View Full Version : Hunters are 'serial killers'.
Crazed Rabbit
11-10-2006, 07:26
A surreal look into the forum of a bunch of animal rights nuts:
http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4538&highlight=crain
Apparently, hunters are serial killers and justice is served when they die;
well, someone had to make a post like that eventually [ie. asking why they are celebrating a person's death]. just let us have a moment to revel in justice since we spend much of the rest of our lifes stressed, under arrest or doing boring profitless protests because of the selfish **** like this **** in the world.
this man set out to kill others for fun, bet he didnt want to die himself did he?? i say ha ha bloody ha.
Hunters who "properly protect themselves" (follow the safety guidelines, point their weapons in the "right" directions, aren't stupid enough to fall out of their tree stands) are frequently killed/maimed as a direct result of their hunting activity. What can be expected? You climb a tree, crawl under or over fencing, stumble around on uneven ground while carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun ... safety guidelines be damned. Throw in a cooler of favorite brew and the safety inhibitions just sort of take a back seat to the anticipation of the "thrill of the kill."
When the hunters kill each other, that's not exactly the thrill they have in mind, but what the hell ... a kill is a kill. Who knows? Maybe the widow will have her hunter hubby's head mounted on the den wall as a poignant rememberance of his love for the sport. I'm surprised the law doesn't allow this in my beloved state of Texas.
...
Hunters are willing to deal with these dangers because they are selfish, arrogant killers who willingly live violent, hateful lifestyles involving the cruel, pointless destruction of innocent, sentient life. Whether or not they are so willing to accept the consequences when those potential dangers become their stark realities is another matter. Of course, at that point, most of them are not in a position to debate the issue.
So: When a hunter is killed while in pursuit of his sport, I again offer my expression of sympathy:
"Happy! Happy! - Joy! Joy!"
Apparently, when humans (which are equal to animals) hunt, its evil, but when animals do it, its the natural cycle.
Need a bit more righteous anger? Check out these animal-whacko books;
http://www.akuk.com/mainpage.php?startwith=20&ThisSub=46
Look for 'rage and reason'.
It is one thing to disagree about hunting, but these folks have gone off the deep end of hate.
Edit: What drives them to this? Perhaps feeling empty in the world, then looking for something to stand for, to fill a void in their life?
CR
Well, it can be said that some guys are just out there to spill as much blood as possible without repercussions, even though I doubt killing another man is on the agenda. I'm pretty indifferent either way - some guys want to go off and put their lives at risk for a weekend to go kill stuff, that's fine with me.
Edit: What drives them to this? Perhaps feeling empty in the world, then looking for something to stand for, to fill a void in their life?
CR
It's their religion. Animal rights activists of that sort are as dogmatic and illogical as any other religious fanatic. Like all religions, theirs fills some void (usually a self-created void in the first place) in their lives. They fill the void with illogical nonsense, overbearing self-righteousness, unreasoning faith in their belief system and a general inability to grasp the possibilty of differing views. They "know" they're right. Because of that, they can't be reasoned with in any meaningful way. No different than any other religion, really.
I really got a laugh out of some of the threads on that site.
It is one thing to disagree about hunting, but these folks have gone off the deep end of hate.
Edit: What drives them to this? Perhaps feeling empty in the world, then looking for something to stand for, to fill a void in their life?
CRI think it borders on insanity... you decide which side of the border they're on. :dizzy2:
I don't hunt and don't envision myself ever doing so- but I think it serves an important recreational and conservational service. And some of those animals are tasty. :yes:
Man....that site is wacky...:inquisitive:
personally I´d say I think there is something wrong with people that hunt for fun....hunting for food I have no problem with....but I see something basically wrong in going out and killing something just for the hell of it......but even speaking of those people I wouldn´t go as far as calling them "serial killers"....a little twisted maybe....but come on...let´s not go over the deep end here.
I'm also against hunting if one does it only for fun and some trophy.
But this forum seems to be full of weird people of all sorts.:wall:
InsaneApache
11-10-2006, 12:31
I can see a warning for unsuitable language. :laugh4:
That's a horrible way to die. Falling from a blind I doubt he died quickly. Those people are even worse, they revel at the site of a man, a husband, a father dieing. What's worse is they don't even care that they profess to love all animals and yet care nothing of this mans death.
Edit: What drives them to this? Perhaps feeling empty in the world, then looking for something to stand for, to fill a void in their life?
There are alot of backward and strange people in this world. Quite alot of hate must have been around that person for them to go down that path. Sad really, they hate hunters and yet it is the hunter that has done so much more for animal conservation and endangered species protection then they will ever do.
But I guess there's the ultimate question one could ask in this situation. CR how did you run across that forum?:shame: :no: You certainly have some strange surfing habits.:laugh4:
These sort of people are the New Zealand religous fanatics. The people who break into science facilities and smash them up. They are convinced that they are saving the world by making everything "natural". They are convinced that having huge conservation areas, islands and programmes which cost millions aren't good enough. They want to destroy all signs of human progress in their quest for what is natural.
