Thread: Veganism

Originally Posted by Full Metal Bolshevik

Without humans every single thing that happens or exist is meaningless because there's no one to interpret it. It's us that give meaning to everything.

Also, here's the actual topic that came to my mind before which I finally found it - He goes really in depth, I'm sure if you reply to him he'll show up.

i already pmed him to join us here. Im not arguing with him at the moment because his posts werent actually specifically aimed at propositions here made and seem to be just a general rant against ecology. so i will wait till he is here.

Regarding your point, what evidence do you have that only humans can interpret their surroundings? i have several articles proving the contrary, which i will share with you shortly. (have to go do stuff irl, might be 2 hours).

in short: how do you know we only interpret our surroundings? do animals not feel pain for example or do they not sense temperature etc etc>

Considering how fast you replied to me it shows you haven't read his posts which is a shame, I really recommend you to do so because it does go into what you're saying here and could've saved you and him that pm.

Can you tell me what sort of discussions do you have with your dog? What does he think about any particular subject?

Its funny because It was he who inspired the term.

domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism; At least in a broad sense.

Lets say we have the power to dominate the world; master the environment. What will be be trying to create?
The natural world that we destroyed.

Lets hope we have the power to make the world our ideal.

Originally Posted by Full Metal Bolshevik

Considering how fast you replied to me it shows you haven't read his posts which is a shame, I really recommend you to do so because it does go into what you're saying here and could've saved you and him that pm.

Can you tell me what sort of discussions do you have with your dog? What does he think about any particular subject?

youre not adressing my point that non-human animals do interpret the world around them. Your Reductio ad Absurdum attempt fails: just because i cant talk with my dog doesnt mean he cant sense the world around him. If i kick my dog he will squel and run away in pain, or retaliate and bite me. To call this "not being able to understand what is happening around him" seems to be a really far stretch of logic.

Regarding my fast replies, i read two or three of his posts, im not interested in searching through a diffused set of argument made on different topics to find what does and does not apply to my points here made. Iwil lwait for him to contribute to this thread so i can address his concerns/argument directly. However if you can point me to some exact essay or something he wrote about veganism and if we have the right to exploit non-human animals, then i would be happy to read this if you send me the link.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Democracy

Its funny because It was he who inspired the term.

domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism; At least in a broad sense.

Lets say we have the power to dominate the world; master the environment. What will be be trying to create?
The natural world that we destroyed.

Lets hope we have the power to make the world our ideal.

thanks for your contribution. Personally i dont get the point of fighting for communism if your end goal is seemingly just to have a completely destroyed world which would drop standards of living like crazy. To me communism is about creating a world where there is peace for everyone, enough basic needs for everyone and general happiness and morality.

And of course, the current meat and dairy industry is the grossest show of capitalism at work. I find it suprising to see so much resistance on a leftist forum against veganism, which would directly fight this exploitative industry.

First, I want to make something clear. I don't want to post on Revleft right now. I am very, very busy. So, Full Metal Bolshevik, for future references, please don't drag me into threads like this. I recently made a thread on the manner. I have made it abundantly clear that I am busy, and that these are distractions, and they detract me from more important work I am presently immersed in. Thanks to what you have done, Full Metal Bolshevik, I might have to spend weeks on this thread defending what I post - do you have any idea how much that wastes? Again, I am not angry at you - but just for future reference, please don't do shit like this. Honestly, it is rather irritating - had I not been mentioned at all, and had some snide comments about what I have posted not been made, I would simply be able to ignore this - along with the mountains of stupidity that have compiled on Revleft as of my absence.

Secondly, "IbelieveInanarchy", not only did Full Metal Bolshevik link an appropriate thread, in that very same thread I have linked a plethora of other examples of how much I have devoted to this topic. Your narcassism, while unoriginal, is none the less still disgusting. You think you are so fucking original in your arguments and yet I have thoroughly and mercilessly buried them dozens of times over. Before you make such grand claims (i.e. such as "humans are biological machines"), think about whether you are setting yourself up to share the same fate as countless other idiots who have come here before and who have tried to argue the same thing. You are not original. And this isn't going to end in a different outcome either.

I promise you, the best thing you could do is have the modesty of understanding - you don't know what you're talking about. Many of what I have written on the subject may come to a surprise to you, because you're not going to find such arguments in pop-science discourse. They are utterly alien to your garbage, ideology of 'science'.

I have tried so fucking hard to avoid posting here because I have been so very fucking busy. But at the same time I am under obligation to defend everything I post on this website. I commit to my posts - unlike you - not out of arbitrary whim, but out of duty.l So even though I dread doing this, even though it is such a pain in the ass, no matter what I am under ethical obligation to do this.

Originally Posted by IbelieveInanarchy

Regarding your point, what evidence do you have that only humans can interpret their surroundings?

Your reasoning is idiotic. The claim that only humans 'interpret' their surroundings is not a positive one, rather it is made at the expense of unproven positive claims. Given any elementary understanding of what interpretation actually is - which goes far beyond to physiological responses to environmental stimuli - there is actually no reason to believe whatsoever that animals are capable of it - even if we are speaking strictly as anglo-empiricists. Interpretation relates to reason, to rationality. It is not the same as a physiological response. For example, YOUR OWN POSTS on Revleft right now. Is there a physiological reason behind them? If so, why should we take them seriously, when you admit that a force outside of your own rationality - allegedly natural and biological processes - outside of not only your use of reason but more generally your will - are responsible? Why should we treat you like a rational person who is responsible for their arguments and their ideas, if you are somehow admitting that you in fact aren't responsible for them?

There is none. For instance, no one can prove that there is an invisible talking purple unicorn presently residing up your ass. You don't say "What proof do you have that there is no invisible talking purple unicorn up my ass?" This is very simple logic. And it all comes down to what difference it makes: the significance of the claim that animals are secretly self-conscious ("but that we just don't know it") is just as idiotic as claiming that animals speak high latin when no one is looking. You are claiming that humans should restrict and limit their practical activity (i.e. going out of our way to treat animals with 'rights', with 'care', ETC.) when there is no empirical reason to believe even the possibility of the positive claim you yourself have justified this upon. That isn't to say that the positive claim isn't the only justification, of course, ecologism is ideological and is irreducible to your alleged sincere belief in animals' subjective access to the human symbolic order. Of course, you'd know the nuances of this, you'd understand perfectly well how and why that is, if you actually bothered to devote some of your time to reading what I have written on the matter.

Before you start talking about humans, and how they too are "animals", and so on, why don't you not embarass yourself and ask: What dimension is it that which I have to SAY THIS? If humans are simply animals, what is the significance of having to experience the so-called KNOWLEDGE of this? This is the ultimate stupidity of ecologists - they claim humans are animals, and yet, when trying to argue that humans are animals, they presuppose they are free and rational agents, simply engaging in the discourse of reason. They love words like "evidence", they never shut up about the rituals of the university-discourse, these abjectly unnatural, highest most transcendent, divine domains of spiritual truth, because they exempt this domain from their claims of the alleged animality of man, EVEN THOUGH THE "LEGITIMATE" INSTITUTIONS AND DISCOURSE THAT WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CLAIMS UPON, WHICH YOU POSSESS ABSOLUTE FAITH IN, ARE CONSTITUTED TOO OF NOTHING MORE THAN MEN AND WOMEN: This is their disgusting, proto-fascist anti-humanism.

This is why ecologism is the most rabid god-peddling trash. They must presuppose that some kind of inhuman, alien, outside force - god - enables them to engage as free, rational subjects. This is their ultimate stupidity. If men and women were animals, then men and women wouldn't be saying "we are animals". There is clearly an excess which alone proves that it isn't true - animals do not say "we are animals", they are not aware that they are "animals", because they are not actually aware of anything.

You mistaken conscious awareness with adapted physiological responses to environmental stimuli. Animals ARE NOT self aware. Rather some animals - strictly some - physiologically respond to external stimulations of their physical presence (i.e. such as their reflection in mirrors, ETC.). This is not because they are self-conscious, it is because the animals which actually are capable of 'recognizing' themselves - for instance in a mirror - are relatively 'social' ones, meaning, they are heavily conditioned to respond to and interact with (in a purely mechanical way) others like them, certain responses are elicited in relation to visual, etc. stimuli.

But even if you were to argue that 'self-awareness' goes beyond passing the mirror test, again, it is the same thing: These are mechanized responses which either are testament to that species' ability to continually physically reproduce itself (i.e. 'survive') or exist for no reason at all and developed without interfering with their contingent ability to reproduce themselves. But even so, this is the highest absurdity itself: Animals are not on Revleft arguing about whether they themselves are animals, or whether other 'species' are humans. That is becasue categories like 'animal, species' ETC. ARE UNIQUELY HUMAN AND ONLY EXIST INSOFAR AS THEY ARE MEANINGFUL FOR MEN AND WOMEN. My god, do you even understand the fucking ABSURDITY of what you are trying to argue? Do you understand the depths of how nonsensical the claim that animals are 'self-aware' is? You are saying that animals posses IDEAS? Are you STUPID? You are saying that animals posses an IDEA of themselves? That is just as fucking stupid as claiming a rock has an idea of itself. But given the postmodern machinic-animism that plagues the youth today, I wouldn't actually be surprised if you really did believe that sincerely. God, god help us all.

