my impression that "animal liberation" is frequently a cover for non-human supremacy. I must reject this position not only because it is indefensable by reason, but also because it creates a safe space for supremacy of any sort. Including that of homo sapiens.

I'm just curious, do you subscribe to a utilitarian system of ethics with minimization of suffering as its basis?