Nobody ever points out to them that their homes aren't natural, or that speaking isn't natural or that planting things isn't natural or that having a political view point isn't natural or caring for any species other than your own isn't natural.
:furious3:
There are too many stupid people in the world and because we have such a small population these stupid people are able to get their nutcase party into parliment.
They aren't the Green party! They are RED! ALL OF THEM!!!
and I always thought the same thing. They are anarcho-communists with a plan to destroy human civilisation and create a society of apes without any un-naturally creative or intelligent thought allowed.
and I always thought the same thing. They are anarcho-communists with a plan to destroy human civilisation and create a society of apes without any un-naturally creative or intelligent thought allowed.
As the resident anarcho-communist, I must take exception to the above characterization. You're referring to anarcho-primitivists, or just plain primitivists. Nutjobs the lot of them. They are a subset of the Green anarchists. Green anarchists are a subset of anarchists. Anarcho-communists are also a subset of anarchists; but while there might be some overlap in small part, they aren't the same thing. So, anarcho-communism is not the same thing as anarcho-primitivism. Just as neoconservatives aren't the same thing as conservatives and neo-liberals aren't the same thing as classical liberals.
They are convinced that they are saving the world by making everything "natural".
That's the root of the problem with any fundamentalist, as these whack jobs illustrate. If you think that you've got 100% of the answers, and you need to save the world, there's no atrocity you won't commit.
This group looks even loonier than the extreme Greens in the U.S.
As the resident anarcho-communist, I must take exception to the above characterization. You're referring to anarcho-primitivists, or just plain primitivists. Nutjobs the lot of them. They are a subset of the Green anarchists. Green anarchists are a subset of anarchists. Anarcho-communists are also a subset of anarchists; but while there might be some overlap in small part, they aren't the same thing. So, anarcho-communism is not the same thing as anarcho-primitivism. Just as neoconservatives aren't the same thing as conservatives and neo-liberals aren't the same thing as classical liberals.
hmmmm... I can't understand why anyone would want to bring about anarchy, whether it be anarcho-communist, anarcho-primitivist or just plain old anarchy, they are all anti-society so I despise them all (I prefer a more authoritarian government). I could probably spend hours arguing with you on this point but I don't think this is the topic for it. They just really annoy me, and it is the people who say "well they are working for the enviroment and making the world a cleaner place, I guess I will vote for them." who also annoy me. People who aren't as extreme but are brainwashed by a mixture of the media and the ecologists who make them think that we are on the verge of becoming a wasteland.
The government is working hard and spending a lot of money on helping the endemic flora and fauna to recover from the mammal immigration that crippled their populations. Busting up a sciece lab won't speed up the proccess. We have a steady emmigration of skilled labourers and well qualified people which means that all the stupid people are left behind to proclaim that judgement day is at hand if we don't get rid of our microwaves and electronics which are evil and stop our mass prejudice against trees. For example:
There used to be a hill in Auckland called 'One tree hill' because there was only one solitary tree on top of it. This tree had several attempts on it's life (people trying to cut it down) and was held up by cables and had a fence around it. The government finally decided to take it down a few years ago as it was so scarred and bent and old that leaving it there was just silly. It was ONE tree which was dying anyway. But the HUGE fuss kicked up over it was just ridiculous.
I had been to 'one tree hill' several times when the tree was there and it isn't that special. Well anyway, the tree was cut down, so now it is called 'none tree hill' or 'no tree hill' and all the controversy ended there because the Greens found something new to complain about. ALL THEY DO IS JUST TRY AND COMPLAIN ABOUT ANYTHING THAT GOES ON!!!! AND THEN THEY DON'T EVEN SHOW ANY COMMITMENT WHEN IT HAPPENS!!!!
They just use the publicity to show off "oooh look at me I am so important because I have something to complain about and I can say the word ecology as though I know what it means"!:wall:
I think all these anarcho-communists anarcho-primitivists (I am going to use that from now on) should be shot! Then this country would be a much happier place. :yes:
End of Rant :sweatdrop:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-10-2006, 16:01
....and farmers are cereal killers.
Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll have someone smack me.
Rabbit:
I agree with you whole-heartedly on this one. There is some kind of basic disconnect with reality in that mode of thinking.
Aenlic:
I have little respect for anarchy as a political model, viewing it as eminently impractical. An a-governmental communal sharing model of society is far too "theoretical" to actually work.
I would also caution you to be careful about accidently lumping in all who hold religious beliefs with fanatics of various stripes. I think you were noting that fanaticism can lead to total close-mindedness and amorality -- a concern with which I concur -- but some of your phrasing seemed to imply that all religious belief was a form of fanaticism, which is not a valid claim.
I have little respect for anarchy as a political model, viewing it as eminently impractical.
Anyone who thinks anarchy is the way to grand human harmony should spend a few weeks in Baghdad, or at the very least be forced to watch The Road Warrior repeatedly.
From anarchy comes tribalism, and where people go from there is the usual plate of worms; dictatorship, feudalism, etc.
Prodigal
11-10-2006, 16:20
Apparently, when humans (which are equal to animals) hunt, its evil, but when animals do it, its the natural cycle.