Finally, not only is it 'unproven' that animals cannot 'interpret' their surroundings, it is actually in a sense quite proven, by the standard of reason that which Communists - and not bourgeois ideologues whose agnosticism is by default positively superstitious in practice (I.e. one may not claim to positively believe in god, but in all circumstances they act as though they do)- operate.. It is the fact that men and women have history, while animals are only constituted - ONLY - by their natural/biological history. In other words, animals only change themselves or their environmental surroundings in accordance with natural-physiological changes, while humans relate to the natural world around them - including their own physical biological bodies - by means of what is called in Lacanian psychoanalysis the symbolic order. Or in traditional Marxism, the social/historical dimension - the mode of production, if you will. This is subject to infinite change, because there is a difference between the empirical/natural world which you allege determines individuals, and the world of subjectivity, rationality and meaning in general.

What does this actually mean? It means that interpretation itself, is an example of a difference or dissonance, an 'imbalance', if you will, between men and women and the natural world. Men and women represent the natural world in their imagination, and they register it through the symbolic order, the world of rationality, language and meaning. This is their only actual access to it. The representation of the natural world in the heads of men and women, is actually a practical act, because upon recognizing forces outside of them which exist independently of their will, the possibility opens up of changing those forces. Thus, men and women have history, because the margins between their relationship to the natural world, and how this registers in their consciousness (and subsequently, in their social relations) is constituted by antagonisms. The first and most primary, primordial antagonism is between the world outside of the symbolic order, and the symbolic order itself. The world outside exists independently of men and women's will, their thoughts, their subjectivity. And this is what constitutes the antagonism. What we call history centers around this antagonism, but not self-consciously. Thus, class antagonism itself, the social antagonism, is at this level, it's at the level of how many demons men and women are still projecting onto the natural or external world, it relates to the margins of superstition.

Interpretation is practical. It is practical to interpret things. Because at the outset of interpreting something, you are isolating that something from its wider 'natural' context of wholeness and making it contingent. At the outset that which you interpret something, you subject it potentially to your will.

Animals interpret nothing because they don't alter the environments around them, outside of their physiological responses to it. Humans, by contrast, can infinitely manipulate and transform the physical world around them - and there are no limitations to it. Humans have history, but animals only have natural history. Now of course, humans for tens of thousands of years lived at the level of subsistence, and did not alter the environment around them outside of what is necessary for subsistence. But that's actually not really true - there was still an excess, which is why every pre-agricultural human society was also engaging in the production of animistic fetishes and rituals, crazy ritualistic dances and wild beliefs in demons all around them. This wild, crazy excess doesn't exist in the case of animals, and why? Because animals are sufficent unto-themselves for their survival, in terms of their pure physiological conditioning. The degree that which animals are 'social' and depend upon, say, nurturing, is the same degree to which they depend on other external factors for survival such as temperature, ecological niches, plant distribution, strict and specific diets, spatial details, and so on. None of these things exist for humans that aren't contingencies - in the sense of being purely meaningless limitations which we have already overcome or are in the process of overcoming. Man is not at the mercy of his environment, and where he is, it is owed not to his physiological limitations but to his own ineptitude, one way or another. Even if all of your limbs were cut off and you were thrown in the middle of the desert, that is literally just a stupid, random circumstance - you would think to yourself "Ah, what a stupid fucking thing that has happened to me, and how stupid that I can actually do nothing about it." But the reason for that is because it is still just a contingent circumstance, it's just that something outside of YOU, disallows you to do what YOU want. But that's just it - there is still a YOU which is irreducible to your body, or your contingent physiological circumstances, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS LACKING AMONG ANIMALS.

Certain external factors presently outside of man's control permit the continued endurance of the human body, and subsequently the brain, of that there is no doubt. But those factors, unlike for animals, are contingent. We say "I need all of this stupid shit so my brain can go on, and so subsequently, I can pursue the love of my life" or in the case of the Communist "I need my stupid body to work, so i can continue my duty to the revolution". Man's physiology is a contingent obstacle to the pursuit of what is fundamental to the life of men and women. Men must consciously survive. Animals, conversely, survive without the need for the use of reason at all. It is the horizon of human reason that which the entire universe passes through, only through which only becomes meaningful.

So you cannot say that "in the same way that a wolf mechanically calculates risks when scouting terrain, human categories of 'reason' are built in the same way for its survival' because you would also have to subject THAT VERY SAME STATEMENT to the same qualifications of being 'mechanically' elicited. You keep abstracting your 'reasonable' statements from the same 'humanness' they are directed at which alleges men and women are animals. This is your ultimate stupidity and it is disgusting that you don't see it. You are trying to step into the shoes of god to argue something about humans, and it's so hilariously clownish. The point is - humans made god too. The symbolic order is inescapable and irreducible. It is the sole horizon of meaning. Nothing outside of it can speak for you. There is, in this sense, nothing outside of men and women - the eye of man is supreme, and absolute. Nothing can escape its horizon.

do animals not feel pain for example or do they not sense temperature

Actually animals do not 'feel' anything. The fundamental experience of feeling is meaningless outside of its symbolic registration. Which means, only subjects feel. What we call feeling occurs between the crevices of the symbolic and the pre-symbolic universe, or the real, in other words, feeling emerges not purely out of physiological reflex, but between the gap of physiological experience and its symbolic registration. This applies to every other sensuous experience of men and women. Animals do not feel anything, like machines, they elicit certain physiological responses in relation to external stimuli, like a machine or a computer. But it actually ends there. It ends there and is purely hollow - there is no meaning to it, there is nothing underneath it. There is nothing underlying the suffering of a cute little puppy, it is a machine-like response to external stimuli, it is not felt. Rather, only humans feel something when they see an animal eliciting its physiological response to a belly-rub, or seeing it get abused by a psychotic-sadist. The animal doesn't feel shit. It makes no cries of injustice, and neither does it reflect upon what has happened to it. But humans feel for one reason and one reason alone - because they make meaning of their 'feelings', and even in the case where they fail to make conscious meaning of their feelings, it is that failed attempt itself which makes certain 'sensuous' encounters so traumatic. It is at the level of a gap which exists solely for humans. Animals have physiological responses - but feel nothing - feeling cannot be abstracted from its symbolic registration. To do so is pure animistic superstition! No different in thinking that a rock is thinking about you! There is no meaning to the existence of animals - they, like rocks, or plants, exist contingently - they're there, because nothing killed them or dis-enabled their survival yet. The conclusion of this is rather simple: The only meaning of the so-called 'pain' animals feel, even up to Bonobo Chimpanzees, is meaningful only at the level of how men and women falsely relate to it.

To have 'empathy' for animals is just as stupid as to have empathy for amobea. Frankly if you claim you have 'empathy' for a cute little bunny and not for a disgusting cockroach or even micro-organisms, that is simply an ethical inconsistency. Or if you are a new age mystic who claims to have 'empathy' for those, you also should have 'empathy' for atoms too. For instance, when a person is in pain, or is suffering an injustice, the 'atoms' which constitute them are also impacted. The atomic is no less relevant than the biological: Both are irrelevant to feeling in this sense. The biologization-animalization of man leaves him EVERY ASPECT of himself except that aspect which is actually himself - his humanness. Men and women are reduced to animal-like machines, and this is why the same world which obsesses over animals is the same world which obsesses over science-fiction fantasies of 'sentient' AI: Every aspect of man in capitalism can be abstracted from himself except his subjectivity.

Of course, you'd know every thing I am not only saying here, but am going to say given your inevitable infantile response, if you actually bothered to read the linked thread and the threads linked within it. I have gone over this so many different times - you could at least have the half-decency of making sure you aren't going to be repeating arguments that are already addressed before hand. Whatever.

I went into great detail about the pathology of ecologist-animism. The fact that you think animals 'feel' things reveals your anti-humanism, it reveals that you see humans too in the same way as you see animals. This is purely a phenomena of consumerist-narcissism, and proto-fascist antihumanism. For what, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion? That the revolutionary-historical consciousness of men is extinguished. Men and women's present mode of life is naturalized. Capitalism becomes natural. Questions of justice become bio-technical and medical ones of 'empathy'.

Welcome to the post-human future.

It is no wonder many blacks and Arabs, for instance, are so annoyed at stupid ass white people crying over dogs and shit. Because it reminds them of how they themselves are treated like animals. This is the future which awaits 'white people' too.

Originally Posted by Democracy

domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism; At least in a broad sense.

Claims the genius. I am interested in this 'broad sense', actually. Because upon close inspection it is revealed that the domination of the natural world is only incidental - it is indirect. The domination of the natural world is only a consequence of the infinite process of capitalist valorization. We know that, however - in fact, Marx is unprecedented in his understanding of this - Marx, before anyone, knew this, that all natural limitations are overcome in the pursuit of money. And yet it remains indirect, which is the entire point of Marx's alienation. The point of Communism is the self-conscious infinite mastery of natural processes. Meaning it is even 'worse' than capitalism: There is no delay, no English-romantic introspection about how we are 'destroying da sacred nature', no cheap sentiments about nature. It is simply, in the Absolute sense, continually being subdued by the symbolic order. Infinitely, in the temporal sense, even at the level of milliseconds. This is Communism and nothing else.

Bourgeois-animism is slaughtered and buried forever by revolutionary butchers of the future.

What kind of idiot claims this? "The domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism" - and? What is your point? Are you unaware of the fact that Communism too is inexorably linked to capitalism? What position do you stand in, as you insinuate you aren't "inexorably linked to capitalism" or that even the statement itself isn't "inexorably linked" to capitalism? Do you know how clownish you sound? Of course it is inexorably linked to capitalism, because in capitalism the margins of superstition to the natural world are gone. But they remain inward - as it concerns the world of man.

You use words but don't understand their meaning. Yes iti s linked to capitalism, but that's tautological, if we understand what capitalism is in the first place. The whole point of capitalism - generalized commodity production, compared to feudalism or pre-capitalism, is centered around the subjecting of natural processes to knowledge. Every idiot-Marxist should understand this! What do you think Marx meant by M-C-M'? The 'C' part - commodity - is physical. The commodity is produced from a specific relation man makes with the 'natural' world. With M-C-M', the commodity, C, becomes merely a means to the ends of making more money. So, the specific relations man has with the natural world become malleable, contingent. BUT - again - only indirectly, only because of the wider pursuit of money.

This is why upon the 'conquest' of nature, the natural response with bourgeois ideology is the sentimentalization of what was, or what is being lost - sacred, beautiful nature. Natural-parks and other reserves are just as much ideological cogs in the capitalist machine as anything else.

The ultimate proof that it is untrue that the 'domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism' is the reactionary-romantic backlash to the domination of the sacred natural world which is necessary for the homeostasis of capitalism just as much. In other words, the irony is that this statement alone is what is truly 'inexorably linked' specifically to the ideological reproduction of the conditions of capitalist valorzation. In bourgeois society, the domination of the natural world - this is something which is horrific, ugly, and disgusting. English romanticism is the natural status of how the natural world is registered symbolically in capitalism. The point of Communism is to bring to light what is in the background - a given, - but hidden.

Yes, it is true that in the indirect sense the domination of the world around is inexorably linked to capitalism - but here's the catch: It isn't dominated self-consciously, so to speak the contingency of men and women alone as responsible for this domination is not recognized, the entire point of alienation is that something else is presumed to exist - god, or even 'sacred nature' itself which defines the limitations of man's activity.

Lets say we have the power to dominate the world; master the environment. What will be be trying to create? The natural world that we destroyed.

You actually don't know what you are talking about. IF you actually read the thread in question, you'd have read that the conquest of the natural world also includes the conquest of the human body too.

What does that mean?

It means the conditions of life for men and women will always be infinitely changing. What you are also not taking into account is the fact that there is a spatial existence outside of the planet within which we reside, even if we accepted your ridiculous reasoning, which I will explain is ridiculous shortly after. There are also multiple other planets and moons in the star-system within which we reside alone. And in each of them, there are different conditions of the enbalance of survival, closely related to factors like their mass, their proximity toward our star, and their gravitational relation to other significant objects. So what are you actually talking about? With the domination of the world, it is an infinite and Absolute process - the world isn't dominated to recreate it in a plastic way, it is mastered for its own sake, and its mastery opens up new conditions for its mastery and on it goes infinitely. It is an absolute process which occurs even at the level of milliseconds.

This is why your reasoning is false. Even if we accept the metric of what is demanded for the survival and endurance of the bodies we inherited from contingent evolutionary processes - no, you're simply wrong. The world is not 'naturally' adapted to not only the historical, infinite human needs and wants, but also to those needs accorded by the physiological endurance of the human body. So how would we be 're-creating' it, when the point is to manipulate it to human will? You aren't thinking very much, are you.

Finally, let me clarify something about the 'destruction' of nature. When I say the 'destruction' of nature, I don't mean bringing to an end - or bringing obsolete - processes that exist independently of the symbolic. I am also talking strictly about bringing an end to the idea of nature. The idea that there is a force outside of men and women which is meaningful. Of course 'natural' processes will also infinitely exist. But the difference is that at the outset of Communism, begins an Absolute process wherein those natural processes are subsumed and conquered by the world of rationality and meaning.

I just read an excellent Monthly Review article on Marx's ecology (focusing on Marx's own readings about soil chemistry, of all things). Not that Marx's personal views ought to bed held sacrosanct, but, he practically comes across as a tree-hugging hippie compared to Exterminatus here. I think he May literally use the phrase "in harmony with nature" in the third volume of Capital. There's something to be considered in that.

Originally Posted by The Garbage Disposal Unit

I think he May literally use the phrase "in harmony with nature" in the third volume of Capital. There's something to be considered in that.

Indeed there is. Upon real consideration of the actual context in which Marx and Engels speak of "harmony with nature", one would recognize that they speak of the unleashing of man's productive abilities in relation to what Engels calls the "laws of nature" (Rather than assume a poor choice of wording on Engels' part, with regard to so-called 'laws', we will give him the benefit of doubt of operating under a different standard of meaning). Notice there is a difference, between 'nature' and the 'laws of nature' - the word nature did not carry the same connotations then as it does now, and in the closest instance where it could - among the English romantics, Marx is quite explicitly clear - and I should add abnormally often (to the point where upon being asked what his aversion is, in his famous confession, he names "Martin Tupper") of his hostility toward it.

There is nothing, no meaning whatsoever to Marxism, outside of the destruction of any and all sacreds, outside of the ruthless critique of everything that is existing. For Marx, critique in practice is praxis, and the most famous critique-in-practice is scientific practice, the literal critique of 'nature' in practice. Hegel's word is understanding, the subjecting or 'isolating' of a single object, violently tearing it from its 'organic' whole. For Marx it is this which is the essence of man - if there can be one - it is the violent subduing of natural processes to his practice - remember his famous 'best of bees' quote. Man actively transforms the world around him, and thus subsequently himself. The mere phrase - relationship to nature, as it concerns men and women, already denotes violence.

Anyone with the most elementary understanding of not only Marx's written works but their substantial, consistent meaning, understands that for Marx there is no room for nature, or at least, what we today call nature. The conclusion of the tradition which began with Marx in that in fact nature does not even exist outside of denoting various processes which are unwilled. Marx and Engels are very, quite expicitly clear as far as what they mean in terms of the unleashing and achievement of the highest human freedom, and it is in fact at the expense of the arbitrariness of natural processes. here is an example from Engels as it concerns so-called 'harmony with natural laws':

Freedom does not consist in any dreamt-of independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws, and in the possibility this gives of systematically making them work towards definite ends. This holds good in relation both to the laws of external nature and to those which govern the bodily and mental existence of men themselves — two classes of laws which we can separate from each other at most only in thought but not in reality. Freedom of the will therefore means nothing but the capacity to make decisions with knowledge of the subject. Therefore the freer a man’s judgment is in relation to a definite question, the greater is the necessity with which the content of this judgment will be determined; while the uncertainty, founded on ignorance, which seems to make an arbitrary choice among many different and conflicting possible decisions, shows precisely by this that it is not free, that it is controlled by the very object it should itself control. Freedom therefore consists in the control over ourselves and over external nature, a control founded on knowledge of natural necessity; it is therefore necessarily a product of historical development.

Engels goes on to expicitly speak of how the development of human freedom is and has been from the outset congruent with what in modern colloquial-phraseology we would call the domination over natural processes:

The first men who separated themselves from the animal kingdom were in all essentials as unfree as the animals themselves, but each step forward in the field of culture was a step towards freedom. On the threshold of human history stands the discovery that mechanical motion can be transformed into heat: the production of fire by friction; at the close of the development so far gone through stands the discovery that heat can be transformed into mechanical motion: the steam-engine. — And, in spite of the gigantic liberating revolution in the social world which the steam-engine is carrying through, and which is not yet half completed, it is beyond all doubt that the generation of fire by friction has had an even greater effect on the liberation of mankind.

In the strict sense, Engels, like Marx, is merely pointing to the dissonance between the world of man and the world of nature. In other words, Engels - as a dialectician - understands the that the full mastery of natural processes by man will never be possible, because natural processes are infinite. But this sais nothing about human freedom - it tells us that there is an empirical world which preceded the world of man, and which therefore is irreducible to man's reprsentation of it. This is all Engels means - he is not saying "man is infinitely futile" - if anything the point is that so-called natural processe are even more contingent and meaningless for Engels. This very gap, between man and nature, or between what is designated by the symbolic as the real and the symbolic itself, for Engels is an absolute process. What that means is, while man will never be independent from what he (in bad taste by modern standards) calls 'natural laws', with Communism begins the absolute process of the mastery (or 'control') over external-natural processes, in accordance with the conditions of their existence - which, by merit of having preceded man, have thus far existed independently of them. Natural processes may be infinite, but at the outset of Communism, man too becomes infinite - but the gap remains. So man does not 'catch up' with the infinitude of nature, on the contrary what begins is the Absolute process of subordinating it to the symbolic order, to the world of rationality, meaning, and subsequently human practice (or 'production'). For the very reason that there is an infinite gap between man and the world of nature, this process will never end.

This alone is the basis of the dialectic itself, this is the entire point of the dialectic - whose adherents speak of ten of motion, this is precisely their point, it concerns infinitude - compared to the finitiude of man's representation of the world the difference between the world of man and the empirical world. With Communism this is the last antagonsim, after hte social antagonism - and Engels aslo is quite explicit about that: Claiming that with the end of the social antagonism begins the last antagonism between mind and world.