I'd like to think the introduction of scopes & high powered rifles into the whole hunter-prey relationship would explain the attitude toward hunting a little, but I suspect they'd still be righteously outraged if you used a used a fire hardended stick. Funny they never seem to kick up a fuss about fishing competitions.
Not all "green" policy is total lunacy, & its a shame that the freaks get the spotlight, the bbc interviewed a new zealander this week, who was saying that the feed for cows & sheep in europe had a high energy cost. Its grown in one place, proccessed then shipped to the country where the animals eat it...His point was, that in new zealand the energy required for the animal feed was very low..."They eat the grass" Now doesn't that beg the question, what the fark are they being fed, & what's wrong with grass? :inquisitive:
what the fark are they being fed, & what's wrong with grass? :inquisitive:
Theirselves, nothing goes to waste
CrossLOPER
11-10-2006, 16:32
Man....that site is wacky...:inquisitive:
personally I´d say I think there is something wrong with people that hunt for fun....hunting for food I have no problem with....but I see something basically wrong in going out and killing something just for the hell of it......but even speaking of those people I wouldn´t go as far as calling them "serial killers"....a little twisted maybe....but come on...let´s not go over the deep end here.
I don't see anything bad in a little sport, so long as you don't waste what you get. I don't like the way some crazies go out and kill 50 fowl and then leave the carcasses to rot.
I don't see anything bad in a little sport, so long as you don't waste what you get. I don't like the way some crazies go out and kill 50 fowl and then leave the carcasses to rot.
Like you said...I see nothing wrong if you eat what you hunt..and only hunt what you really need....but some people sure do it because they turn hunting into some sort of twisted powertrip...
Prodigal
11-10-2006, 16:40
Theirselves, nothing goes to waste
Be interesting to know who it was that managed to convince people to buy processed meat to feed their herbivores with, that said its no doubt the same people that dreamed up vegetarian cat food.
I mean, tell me if the logic's weird but what's wrong with feeding the cat cow, & the cow the veggie option?
I'd like to think the introduction of scopes & high powered rifles into the whole hunter-prey relationship would explain the attitude toward hunting a little, but I suspect they'd still be righteously outraged if you used a used a fire hardended stick. Funny they never seem to kick up a fuss about fishing competitions.
Oh well, we have rifles, an eagle has wings and claws, isn't that kind of unfair towards a rabbit as well?
Should hunters jump onto the deer and bite through their throats?:sweatdrop:
Goofball
11-10-2006, 17:31
While I am not a big "gun guy," or a fan of trophy hunting, I agree that calling hunters "serial killers" is laughable. I guess that by that logic, cattle ranchers are the equivalent of Nazi death camp commandants?
:laugh4:
While I am not a big "gun guy," or a fan of trophy hunting, I agree that calling hunters "serial killers" is laughable. I guess that by that logic, cattle ranchers are the equivalent of Nazi death camp commandants?
:laugh4:
Shhhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas. :creep:
Definitely a nut job website. Where nutters can argue with other nutters but ultimately agree anyway. "Evil animal killers" would probably get banned instantly, and not be allowed to speak their mind. I've never understood these types. They rant on about protecting animals from hunting, yet they fail to realise that a food chain exists, with one type of animal eating another, how nature intended it. Humans happen to be at the top of that chain. We didn't get to where we are today by eating grass. Their ancestors ate meat and their earlier ancestors probably ate each other. We've got beyond cannibalism, but we still need meat as part of our diet.
Hunters, using their flawed logic, are in fact worthy of more respect than farmers or those that eat meat. Hunters go out and kill, gut and clean, and often prepare and cook, their own food. Food that had a sporting chance at life, not food that was confined for life then slaughtered. They can only see the hunter as a person who is taking "pleasure" from the kill. This is why they hate them more. Fox hunters are probably "sport" hunters in the true sense. Their quarry yeilds no food stuff. A deer hunter will bring home venison. Big difference. Food.
These types of people always seem to exhibit similar behaviour to those that are parts of extremist religious groups
Sasaki Kojiro
11-10-2006, 18:34
https://img374.imageshack.us/img374/6179/militarycatzd0.jpg
Apparently, when humans (which are equal to animals) hunt, its evil, but when animals do it, its the natural cycle.
You missing an important part of their logic. We humans have tried to remove ourselfs from the natural cycle. But not enough. We still kill and eat other furry things.
Need a bit more righteous anger? Check out these animal-whacko books;
http://www.akuk.com/mainpage.php?startwith=20&ThisSub=46
Look for 'rage and reason'.
Try reading planet of the apes. :laugh4:
Oh well, we have rifles, an eagle has wings and claws, isn't that kind of unfair towards a rabbit as well?
Should hunters jump onto the deer and bite through their throats?:sweatdrop:
Should they? Yes. Will they? No.