Neither Marx nor Engels use the word 'nature' with the same meaning as it would have today. For them all nature means are unwilled processes. That is it. Everything I have said is not only completely, wholly and purely consistent with the thinking which began with Marx, it is an even purer incarnation than what could be glossed over from Marx's works themselves, which can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean without understanding the mode of thinking which underlies them - without an understanding of Hegel, one should not bother trying to interpret Marx's words. Without understanding Hegel, what Marx and Engels mean when they speak of freedom, nature, or even production, becomes meaningless. They seem trivial words but they have quite a deep meaning as far as their use goes for them. For Marx and Engels, what would horrify the ecologist-animists of the 21st century for them was a given. It was not in any way as controversial as it is today, thus, they had no reason to own up to the extent of the horror it would instill in the ideologues of the present day.

With Marx's materialism we witness the death of nature. What remains in its place is a meaningless void, a purely meaningless void which becomes meaningful only at the outset that which it is subordinate to man's productive capacities.

The conclusion is simple: The conquest of nature as it is used today, is not the same as what Marx and Engels identified as illusions of the conquest of 'natural laws'. The first is very simple, in terms of subordinating natural processes to man's will, the second - 'the conquest of natural laws' - is an ontological stupidity. Again this has nothing to do with a superstitious philistine humbleness on their part toward nature but their strictly ungodly, atheist materialism. Finally, though their views on the matter are clear, it is not enough - as you point are ready to admit - to point to Marx and Engels' views on the matter. One must get to the root of why they held the views they did, and the wider relationship of this rationality to the present task at hand.

What is importance is the relation of the ideology of ecology in relation to the present order, and in relation more specifically to the emergence of Silicon-Capitalism. The ideology of ecology is the ideology of Silicon-capitalism (silicon feudalism, that is). The same ideology of ecology de-sensitizes and buttresses their pretense to the overcoming of natural limitations - such as mortality. Any rudimentary acquaintance with, for example, shit-peddling about AI leaves one with a clear understanding of its relationship with reactionary ecologism. Namely, the reduction of man to empirical processes as animals are (and thus speculation about replicating those same empirical processes), etc.

Originally Posted by Rafiq

First, I want to make something clear. I don't want to post on Revleft right now. I am very, very busy. So, Full Metal Bolshevik, for future references, please don't drag me into threads like this. I recently made a thread on the manner. I have made it abundantly clear that I am busy, and that these are distractions, and they detract me from more important work I am presently immersed in. Thanks to what you have done, Full Metal Bolshevik, I might have to spend weeks on this thread defending what I post - do you have any idea how much that wastes? Again, I am not angry at you - but just for future reference, please don't do shit like this. Honestly, it is rather irritating - had I not been mentioned at all, and had some snide comments about what I have posted not been made, I would simply be able to ignore this - along with the mountains of stupidity that have compiled on Revleft as of my absence.

Secondly, "IbelieveInanarchy", not only did Full Metal Bolshevik link an appropriate thread, in that very same thread I have linked a plethora of other examples of how much I have devoted to this topic. Your narcassism, while unoriginal, is none the less still disgusting. You think you are so fucking original in your arguments and yet I have thoroughly and mercilessly buried them dozens of times over. Before you make such grand claims (i.e. such as "humans are biological machines"), think about whether you are setting yourself up to share the same fate as countless other idiots who have come here before and who have tried to argue the same thing. You are not original. And this isn't going to end in a different outcome either.

I promise you, the best thing you could do is have the modesty of understanding - you don't know what you're talking about. Many of what I have written on the subject may come to a surprise to you, because you're not going to find such arguments in pop-science discourse. They are utterly alien to your garbage, ideology of 'science'.

I have tried so fucking hard to avoid posting here because I have been so very fucking busy. But at the same time I am under obligation to defend everything I post on this website. I commit to my posts - unlike you - not out of arbitrary whim, but out of duty.l So even though I dread doing this, even though it is such a pain in the ass, no matter what I am under ethical obligation to do this.



Your reasoning is idiotic. The claim that only humans 'interpret' their surroundings is not a positive one, rather it is made at the expense of unproven positive claims. Given any elementary understanding of what interpretation actually is - which goes far beyond to physiological responses to environmental stimuli - there is actually no reason to believe whatsoever that animals are capable of it - even if we are speaking strictly as anglo-empiricists. Interpretation relates to reason, to rationality. It is not the same as a physiological response. For example, YOUR OWN POSTS on Revleft right now. Is there a physiological reason behind them? If so, why should we take them seriously, when you admit that a force outside of your own rationality - allegedly natural and biological processes - outside of not only your use of reason but more generally your will - are responsible? Why should we treat you like a rational person who is responsible for their arguments and their ideas, if you are somehow admitting that you in fact aren't responsible for them?

There is none. For instance, no one can prove that there is an invisible talking purple unicorn presently residing up your ass. You don't say "What proof do you have that there is no invisible talking purple unicorn up my ass?" This is very simple logic. And it all comes down to what difference it makes: the significance of the claim that animals are secretly self-conscious ("but that we just don't know it") is just as idiotic as claiming that animals speak high latin when no one is looking. You are claiming that humans should restrict and limit their practical activity (i.e. going out of our way to treat animals with 'rights', with 'care', ETC.) when there is no empirical reason to believe even the possibility of the positive claim you yourself have justified this upon. That isn't to say that the positive claim isn't the only justification, of course, ecologism is ideological and is irreducible to your alleged sincere belief in animals' subjective access to the human symbolic order. Of course, you'd know the nuances of this, you'd understand perfectly well how and why that is, if you actually bothered to devote some of your time to reading what I have written on the matter.

Before you start talking about humans, and how they too are "animals", and so on, why don't you not embarass yourself and ask: What dimension is it that which I have to SAY THIS? If humans are simply animals, what is the significance of having to experience the so-called KNOWLEDGE of this? This is the ultimate stupidity of ecologists - they claim humans are animals, and yet, when trying to argue that humans are animals, they presuppose they are free and rational agents, simply engaging in the discourse of reason. They love words like "evidence", they never shut up about the rituals of the university-discourse, these abjectly unnatural, highest most transcendent, divine domains of spiritual truth, because they exempt this domain from their claims of the alleged animality of man, EVEN THOUGH THE "LEGITIMATE" INSTITUTIONS AND DISCOURSE THAT WHICH YOU BASE YOUR CLAIMS UPON, WHICH YOU POSSESS ABSOLUTE FAITH IN, ARE CONSTITUTED TOO OF NOTHING MORE THAN MEN AND WOMEN: This is their disgusting, proto-fascist anti-humanism.

This is why ecologism is the most rabid god-peddling trash. They must presuppose that some kind of inhuman, alien, outside force - god - enables them to engage as free, rational subjects. This is their ultimate stupidity. If men and women were animals, then men and women wouldn't be saying "we are animals". There is clearly an excess which alone proves that it isn't true - animals do not say "we are animals", they are not aware that they are "animals", because they are not actually aware of anything.

You mistaken conscious awareness with adapted physiological responses to environmental stimuli. Animals ARE NOT self aware. Rather some animals - strictly some - physiologically respond to external stimulations of their physical presence (i.e. such as their reflection in mirrors, ETC.). This is not because they are self-conscious, it is because the animals which actually are capable of 'recognizing' themselves - for instance in a mirror - are relatively 'social' ones, meaning, they are heavily conditioned to respond to and interact with (in a purely mechanical way) others like them, certain responses are elicited in relation to visual, etc. stimuli.

But even if you were to argue that 'self-awareness' goes beyond passing the mirror test, again, it is the same thing: These are mechanized responses which either are testament to that species' ability to continually physically reproduce itself (i.e. 'survive') or exist for no reason at all and developed without interfering with their contingent ability to reproduce themselves. But even so, this is the highest absurdity itself: Animals are not on Revleft arguing about whether they themselves are animals, or whether other 'species' are humans. That is becasue categories like 'animal, species' ETC. ARE UNIQUELY HUMAN AND ONLY EXIST INSOFAR AS THEY ARE MEANINGFUL FOR MEN AND WOMEN. My god, do you even understand the fucking ABSURDITY of what you are trying to argue? Do you understand the depths of how nonsensical the claim that animals are 'self-aware' is? You are saying that animals posses IDEAS? Are you STUPID? You are saying that animals posses an IDEA of themselves? That is just as fucking stupid as claiming a rock has an idea of itself. But given the postmodern machinic-animism that plagues the youth today, I wouldn't actually be surprised if you really did believe that sincerely. God, god help us all.

Finally, not only is it 'unproven' that animals cannot 'interpret' their surroundings, it is actually in a sense quite proven, by the standard of reason that which Communists - and not bourgeois ideologues whose agnosticism is by default positively superstitious in practice (I.e. one may not claim to positively believe in god, but in all circumstances they act as though they do)- operate.. It is the fact that men and women have history, while animals are only constituted - ONLY - by their natural/biological history. In other words, animals only change themselves or their environmental surroundings in accordance with natural-physiological changes, while humans relate to the natural world around them - including their own physical biological bodies - by means of what is called in Lacanian psychoanalysis the symbolic order. Or in traditional Marxism, the social/historical dimension - the mode of production, if you will. This is subject to infinite change, because there is a difference between the empirical/natural world which you allege determines individuals, and the world of subjectivity, rationality and meaning in general.

What does this actually mean? It means that interpretation itself, is an example of a difference or dissonance, an 'imbalance', if you will, between men and women and the natural world. Men and women represent the natural world in their imagination, and they register it through the symbolic order, the world of rationality, language and meaning. This is their only actual access to it. The representation of the natural world in the heads of men and women, is actually a practical act, because upon recognizing forces outside of them which exist independently of their will, the possibility opens up of changing those forces. Thus, men and women have history, because the margins between their relationship to the natural world, and how this registers in their consciousness (and subsequently, in their social relations) is constituted by antagonisms. The first and most primary, primordial antagonism is between the world outside of the symbolic order, and the symbolic order itself. The world outside exists independently of men and women's will, their thoughts, their subjectivity. And this is what constitutes the antagonism. What we call history centers around this antagonism, but not self-consciously. Thus, class antagonism itself, the social antagonism, is at this level, it's at the level of how many demons men and women are still projecting onto the natural or external world, it relates to the margins of superstition.

Interpretation is practical. It is practical to interpret things. Because at the outset of interpreting something, you are isolating that something from its wider 'natural' context of wholeness and making it contingent. At the outset that which you interpret something, you subject it potentially to your will.

Animals interpret nothing because they don't alter the environments around them, outside of their physiological responses to it. Humans, by contrast, can infinitely manipulate and transform the physical world around them - and there are no limitations to it. Humans have history, but animals only have natural history. Now of course, humans for tens of thousands of years lived at the level of subsistence, and did not alter the environment around them outside of what is necessary for subsistence. But that's actually not really true - there was still an excess, which is why every pre-agricultural human society was also engaging in the production of animistic fetishes and rituals, crazy ritualistic dances and wild beliefs in demons all around them. This wild, crazy excess doesn't exist in the case of animals, and why? Because animals are sufficent unto-themselves for their survival, in terms of their pure physiological conditioning. The degree that which animals are 'social' and depend upon, say, nurturing, is the same degree to which they depend on other external factors for survival such as temperature, ecological niches, plant distribution, strict and specific diets, spatial details, and so on. None of these things exist for humans that aren't contingencies - in the sense of being purely meaningless limitations which we have already overcome or are in the process of overcoming. Man is not at the mercy of his environment, and where he is, it is owed not to his physiological limitations but to his own ineptitude, one way or another. Even if all of your limbs were cut off and you were thrown in the middle of the desert, that is literally just a stupid, random circumstance - you would think to yourself "Ah, what a stupid fucking thing that has happened to me, and how stupid that I can actually do nothing about it." But the reason for that is because it is still just a contingent circumstance, it's just that something outside of YOU, disallows you to do what YOU want. But that's just it - there is still a YOU which is irreducible to your body, or your contingent physiological circumstances, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS LACKING AMONG ANIMALS.

Certain external factors presently outside of man's control permit the continued endurance of the human body, and subsequently the brain, of that there is no doubt. But those factors, unlike for animals, are contingent. We say "I need all of this stupid shit so my brain can go on, and so subsequently, I can pursue the love of my life" or in the case of the Communist "I need my stupid body to work, so i can continue my duty to the revolution". Man's physiology is a contingent obstacle to the pursuit of what is fundamental to the life of men and women. Men must consciously survive. Animals, conversely, survive without the need for the use of reason at all. It is the horizon of human reason that which the entire universe passes through, only through which only becomes meaningful.

So you cannot say that "in the same way that a wolf mechanically calculates risks when scouting terrain, human categories of 'reason' are built in the same way for its survival' because you would also have to subject THAT VERY SAME STATEMENT to the same qualifications of being 'mechanically' elicited. You keep abstracting your 'reasonable' statements from the same 'humanness' they are directed at which alleges men and women are animals. This is your ultimate stupidity and it is disgusting that you don't see it. You are trying to step into the shoes of god to argue something about humans, and it's so hilariously clownish. The point is - humans made god too. The symbolic order is inescapable and irreducible. It is the sole horizon of meaning. Nothing outside of it can speak for you. There is, in this sense, nothing outside of men and women - the eye of man is supreme, and absolute. Nothing can escape its horizon.



Actually animals do not 'feel' anything. The fundamental experience of feeling is meaningless outside of its symbolic registration. Which means, only subjects feel. What we call feeling occurs between the crevices of the symbolic and the pre-symbolic universe, or the real, in other words, feeling emerges not purely out of physiological reflex, but between the gap of physiological experience and its symbolic registration. This applies to every other sensuous experience of men and women. Animals do not feel anything, like machines, they elicit certain physiological responses in relation to external stimuli, like a machine or a computer. But it actually ends there. It ends there and is purely hollow - there is no meaning to it, there is nothing underneath it. There is nothing underlying the suffering of a cute little puppy, it is a machine-like response to external stimuli, it is not felt. Rather, only humans feel something when they see an animal eliciting its physiological response to a belly-rub, or seeing it get abused by a psychotic-sadist. The animal doesn't feel shit. It makes no cries of injustice, and neither does it reflect upon what has happened to it. But humans feel for one reason and one reason alone - because they make meaning of their 'feelings', and even in the case where they fail to make conscious meaning of their feelings, it is that failed attempt itself which makes certain 'sensuous' encounters so traumatic. It is at the level of a gap which exists solely for humans. Animals have physiological responses - but feel nothing - feeling cannot be abstracted from its symbolic registration. To do so is pure animistic superstition! No different in thinking that a rock is thinking about you! There is no meaning to the existence of animals - they, like rocks, or plants, exist contingently - they're there, because nothing killed them or dis-enabled their survival yet. The conclusion of this is rather simple: The only meaning of the so-called 'pain' animals feel, even up to Bonobo Chimpanzees, is meaningful only at the level of how men and women falsely relate to it.

To have 'empathy' for animals is just as stupid as to have empathy for amobea. Frankly if you claim you have 'empathy' for a cute little bunny and not for a disgusting cockroach or even micro-organisms, that is simply an ethical inconsistency. Or if you are a new age mystic who claims to have 'empathy' for those, you also should have 'empathy' for atoms too. For instance, when a person is in pain, or is suffering an injustice, the 'atoms' which constitute them are also impacted. The atomic is no less relevant than the biological: Both are irrelevant to feeling in this sense. The biologization-animalization of man leaves him EVERY ASPECT of himself except that aspect which is actually himself - his humanness. Men and women are reduced to animal-like machines, and this is why the same world which obsesses over animals is the same world which obsesses over science-fiction fantasies of 'sentient' AI: Every aspect of man in capitalism can be abstracted from himself except his subjectivity.

Of course, you'd know every thing I am not only saying here, but am going to say given your inevitable infantile response, if you actually bothered to read the linked thread and the threads linked within it. I have gone over this so many different times - you could at least have the half-decency of making sure you aren't going to be repeating arguments that are already addressed before hand. Whatever.

I went into great detail about the pathology of ecologist-animism. The fact that you think animals 'feel' things reveals your anti-humanism, it reveals that you see humans too in the same way as you see animals. This is purely a phenomena of consumerist-narcissism, and proto-fascist antihumanism. For what, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion? That the revolutionary-historical consciousness of men is extinguished. Men and women's present mode of life is naturalized. Capitalism becomes natural. Questions of justice become bio-technical and medical ones of 'empathy'.

Welcome to the post-human future.

It is no wonder many blacks and Arabs, for instance, are so annoyed at stupid ass white people crying over dogs and shit. Because it reminds them of how they themselves are treated like animals. This is the future which awaits 'white people' too.



Claims the genius. I am interested in this 'broad sense', actually. Because upon close inspection it is revealed that the domination of the natural world is only incidental - it is indirect. The domination of the natural world is only a consequence of the infinite process of capitalist valorization. We know that, however - in fact, Marx is unprecedented in his understanding of this - Marx, before anyone, knew this, that all natural limitations are overcome in the pursuit of money. And yet it remains indirect, which is the entire point of Marx's alienation. The point of Communism is the self-conscious infinite mastery of natural processes. Meaning it is even 'worse' than capitalism: There is no delay, no English-romantic introspection about how we are 'destroying da sacred nature', no cheap sentiments about nature. It is simply, in the Absolute sense, continually being subdued by the symbolic order. Infinitely, in the temporal sense, even at the level of milliseconds. This is Communism and nothing else.

Bourgeois-animism is slaughtered and buried forever by revolutionary butchers of the future.

What kind of idiot claims this? "The domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism" - and? What is your point? Are you unaware of the fact that Communism too is inexorably linked to capitalism? What position do you stand in, as you insinuate you aren't "inexorably linked to capitalism" or that even the statement itself isn't "inexorably linked" to capitalism? Do you know how clownish you sound? Of course it is inexorably linked to capitalism, because in capitalism the margins of superstition to the natural world are gone. But they remain inward - as it concerns the world of man.