King Henry V
11-10-2006, 19:29
Definitely a nut job website. Where nutters can argue with other nutters but ultimately agree anyway. "Evil animal killers" would probably get banned instantly, and not be allowed to speak their mind. I've never understood these types. They rant on about protecting animals from hunting, yet they fail to realise that a food chain exists, with one type of animal eating another, how nature intended it. Humans happen to be at the top of that chain. We didn't get to where we are today by eating grass. Their ancestors ate meat and their earlier ancestors probably ate each other. We've got beyond cannibalism, but we still need meat as part of our diet.
Hunters, using their flawed logic, are in fact worthy of more respect than farmers or those that eat meat. Hunters go out and kill, gut and clean, and often prepare and cook, their own food. Food that had a sporting chance at life, not food that was confined for life then slaughtered. They can only see the hunter as a person who is taking "pleasure" from the kill. This is why they hate them more. Fox hunters are probably "sport" hunters in the true sense. Their quarry yeilds no food stuff. A deer hunter will bring home venison. Big difference. Food.
These types of people always seem to exhibit similar behaviour to those that are parts of extremist religious groups
However, fox hunting also controls the population of a fairly nasty predator, they kind of predator which kills fwuffy widdle wabbits.
Banquo's Ghost
11-10-2006, 21:33
From anarchy comes tribalism, and where people go from there is the usual plate of worms; dictatorship, feudalism, etc.
Lemur, old fruit, I think you need to stop playing so much Civilisation IV.
:wink3:
I'd like to think the introduction of scopes & high powered rifles into the whole hunter-prey relationship would explain the attitude toward hunting a little, but I suspect they'd still be righteously outraged if you used a used a fire hardended stick. Funny they never seem to kick up a fuss about fishing competitions.
Couple problems though. Those crazies have already done their darndest to ban atl atl hunting and are now trying to ban crossbow hunting. So all a hunter has left is a high powered rifle. As for fish, they don't care that their bowl of granola has cost the lives of countless millions grain plants. They only care about animals that look cute and fuzzy, its a "don't kill bambi" complex.
Should they? Yes. Will they? No.
I don't doubt that you would, but I think noone should.~;)
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-11-2006, 04:09
Nothing Wrong with Hunting and Takingthe Meat, or hunting and taking BOTH The Meat and the Trophy, like the head,rack, or fur from a bear,for example, but people who just kill a animal/animals and just leave them there, something wrong. If you going to hunt something, take the meat. there's other hungry people who would kill for that Hundreds/thousands of pounds of meat you leave in the forest then..
I wonder what they say about people like us? :inquisitive:
Not like we really care though.:beam:
Prodigal
11-11-2006, 18:31
It'd be interseting to consider when it was that hunting got a bad name...For example, Buffalo, they were killed to stop people making a "living" off them. Strikes me that there are "bad" forms of hunting.
I would expand upon this point but She Who Must Be Oybeyed speaks
These people regard animals as equals and regard the killing of an animal in exactly the same way as the killing of a human. In view of this I believe these people should be despatched to Africa immediately, where the Wildebeest community have great need of their services. These people could become animal lawyers, animal judges or animal police, bringing all those guilty lions and crocs to justice, using only humane means of course.
typos again...
These people regard animals as equals and regard the killing of an animal in exactly the same way as the killing of a human. In view of this I believe these people should be despatched to Africa immediately, where the Wilderbeest community have great need of their services. These people could become animal lawyers, animal judges or animal police, bringing all those guilty lions and crocs to justice, using only humane means of course.
OK, now that is funny. I have this image of a dread-locked, blonde unwashed young primitivist animal rights activist standing up as the hyenas approach, saying "I object!" and another one standing up after the hyenas rip the first guy into meaty bits, saying "I believe that was hyena for 'overruled!'"
Yes I can quite imagine sending one into a river to serve a summons to a croc. Ouch...
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-12-2006, 01:21
The administrator and moderators wish to point out that we under no circumstances find the death of a human being a cause for celebration, despite the fact that the death of a hunter would spare the lives of hundreds of animals.
That's magnamimous of them, isn't it? I mean, the chap's death prevented the death of hundreds of animals, and they still aren't celebrating. Very restrained.
We would like to inform hunters or anti Animal Rights readers that we are a private community of Animal Rights Supporters.
Any hunter or anti Animal Rights will be banned and deleted asap.
Further we gather details as email and IP of these members and send complains to there providers.
Please realize that trolling and spamming online boards is illegal in many countries.
There you have it, unless you're "one of them" don't even think about registering! They're not open to debate. This is a 'private cult community'. They'll be outside your house with their placards, chanting, dressed as cows, foxes or badgers... before you can say "release a load of mink".
Then of course they'll burn you out. :skull:
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2006, 02:28
IP and email registering, eh? There are ways around that.
:devil:
Crazed Rabbit
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-12-2006, 03:49
Correct Crazed
That is Sad. Really Sad. I like to ask one of them if they are worried that someone/someones will come to their Fourm to Debate with them?
I would imagine that any attempt at a debate would be met with a wave of insults, rantings and usual anarchist rubbish. You may as well ask the animals for their opinions because you would get a much more reasoned statement.
For example:
"So Mr duck, what is your opinion of hunting and the effects on the ecology. There are those who claim that murdering animals should be a crime. What do you say to that?"