You use words but don't understand their meaning. Yes iti s linked to capitalism, but that's tautological, if we understand what capitalism is in the first place. The whole point of capitalism - generalized commodity production, compared to feudalism or pre-capitalism, is centered around the subjecting of natural processes to knowledge. Every idiot-Marxist should understand this! What do you think Marx meant by M-C-M'? The 'C' part - commodity - is physical. The commodity is produced from a specific relation man makes with the 'natural' world. With M-C-M', the commodity, C, becomes merely a means to the ends of making more money. So, the specific relations man has with the natural world become malleable, contingent. BUT - again - only indirectly, only because of the wider pursuit of money.

This is why upon the 'conquest' of nature, the natural response with bourgeois ideology is the sentimentalization of what was, or what is being lost - sacred, beautiful nature. Natural-parks and other reserves are just as much ideological cogs in the capitalist machine as anything else.

The ultimate proof that it is untrue that the 'domination of the world around seems to be inexorably linked to capitalism' is the reactionary-romantic backlash to the domination of the sacred natural world which is necessary for the homeostasis of capitalism just as much. In other words, the irony is that this statement alone is what is truly 'inexorably linked' specifically to the ideological reproduction of the conditions of capitalist valorzation. In bourgeois society, the domination of the natural world - this is something which is horrific, ugly, and disgusting. English romanticism is the natural status of how the natural world is registered symbolically in capitalism. The point of Communism is to bring to light what is in the background - a given, - but hidden.

Yes, it is true that in the indirect sense the domination of the world around is inexorably linked to capitalism - but here's the catch: It isn't dominated self-consciously, so to speak the contingency of men and women alone as responsible for this domination is not recognized, the entire point of alienation is that something else is presumed to exist - god, or even 'sacred nature' itself which defines the limitations of man's activity.



You actually don't know what you are talking about. IF you actually read the thread in question, you'd have read that the conquest of the natural world also includes the conquest of the human body too.

What does that mean?

It means the conditions of life for men and women will always be infinitely changing. What you are also not taking into account is the fact that there is a spatial existence outside of the planet within which we reside, even if we accepted your ridiculous reasoning, which I will explain is ridiculous shortly after. There are also multiple other planets and moons in the star-system within which we reside alone. And in each of them, there are different conditions of the enbalance of survival, closely related to factors like their mass, their proximity toward our star, and their gravitational relation to other significant objects. So what are you actually talking about? With the domination of the world, it is an infinite and Absolute process - the world isn't dominated to recreate it in a plastic way, it is mastered for its own sake, and its mastery opens up new conditions for its mastery and on it goes infinitely. It is an absolute process which occurs even at the level of milliseconds.

This is why your reasoning is false. Even if we accept the metric of what is demanded for the survival and endurance of the bodies we inherited from contingent evolutionary processes - no, you're simply wrong. The world is not 'naturally' adapted to not only the historical, infinite human needs and wants, but also to those needs accorded by the physiological endurance of the human body. So how would we be 're-creating' it, when the point is to manipulate it to human will? You aren't thinking very much, are you.

Finally, let me clarify something about the 'destruction' of nature. When I say the 'destruction' of nature, I don't mean bringing to an end - or bringing obsolete - processes that exist independently of the symbolic. I am also talking strictly about bringing an end to the idea of nature. The idea that there is a force outside of men and women which is meaningful. Of course 'natural' processes will also infinitely exist. But the difference is that at the outset of Communism, begins an Absolute process wherein those natural processes are subsumed and conquered by the world of rationality and meaning.

Im glad that even though you have a very busy schedule you could find the time to write this incoherent masterpiece.

I will try to focus on the parts of your text wall which actually seem to be an attempt at an actual argument.

"If so, why should we take them seriously, when you admit that a force outside of your own rationality - allegedly natural and biological processes - outside of not only your use of reason but more generally your will - are responsible? "
So you think that your rationality is not a product of your brain? It would be great if you could answer this question without spouting all your pseudo-intelectual bullshit and actually provide evidence. Here is some evidence that behaviour is actually a product of your brain(doi:10.1098/rspl.1894.0063). IF you could provide evidence that our brain has some extra structures or something else which makes us rational and other animals not rational that would be great. If you cant however your argument boils down to: hurr durr but humans are magical creatures.

"Before you start talking about humans, and how they too are "animals", and so on, why don't you not embarass yourself and ask: What dimension is it that which I have to SAY THIS? If humans are simply animals, what is the significance of having to experience the so-called KNOWLEDGE of this? This is the ultimate stupidity of ecologists - they claim humans are animals, and yet, when trying to argue that humans are animals, they presuppose they are free and rational agents, simply engaging in the discourse of reason. They love words like "evidence", they never shut up about the rituals of the university-discourse, these abjectly unnatural, highest most transcendent, divine domains of spiritual truth, because they exempt this domain from their claims of the alleged animality of man,"
again your magical creature argument. We are animals in every sense of the word. Our cells are eukaryotic without cell walls. We are not able to make our own food, like plants or bacteria can. I dont get how you ever got this idea that humans are not animals. We do have a complex brain in which neurons interact to create thoughts however, this doesnt make us magical unicorns though... You just dont want to be called an animal cause apparantly you are scared that your brain is just a set of biochemical reactions, this assumption of yours however is not based on any facts, just on some pseudo-philosophy crazy talk.

"Animals ARE NOT self aware."
this again is a claim you make without any facts to back it up. please provide some research, and no the burden of proof is not with me here. You are probably gonna cry because i ask you for evidence of a negative claim you make yourself. IF i would claim: animals are self aware. then i would have to provide evidence, which i already did in preivous post in this thread. but here is another one doi: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000170. There is a full range of research which shows that animals are self aware, and you provide none which prove the contrary or disprove this research.


"But that's just it - there is still a YOU which is irreducible to your body, or your contingent physiological circumstances, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS LACKING AMONG ANIMALS. "
Again you make negative claims without evidence or any facts that seem to show that you are even remotely right. Come with some real facts instead of a big blubber of words without any substance.

I am not going to react to the rest of your post because it is all the same factless rhetoric.

edit: i read some of your previous posts yes, they are all the same rhetoric without actually adressing someones point or even remotely doing an attempt to refute them. Your basic arguments always boil down to this: 1 call the person an idiot 2 type a lot of blubber without any research or facts 3 claim that science is somehow bourgeouise and that it cant prove anything so you dont have to provide research

Originally Posted by IbelieveInanarchy

Im glad that even though you have a very busy schedule you could find the time to write this incoherent masterpiece.

Oh, don't worry about that. You should know by now, child, that you are not by any means and in any circumstance going to get your last word. So you see, in the last post, I had the decency to give you the opportunity to point towards the fact that each and every fucking argument you are going to make here and now was probaboly already addressed previously. But since you can't contain your disgusting narcissism, and think you're arguments are original, instead of re-writing everything, I am more than happy to flood you with the oceans of text I have devoted to exactly the same, PRECISELY the same arguments I have buried dozens and dozens of times over. Welcome to hell, child. You want to drag me through this? Okay, let's go. We can keep this up for as long as you want. To reiterate the past thread:

I don't fucking call up those I read, and demand them to conform themselves to my ignorance, I READ THEM thoroughly and I understand them thoroughly, I TAKE the extra mile of humbling myself toward notions, ideas, I am unfamiliar with and I absorb as much as possible before I even think about opening my fucking mouth. But people on this forum, for some reason, just love running their mouths for no reason, of deriving definitive conclusions when they are utterly lsot and totally ignorant. I put a great deal of care into everything I say, so it is not me who is asserting myself over others, but the reverse. These lazy philistines who consign faith into their big Other, they just want to casually TYPE SHIT, and go "Wah, whatever", they want to leave all of the actual detailed work for me, so basically I have to serve as the clean-up crew to people who want to shit all over the ground, when there is literally a bathroom around the corner. Have the fucking modesty of recognizing your limitations, becuase no, you are not a beautiful precious snowflake, the fact that you spontaneously arbtirarily came ot the conclusions you did is not because you are speical nor is it because god whispered these ideas in your ear, it is testament to YOUR OWN immersion into the actual social order, as an ideologicla subject. You are not fucking special.

If I becam a Marxist through doing this, I would ahve never actually become a Marxist. People don't want to fucking critique themselves and their own STUPID fucking ideas which they derive ready-made from the sentmentalities from any hollywood movie, becuase they think that their Marxism is THEIR journey alone, they think this is just about THEM, they think that their own natural and spontaneous genius is responsible for them. Sorry to say, you are not special, no one is special, to be a Communist one must LEARN, they must engage in self-discipline, YOU WERE NOT BORN THIS WAY AND THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT WHICH MAKES YOUR POSITIONS ANYTHING LESS THAN THE READY-MADE POSITIONS OF BOURGEOIS SOCIETY. Get. It. In. Your. Fucking. Head.

Before you do this, honestly leave me the fuck alone. Like yes, I will respond, yes I won't let this filth get its last word, but I am imploring you to stop out of basic decency. Just fucking stop. No one cares about your stupid ego, it means nothing. We all, those of us who are knowledgable, think less of you when you keep spewing this garbage. You are commanding of far more respect if you modestly accept that as it concerns Marxism, as it concerns Communism, both philosophically and theoretically you are very immature and have a lot of learning to do - this is a respectable position. What is not respectable is running your mouth like this and talking out of your ass, and in the process direspecting and dismissing the represented positions of others who actually take a great deal of their time to FUCKING EXPLAIN IT TO YOU ALL. Like shit.