Quack
There, that is much more sensible than anything the Greens have to say.
doc_bean
11-12-2006, 11:29
See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals ! (http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3498)
Liberty or death ? Not for cats ! (http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1993)
These Green nutjobs give anarchism a bad name.
I somehow missed all of the anti-anarchism posts. I feel obligated to correct some misconceptions. :wink:
Anarchism as a political system is not the same thing as anarchy used as another word for chaos. The far too common misconception that anarchism = no order and no government is a sad result of the word anarchy having come to mean violent every-man-for-himself chaos. Thus Lemur's comment about Road Warrior. I can understand why people make that error. Anarchy in common usage has come to mean lack of government, lack of order, lack of society. By that isn't anything resembling anarchism as a political system. It doesn't mean violent chaos. It doesn't mean a bunch of snot-nosed punk rockers who just want to be obnoxious and have no rules.
Also, anarchism - and I'm going to repeat again, this is in the usage of anarchy as a political system not the misconception of it meaning no goverment and no order - does not mean anti-society. In fact, anarchism is all about society. See the first quote in my sig. That sums up the anarchist view. Society is good. Government is bad. But government is a necessary evil. How do anarchists deal with that? By reversing the hierarchy. Instead of rule from the top down as in most political systems including so-called "representative" democracy, anarchism - as a political system, not as a another word for chaos - is all about rule from the bottom up. The essence of anarchist political theory is democracy and freedom. See the second quote in my sig by the so-called "father" of anarchist thought.
And communism is no more or less utopian and idealistic than free market capitalism. Show me a true free market and I'll show you a capitalist economy in which one corporation or a cartel of companies which has not yet managed to drive all of its competitors out of business so it can eliminate the costs of a free market and profit from a monopoly or price fixing or laws protecting it from a free market. Free markets are purely transitory, they can't be the end product of a system which encourages and even rewards the elimination competitors. Any corporation which says it prefers a free market over a monopoly is lying.
If you are still confused over why anarchism is not the same thing as anarchy=chaos, then feel free to read this Anarchist FAQ (http://www.anarchistfaq.org/).:2thumbsup:
But it won't work. Give me an example of somewhere where anarchists have enacted an effective government.
Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.
If you want to learn more about the anarchists in Catalonia, you can read a book which fondly remembers it all by someone who was there during that period. The book is called Homage to Catalonia, written by Eric Arthur Blair under his pen name, George Orwell. :wink:
And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...
Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions
Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.
Ready. Begin. :grin:
King Henry V
11-13-2006, 17:42
See how much they respect the 'rights' and integrity of their favourite animals ! (http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3498)
Liberty or death ? Not for cats ! (http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1993)
I just love the unrelenting BS that these people write:
We don't have pets in our home. We have a family of companion animals. What is the rationale of your position? What would you offer as a resolution to the negative consequences of not having any means of population control for these animals? They are not able to consider these consequences themselves, let alone resolve them. That's our responsibility. Really, this is quite serious.
Companion animals have the right to a comfortable, dignified, quality life and it is our responsibility to provide that. You use the expression "wipe out." Do you believe spaying/neutering is some form of passive biocide/genocide? If so, consider the active extermination of those poor animals who have spent their last hours of life pressed against the cage doors waiting for some one to take them to a home and care for them.
Who is to blame for that? If you want a really poignant answer, ask those who are in the position of having to deal with this miserable situation on a routine basis. The grief they feel provides them with a ready answer, I'll tell you that! Please reconsider your position, Carrot. If you can't, then you and others who oppose spaying/neutering: Get busy and find all these innocent victims a home!
Sounds like an ironic caricature of the worst type PC word wrangling, yet the funniest thing is that it's true!
Hey, who wants to have some fun and form a kind of alliance to go and annoy these snotty nosed greenies?
Anarchists and communists ran Barcelona for 3 years from 1936-1939. That's considerably longer than Italy ever managed to keep a government going up until the 1990's. And Italy didn't have to worry about being smashed between the twin hammers of the Republican Army Stalinists and Franco's Falangist fascists. They were finally betrayed by the Stalinists and defeated militarily by Franco's overwhelmingly larger army.
Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.
And while you're at it, please give me an example of a free market capitalist government and economy which has survived the advent of corporate capitalism and remained a free market. It must have no trade barriers, no protectionism, no regulation and no monopolies. Also, be sure to include one which doesn't have any taint of those evil socialists. Taint in this case being any socialist-inspired, non-capitalist theory, such as...
Paid holidays
Sick pay
Vacations
Overtime
Profit sharing
Child labor laws
Workplace safety rules
Retirement
Pensions
No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.
Or any of hundreds of other ideas which didn't exist prior to the agitation of the late 19th century socialists and which were only forced upon capitalists by more than a hundred years of struggle, sometimes violent, by socialist-inspired activists and socialist-inspired trade unions.
Ready. Begin. :grin:
The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.
Prodigal
11-13-2006, 19:11
Oh well, we have rifles, an eagle has wings and claws, isn't that kind of unfair towards a rabbit as well?