So you think that your rationality is not a product of your brain? It would be great if you could answer this question without spouting all your pseudo-intelectual bullshit and actually provide evidence.

Let's get one thing clear, child, I wrote an entire fucking book, 180,000 words long, practically tearing to shreads empiricism. So let me ask you a question: Do you fucking think you are going to get away making these incredibly naive, disgusting assertions about so-caleld 'evidence'? Do you think with your fucking ass? Here we go again, let's go: LISTEN TO ME, you FUCKING idiot, to claim that rationality is irreducible to the empirical processes which allow for its possibility IS NOT A POSITIVE EMPIRICAL CLAIM, on the contrary, claiming that rationality is reducible to empirical processes IS one. you talk about "pseudo-intellectual bullshit", and this alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously on any level whatsoever, and it also disqualifies you from any iota of respect you FUCKING idiot. It basically doesn't get past you that I am making real arguments, by the use of reason - you brush over everything I fucking say as 'pseudo-intellectual bullshit' when in fact every fucking idiot who is paying attention to this thread right now understands my arguments perfectly well: IF RATIONALITY IS REDUCIBLE TO PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THEN SO TOO MUST BE THE ARGUMENT THAT RATIONALITY IS REDUCIBLE TO PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESSES. And it never ends. Do you FUCKING understand? You claimed to have read all of my arguments, but it's clear you haven't paid an iota of attention to the most important one: IF YOU CLAIM that your subjectivity owes itself to external processes, BY WHAT MERIT and by what devices DO YOU SAY SO? Do you posses KNOWLEDGE of this, huh, you FUCKING idiot? And knowledge of the fact that you possess knowledge? Each and every attempt to make yourself reducible to external forces, you fall under the trap of making this positive knowledge which you alone as a subject are responsible for. This fucking idiot is telling us that if we knew precisely every single neurological process which is allegedly responsible for 'rationality', that if we were to know this, the things which 'determine' our behavior, we still could not 'change' our behavior. This is how stupid this fucking idiot is. Meanwhile, if you were to understand the procsses in the animal brain, down to the atomic level, nothing would change - the animal would still do what it is doing because there is no way for it, unlike (hypothetically speaking, even if we have not reached that level yet) humans, to know the processes in its brain.

In short: Rationality IS NOT a 'product' of the brain, because rationality is historical.

Notice that I am not making any positive empirical claims. DO you know what a positive empirical claim is you FUCKING idiot? The qualifications for evidence you are demanding are impossible, in the same way that there is no evidence that there is no god. The point is that as Communists, and not anglo-empiricists, we do not require positive evidence for knowledge, because our knowledge is not only knowledge of empirical processes but knowledge of the social-symbolic dimension which is irreducible to those processes. You are demanding evidence, and yet the qualifications for evidence - (HERE WE GO AGAIN, ROUND AND ROUND WE GO, THIS IS WHY I FUCKING STOPPED POSTING, BECAUSE THIS HAS TO BE LITERALLY, NOT KIDDING, the 100TH FUCKING TIME I HAVE GONE OVER THIS) - that are empirical stand for bourgeois society as a whole. The logical conclusion of your thinking is that Communism can be 'proven' to bourgeois ideologues do, by merit of 'evidence', but that isn't the case: If it were the case, we would be living in Communism. BUT NOTHING I AM CLAIMING IS EMPIRICALLY CONTROVERSIAL AT THE LEVEL OF INTRODUCING NEW EMPIRICAL POSITIVE CLAIMS - I AM NOT DEALING WITH THINGS AT THE EMPIRICAL LEVEL BUT AT THE LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVITY, OF CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH IS IRREDUCIBLE TO EMPIRICAL REALITY FOR THE REASON THAT IT REPRESENTS AND DRAWS RATIONAL CONCLUSIONS FROM IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Fucking idiot is under the impression that humans are ontologically A GIVEN, when the existence of man IS CONTINGENT. It is precisely because man is even physiologically contingent, and not a given, that is the point: You are abstracting the human representation of the world from the humans themselves, and then drawing conclusions about "humans" without respecting the fact that it is men and women, 'humans' alone WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPRESENTATION AND CONCLUSION IN THE FIRST PLACE! You STUPID, FUCKING piece of garbage. It is literally almost that simple. Animals do not say "I am an animal". Rather, juvenile masochistic embarrassments of the Left in the 21st century say this, fucking cowards and traitors, bootlickers to ruling ideology say this. Fuck off back to "I fucking love science" if you think that shit is going to have a pass here, kiddo.

Go FUCKING AHEAD and cover your ears and start screaming, dismissing all of this as "pseudo-intellectual bullshit" MOTHERFUCKER, I WILL STILL BE HERE TO REMIND YOU, YOU WON'T SUCCESSFULLY RUN AWAY FROM ANYTHING. Fucking idiot coward can't even get to a fraction of a level of what standards have been established for this argument alone and goes back into closed-loop mode. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REPEATING THE SAME THING IS NOT GOING TO SAVE YOU FROM THE VERY ARGUMENTS CONCISELY AGAINST THOSE VERY SAME THINGS.

This child seems to be under the impression that Rafiq is arguing WITH REGARD to sacred and scholastic truth. The object of Rafiq's argumentation is not whether god, or the big Other, or their priests - the 'experts' are saying what Rafiq is saying. I am NOT fucking saying the big Other is agreeing with me, dear child. Let's get past that once and for all: I am grabbing you by the throat and demanding you take responsibility for this big Other. I am not fucking saying National Geographic agrees with what I am saying, nor am I saying any other legitimate-knowledge authority agrees. You fail to understand that rather than make the argument that ruling ideology is in agreement with Rafiq, Rafiq conditions his sole purpose in life to the destruction and annihilation of the ruling order of life itself. Rafiq is not saying the big Other agrees with him, Rafiq is saying your big Other doesn't even fucking exist.

Here is some evidence that behaviour is actually a product of your brain(doi:10.1098/rspl.1894.0063).

Actually you fucking idiot, by no metric is that meaningful evidence, furthermore, I want you to go find me proof that you linking that fucking google-book code was determined by your brain and therefore you aren't self-responsible for such a stupidity. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "behavior is a product of your brain", idiot, the best neuroscientists can done - and the best anyone can do, is correlate behavior with its registration in neurological processes. But by no means is there any evidence whatsoever that the behavior which is Rafiq posting on Revleft right now, is a product of his brain, or is a product of anything empirically reducible whatsoever. You fail to understand that all rationality, and meaning, begins and ends with the symbolic. Nothing 'causes' it, it is sufficient unto itself in the strict sense of constituting an irreducible dimension of life, in the same way that biological processes, while dependent, are irreducible to chemical ones, and chemical ones, while dependent, are irreducible to atomic ones. Your stupidity disallows you from understanding this, and each and every moment that you think to yourself "Rafiq, you should elaborate! What do you mean! How did this symbolic order come about! Is it magic? What are you talking about", REMEMBER THAT I HAVE DEDICATED OCEANS UPON OCEANS OF TEXT DEDICATED PRECISELY TO THIS ON REVLEFT, NOT ONLY ARE THEY READILY AVAILABLE TO YOU, I HAVE REITERATED AND RE-WRITTEN IN EXTENSIVE AND ELABORATED WAYS DOZENS AND DOZENS OF TIMES OVER YOU ABJECTLY STUPID FUCKING PERSON.

That behavior is reflected in empirical processes in the brain, does not prove that the behavior was caused by those processes, this is what you fail to understand and for this reason you are a fucking idiot. What neurological processes are responsible for locating those neurological processes and which neurological processes are responsible for locating which neurological processes are responsible for locating neurological processes? THIS IS AN INFINITE PARADOX you philistines supplement with OUTRIGHT superstitious pop-science, notions of "the self" being an illusion - you cannot get around this. For Marxists, conversely, this is not a paradox at all. Let me ask you a question you FUCKING IDIOT: Has human behavior, excluding anti-scientific over-reaching abstractions and other superstitious 'wisdoms', remained constant over the past 10,000 years? It clearly has not in any meaningful sense. And yet, not only is there zero evidence whatsoever to suggest neurological changes in the brain to account for those historical changes, there is a plethora of real evidence to the contrary. Can you explain this you fucking idiot, or do you still want to keep going?

IF you could provide evidence that our brain has some extra structures or something else which makes us rational and other animals not rational that would be great.