Should hunters jump onto the deer and bite through their throats?:sweatdrop:
True, but the eagles did grow them themselves. Sure humans used what they have to invent weapons, however your average person couldn't design & manufacturer a scope or rifle, now if you were hunting with a bow, or a spear, making your own traps. Those are things that a great many people could achieve, of course most wouldn't be unable to use a bow, & your average obese bloke probably wouldn't have a snowballs chance with a spear either.
I don't agree with the green gestapo, but I really cannot get along with the hunting ethic where the only real skill requirement is money & the ability to load, point, & pull a trigger, (although in saying that...I can think of two video clips...One guy missing a stationary deer in the open 5 or 6 times, & another with a deer beating six shades out of a guy with a gun...In either case its probably time they considered putting themselves up for a darwin award).
So to conclude, when you've missed, when you see the gleam in the savage herbivore's eye, teeth seem like a pretty good next move.
Dunno if this allowed, but the latter vid's on thatvideosite and is titled "did you just try to ******* shoot me!"
Do you also plant your own groceries and bake your own bread?
Why is using a gun worse than using a bow?
Only because it's easier?
Did you also build you house yourself using only tool you had built yourself? So you have floating water? And did you build your computer yourself?
If not, then that would be unfair and unnatural if I understood you correctly.
Avicenna
11-13-2006, 21:13
Time for Borat to invade their website, I say. ~:)
Crazed Rabbit
11-13-2006, 21:19
I don't agree with the green gestapo, but I really cannot get along with the hunting ethic where the only real skill requirement is money & the ability to load, point, & pull a trigger,
There's a lot more to it than that, you know.
Crazed Rabbit
AntiochusIII
11-14-2006, 01:23
This reminds me of Animal Farm and the Church of Euthanasia.
"DEATH TO ALL HUMANS!!!"
Not an adequate model of effective government. Two committing political philisophies united under a common cause of survival. With the outside pressure being applied against both groups the cohesion initially could be stated to come from the common cause of both groups. The pressure being applied by both groups probably shortern the time before betrayal between the two groups running Barcelona would of eventually come about. That anarchists achieved a foothold into government is noted, but as an effective government the time and situation does not provide enough evidence.
I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.
No such model exists in the current modern world, nor would it survive for long if one was able to come about. The people will never stand for a government that does not at least attempt to look at for the interests of the people. A classic examble that the Republicians should have at least learned given the recent election cycle.
And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.
The best models of mixs of governmental types can be found in the West. A mix of capitialism and socialism. The optimum (SP) mix for each country is an ongoing legislative process in most countries that use this model.
Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. :wink: As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.
Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?
And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.
I'm not sure what to make of this. The anarchists and the communists were the same group. Anarchism dealt with the political structure and communism with the economic structure. They weren't two separate competing groups within Barcelona. They acheived a more stable government than Italy managed for almost 50 years after WWII.
Here is the point. The political model is invalid, since it was not allowed to fully function. The stablity of the two intermix idealogical values were not tested. Combaring it to an unstable western form of government weakens the postion if more so.
And yet, free market capitalism is the reason given for why anarchist socialism must fail. So if free market capitalism doens't exist, then the argument against anarcho-socialism is inherently without merit.
That was not my point, nor did I state that. I would use the failure of Communism as an economic model on the national scale and the no valid anarchist-communism mix having been successful on the national level. I would give the Barcelona credit as a valid small scale attempt that did not fully prove or disprove the model because of outside pressures. I see anarchism and communism as two competing models that might or might not mix well on the governmental level.
Indeed. Which is why anarchism does not preclude individual entrepreneurship. :wink: As is made quite clear in that Anarchism link I posted.
Good thing I never claimed that it did.
Since it existed as a living government system for 3 years in practice in the modern world, and as you've admitted, a purely capitalist-run government and economy can't exist in the modern world. That begs the question. Which is more viable?
The social-capitialistic model has been proven successful on a large scale, the anarchist-communist model has not been proven successful on a large scale, and the success of the Barcelona model is somewhat questionable considering the outside pressure applied that allowed it to maintain cohesion for the short term, and the collaspe due to the outside source means we can not determine if it would of eventually been successful or not.
And as for attempts at implementing the model ending in failure, what caused the failure? Was it the system or was it something outside local control, such as a massive civil war with a well-funded and internationally-supported fascist army bearing down on one side and less well-funded but almost as large Stalinist army bearing down on the other side? Saying that anarchism failed in Barcelona therefore it is flawed is the equivalent of saying "the crops failed, therefore you're a bad farmer" when it could have been the weather or an infestation of pests.
This is the unkownn quality of the model. It was doomed to failure because of the political pressures of the time, and the direct military pressure applied by the conflict in which it developed in. It seems you are attempting an arguement that I did not state. I clearly stated this sentence.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.
If the pests ruined each of my attempts at farming with a new technique of dry land farming - I would have still failed in using the farming method that I was attempting now wouln't I, because I was not successful in the attempt.
Prodigal
11-14-2006, 10:44
There's a lot more to it than that, you know.
Crazed Rabbit
True, & I've been a member of a rifle club & can shoot reasonably well, I'm also a member of an archery club, the fact is its easier to shoot something with a rifle than a bow, I personally feel that if you are going to hunt for sport, (not food, please note, if killing something decides whether you eat or not, then it would be foolish not to use the best tools you can lay hands on), then make it a challenge for yourself, & when I mention bows, I am not talking the ones with counterweights, laserscopes & all the other bits & bobs I'm talking about a bow, a normal bog standard piece of wood with a string. Of course if you're going to hunt a bear then forget the above, & grab a .50
Regarding building my own house and stuff, I don't have to hunt to live, if I did I'd get some high explosive & go out fishing, before heading back to check the traps.
Here is the point. The political model is invalid, since it was not allowed to fully function. The stablity of the two intermix idealogical values were not tested. Combaring it to an unstable western form of government weakens the postion if more so.
That was not my point, nor did I state that. I would use the failure of Communism as an economic model on the national scale and the no valid anarchist-communism mix having been successful on the national level. I would give the Barcelona credit as a valid small scale attempt that did not fully prove or disprove the model because of outside pressures. I see anarchism and communism as two competing models that might or might not mix well on the governmental level.
Good thing I never claimed that it did.
The social-capitialistic model has been proven successful on a large scale, the anarchist-communist model has not been proven successful on a large scale, and the success of the Barcelona model is somewhat questionable considering the outside pressure applied that allowed it to maintain cohesion for the short term, and the collaspe due to the outside source means we can not determine if it would of eventually been successful or not.
This is the unkownn quality of the model. It was doomed to failure because of the political pressures of the time, and the direct military pressure applied by the conflict in which it developed in. It seems you are attempting an arguement that I did not state. I clearly stated this sentence.
The different forms of anarchism have some uses - but as an overall effective governmental model for running a nation - it is a non-proven model, and the attempts at implementing such a model have all ended in failure.
If the pests ruined each of my attempts at farming with a new technique of dry land farming - I would have still failed in using the farming method that I was attempting now wouln't I, because I was not successful in the attempt.
I suppose part of the problem in this discussion is I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to anarchism and communism being two competing models. I don't get that. Anarchism is a political system. Communism is an economic system. The two aren't competing. There are anarcho-capitalists, there are parliamentary-communists, and so on. In Barcelona, the anarchists ran the city and surrounding countryside using communism as the economic model.
You still seem to be implying that anarcho-communism is not valid because all attempts at implementing it have "ended in failure" without recognizing that the failure in Barcelona had nothing to do with the implementation but was due to other factors. Thus my use of the farm analogy.
We do agree that it is an unproven model, at least in part. But that can't be stretched to claim that it must fail. The most that can be said, using real-world evidence as the only standard, is that anarcho-communism might or might not work and that when it was tried, that one time, it was overrun by outside forces. Whereas, democratic free market capitalism has been proven to be a failure in implementation time and again for several centuries , requiring large infusions of socialist theory in order to make it palatable and for it to function in the real world. So, my stance is that of the two, anarcho-communism has not been proven to be a failure while democratic capitalism has failed.
But again, I fully recognize that anarchism and communism are essentially utopian because they haven't been tried on a large scale or long term. Let's not get into an argument about Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism being communism, though. They bear more resemblance to a centrally-controlled capitalism than to communism. The argument against trying to mix a centralized totalitarian political system with communism got Mikhail Bakunin kicked out of the First Communist International by Marx. I side with Bakunin. For communism to work it must be deeply rooted in democratic ideals, especially individual freedoms and as weak a central government as possible - thus the mixture of communism with an anarchist political leaning.
I also feel that free market capitalism has been proven to be utopian and unrealistic since it has never been implemented without ending up strongly mixed with socialist theory. So, of the two, it seems to me to be more sensible to choose the system which hasn't been proven to be unviable in the modern world; and that would be anarchism and socialism/communism, which is otherwise known as anarcho-communism or anarcho-sydicalism or libertarian socialism, and so on.
While we wait for our utopian dreams to manifest, you and I can at least agree that in the meantime a middle ground seems to work best. Our only argument being how far along the scale from one end to the other to place the marker. :wink:
I suppose part of the problem in this discussion is I don't understand where you are coming from in regards to anarchism and communism being two competing models. I don't get that. Anarchism is a political system. Communism is an economic system. The two aren't competing. There are anarcho-capitalists, there are parliamentary-communists, and so on. In Barcelona, the anarchists ran the city and surrounding countryside using communism as the economic model.
You still seem to be implying that anarcho-communism is not valid because all attempts at implementing it have "ended in failure" without recognizing that the failure in Barcelona had nothing to do with the implementation but was due to other factors. Thus my use of the farm analogy.
We do agree that it is an unproven model, at least in part. But that can't be stretched to claim that it must fail. The most that can be said, using real-world evidence as the only standard, is that anarcho-communism might or might not work and that when it was tried, that one time, it was overrun by outside forces. Whereas, democratic free market capitalism has been proven to be a failure in implementation time and again for several centuries , requiring large infusions of socialist theory in order to make it palatable and for it to function in the real world. So, my stance is that of the two, anarcho-communism has not been proven to be a failure while democratic capitalism has failed.
But again, I fully recognize that anarchism and communism are essentially utopian because they haven't been tried on a large scale or long term. Let's not get into an argument about Marxist-Leninism and Stalinism being communism, though. They bear more resemblance to a centrally-controlled capitalism than to communism. The argument against trying to mix a centralized totalitarian political system with communism got Mikhail Bakunin kicked out of the First Communist International by Marx. I side with Bakunin. For communism to work it must be deeply rooted in democratic ideals, especially individual freedoms and as weak a central government as possible - thus the mixture of communism with an anarchist political leaning.
I also feel that free market capitalism has been proven to be utopian and unrealistic since it has never been implemented without ending up strongly mixed with socialist theory. So, of the two, it seems to me to be more sensible to choose the system which hasn't been proven to be unviable in the modern world; and that would be anarchism and socialism/communism, which is otherwise known as anarcho-communism or anarcho-sydicalism or libertarian socialism, and so on.
While we wait for our utopian dreams to manifest, you and I can at least agree that in the meantime a middle ground seems to work best. Our only argument being how far along the scale from one end to the other to place the marker. :wink:
The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.
As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.
The optim mix is to allow the people to decide which economic/political system works best for them. There is a reason why countries with a democratic capitalistic socialistic mix of government are currently more successful then other models. The Chinese with their mix of capitalist/marxism could also be on the right tract, but the lack of personal freedom forces me to discount that as a model that I wish to live under.
As you probably noticed I am not a free market captialist. But believe in the what some have called social-capitalist economic model. The mix of the two to be decided by the people in a democracy form of government.
Agreed for the most part. In the end for me, maximizing democracy is the most important. The economic system tends to take care of itself when the people are able vote for the own self-interests and attain an education beyond the bare-minimum. I have problems with capitalism; but mostly from the standpoint of being extremely suspicious of corporate capitalism. In and of itself, capitalism can be positive. It's just when institutionalized greed, in the form of corporations which are inherently devoid of ethical considerations and responsibilities to society, gets in the mix that I find capitalism to be the most unpalatable.
China is an interesting subject, as well. It's possible that the huge economic drive in China might somehow overcome the totalitarian political situation; but I'm not particular hopeful in that regard. I think it'll take at least one new generation coming into power there for the old guard and the old Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist "dictatorship of the proletariat" mindset to finally fade away. We'll see.
Banquo's Ghost
11-15-2006, 14:17
Aenlic, do you have a recommended reading list for your philosophy? I know Bakunin, but would appreciate some other authors on the subject. It seems to me to be worth understanding more fully.
:bow:
Aenlic, do you have a recommended reading list for your philosophy? I know Bakunin, but would appreciate some other authors on the subject. It seems to me to be worth understanding more fully.
:bow:
There's a complete bibliography at the end of the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/biblio.html) here. By complete, I mean really excessively complete. Mind-numbingly, incredibly complete. :wink:
My favorite author in the subject would have to be Murray Bookchin. His The Ecology of Freedom: the emergence and dissolution of hierachy is a great discussion of many of the more important themes in anarchist theory, particularly social ecology. Anything else by him would do as well; but the above is certainly his best.
Anything by Noam Chomsky in the political and economic vein.
I'm also fond of a book written by one of the anarchist communists who opposed Lenin's Marxist takeover of the Russian Revolution. Peter Kropotkin was born a privileged member of the boyar class. Prince Kropotkin even entered the Corps of Pages in St. Petersburg and served as a page to Czar Alexander II. But he became exposed to more radical thought when visiting Switzerland in the 1870's and eventually ended up connected to the very radical Jura federation. He returned to Russia and became involved with the Circle of Tchaikovsky. His radical ideas got him arrested in 1873 but he escaped and fled to England. He then returned to Switzerland, but was expelled by the Swiss government when Alexander II was assassinated because he was known to have affiliations with the Narodnaya Volya group which carried out the assassination. He spent time in England and France, was arrested in France too for his radical views. He eventually returned to Russia after the February revolution and served as an advisor to Kerensky. He turned his back on government and the revolution altogether when the Bolsheviks took control, even having been credited with saying "This buries the revolution."
Sorry for the rather long synopsis; but I really admire this guy. His best book by far is The Conquest of Bread.
And, of course, George Orwell's tribute to the anarcho-communists of Barcelona in 1936-1939 in Homage to Catalonia.
It's nice to see an interest. One doesn't have to agree with differing opinions; but it certainly is nice to see those who seek to at least learn something more of them than can be had in the usual thin-veneer of standard education. Most people have no idea how widespread the opposition to Marx was among communists in Europe in the late 19th century, with the Jura federation and the International Workers Association and many more who were expelled from the First Communist International at the Hague Congress in 1872 for opposing Marx's totalitarian and statist views. Cheers! :2thumbsup:
Banquo's Ghost
11-15-2006, 17:01
Thank you for the recommendations, Aenlic. That should fill my reading list nicely.
:2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.