FUCKING idiot, FUCKING stupid piece of shit, FUCKING worthless piece of GARBAGE, do you NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT IS THAT NO SUCH STRUCTURE EXISTS, BECAUSE RATIONALITY IS IRREDUCIBLE TO THE FUCKING BRAIN. YOU DON'T FUCKING HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, BUT YOU CONTINUALLY INSIST AND PRETEND LIKE THIS ARGUMENT DOESN'T EXIST OR ISN'T BEING MADE: YOU FUCKING IDIOT, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GRANT ME THE MINIMAL RESPECT OF READING AND ATTEMPTING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING, OR MOREOVER WHAT IS READILY AVAILABLE TO SHOW WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR OVER A YEAR, EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE DESERVING OF ANYTHING BUT ABUSE AND RIDICULE! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

I don't have to provide you with any fucking evidence regarding the brain whatsoever, because this evidence would be incidental, it would mean nothing, you FUCKING idiot, because of all of the superstitious extra-positive claims you could make about it, IT IS THIS WHICH IS THE POINT OF THIS 'DEBATE" IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU FUCKING IDIOT. What you are saying is like asking "Show me the structures in the brain which are responsible for Christian theology" - motherfucker, understanding Christian theology does not require understand how it registers in the human brain at all at any level whatsoever. Your abject stupidity does not allow you to see this: UNDERSTANDING THAT MAN IS NOT AN ANIMAL, IS NOT DISCERNIBLE AT THE LEVEL OF OBSERVING EXTERNAL EMPIRICAL OBJECTS, IT IS A GIVEN AT THE LEVEL OF EVEN ENGAGING IN THIS VERY THOUGHT IN HTE FIRST PLACE, IT IS DISCERNABLE AT THE LEVEL OF HTE FACT THAT IT IS MAN ALONE WHO HAS TAXOMONIZED AND DIFFERENTIATED RELATITY: THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT HTE FACT THAT ANIMALS ARE ANIMALS, ARE PEOPLE - WHAT WE CALL ANIMALS ARE BIO-MACHINES THAT DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HUMANS TAXOMONIZE THEM AS "ANIMALS" WHATSOEVER.

THE ONLY REASON WE CALL ANIMALS ANIMALS IS BECAUSE OF HOW THIS PRACTICALLY RELATES TO MAN, because animals operate at a level which man has SUBSUMED by the symbolic order, and the very fact that ANY CLAIM ABOUT REALITY IS ALREADY A CLAIM WHICH REGISTERS ITSELF THROUGH LANGUAGE, RATIONALITY AND MEANING, SHOWS this. You FUCKING idiot. You mistaken HUMANS THEMSELVES with what is only the OBJECTS of human thought, which is the brain or the human body. SOMETHING IS IRREDUCIBLE which can abstract those things from their empirical context and REPRESENT THEM in thought, and draw meaningful conclusions from them. You FUCKING, abjectly, STUPID FUCKING PERSON.

We are animals in every sense of the word. Our cells are eukaryotic without cell walls.

Oh yes, you fucking idiot"? And who decided that an animal can be identified as having 'eukaryotic cell walls', god, or humans? Ignoring the substantive points made is not going to exempt you from being confronted with them over and over again. I promise you I will have the last word in this thread for as long as you ignore them, I promise you, child, that you won't be running away from shit: The ultimate fucking absurdity of conditioning the claim that 'humans are animals' on the basis of the fact that the human body is constituted by biological processes, and that in the sense of natural history, the human physiological body indeed emerged from the animal kingdom, is that it fails to ignore the fundamentally and irreducibly human dimension of - subjectivity, rationality, and whatever you like, which not only differentiates the world into various different objects and taxmonizes it according to its practice, but registers it at the level of ethics, religion, morality, law, or whatever you want, or in other words, is able to derive social implications from this.

So let me make it fucking clear to you, as I have made it clear a thousand times before: YOU ATTEMPT TO ABSTRACT YOURSELF FROM HUMANNESS when you claim that "we are animals in every sense of the word", you attempt to abstract this statement from its fundamentally and inescapably HUMAN point of enunciation, and this claim about the world you are attempting to make, which you abstract from the subject making it, you are attempting to argue is immanent to the word itself, in other words, that GOD HIMSELF is saying this. You actually think THE IDEA "we are animals in every sense of the word" exists INDEPENDENTLY of the so-called 'human animals' who alone are responsible for it - and that the humans ought to restrict their activity, or come to a practical conclusion from this statement, FROM AN IDEA THEY ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Do you not FUCKING understand how FUCKING stupid you look when you claim "We are animals in every sense of the word" in light of this? Do you not understand how FUCKING stupid you look insofar as you freely admit your righteous unfreedom, that in other words, you have the capacity to be free as an active subject, but by the active devices of your subjectivity you RESTRICT it out of philistine stupidity and superstition?

"Oh, us meager humans ought to humble ourselves, for we are just animals" - WHERE DOES THIS IDEA COME FROM? Do ANIMALS SAY THIS you FUCKING idiot?

Moreover do animals have a notion of microbiology? Do animals differentiate reality at the level which humans do? Which animals, specifically, claim "We are animals, Our cells are eukaryotic"? And how long have humans been doing this, if their 'rationality' is allegedly a 'product of the brain', and not something irreducible? How does it fucking come to pass that human rationality 'comes from the brain' when it is in fact historical, can be shown to be historical to the point where to claim that it is not would be pure superstition, and that human rationality is purely contingent upon the individual's emergence into what I have previously and thoroughly qualified as the symbolic order, meaning - insofar as man cannot enter the symbolic, he will not posses any degree of rationality whatsoever. And finally, it is not by any means of 'rationality' that man enters the symbolic either, quite to the contrary rationality is adopted by 'irrational' means, beginning with the screaming wailing of the infant child. The fact of the matter, which you should have well understood by now, is rather simple: The symbolic order has subsumed every other order of life, biological, chemical, atomic. The symbolic order, while dependent upon it in a contingent sense, is irreducible to empirical reality. Where humans 'require' their own brains, they can in their own subjectivity represent their own brain as a differential object, therefore, individuals are irreducible to their brains, no matter how much they depend on them.

We are not able to make our own food, like plants or bacteria can.

All you have told us is htat we aren't plants or bacteria. What is your fucking point, child? Fucking idiot? Have you read ANYTHING WHATEVER? Are you this INCREDIBLY STUPID?

We do have a complex brain in which neurons interact to create thoughts however, this doesnt make us magical unicorns though...

Listen to me you fucking idiot, if the interactions of neurons is responsible for thought, why is it that thought is historical you FUCKING idiot? Are you telling me that the past 150,000 years of the exsitence of anatomically modern humans is the odyssey of the brain unveiling its hidden secrets? Is that what you are trying to argue you fucking idiot? In which case, that would require positive empirical proof, that the 'neurons' responsible for quantum mechanics were 'hiding' 150,000 thousand years ago, and that only recently they have been unveiled. ONLY BY MEANS OF LITERAL SUPERSTITION COULD SOMEONE DRAW AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

Finally, with regard to magic - becuase you are a philistine ideologue, because you are a reactionary ideologue, moreover, you fail to comprehend that if something is irreducible to empirical reality, it must owe itself to some kind of metaphysical-magical, hidden processes. But you are still falling into the same exact mistake which was the object of my argumentation in the first place: Neither magic, nor natural processes are responsible for subjectivity and rationality, for humanness, because the entire point is that I am speaking of a plane of existence which is irreducible to external empirical or hypothetically but unproven empirical processes. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND? THE SYMBOLIC ORDER IS IRREDUCIBLE TO 'STUFF", MAGIC OR OTHERWISE. You can't wrap your head around this, because you are a bourgeois ideologue, and it is quite that simple. You fail to take your line of reasoning to its highest conclusion.

Finally, you fucking idiot, if humans are animals like you say, and if humans are reducible to brain processes, then by what merit do you avoid recognizing that in fact, the Fascists are correct: Since it is obviously true that 'human populations' have been separated for tens of thousands of years, and there are clear phenotypical and genetic differences between those population groups, it should also follow that the 'behavior' of those population groups at least 'to an extent' owes itself to internal empirical-neurological processes. This is a very basic and logical conclusion of your line of thinking, and yet because you are a coward immersed in university-discourse political correctness, you won't own up to this conclusion. But, strictly speaking, YOU ARE A RACIST in fact and there is no way to avoid this conclusion. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the world as it exists is necessarily inevitable if the 'behaviors' of the people who constitute it are natural, or 'naturally' determined, as it is with animals. And don't you dare fucking talk about the 'environment' either, because as far as humans are concerns, the sole creators of 'the environment' as it is relevant to humans ARE HUMANS THEMSELVES. FUCK OFF this website and off to stormfront with you, yes? You have no fucking right to call yourself 'an anarchist' or whatever you want - shut your fucking mouth and accept the world the way it is, it is, after all, natural, yes? And who are you to say otherwise, kiddo? It is constituted only by men and women. There are no demons or ghosts. You allege these men and women are 'biological machines', like animals. So it follows that this world is a product of their biological nature. You are in no position to say otherwise, in fact! You can prattle of perversions like 'but what about da empathy' all you want, because clearly it isn't enough for 'da humans' to have made a different world: THIS IS THE WORLD WE FUCKING LIVE IN AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IT BY YOUR OWN REASONING.

you are scared that your brain is just a set of biochemical reactions

No, you stupid piece of shit, I am perfeclty aware that my brain is in fact a set of biochemical reactions: That's why I don't hold my brain responsible for my rationality or my subjectivity, rather, I recognize it as being subsumed by those. This is why I could cut open my skull, and rip out my stupid fucking brain if I wanted to. I would die, yes, but I can still, willfully, do it, and my brain isn't going to give a shit.

I don't fucking hold my brain accountable for the fact that I am a Communist, I am a Communist out of DUTY. You fail to understand that if you condition your actions, and your life-being, if you condition the contours of your ethical duty, your desires, your actions, on external empirical processes, you cannot justify them you FUCKING idiot. If all of what you are saying is not the product of COLD, HARD access to UNIVERSAL REASON IN AND OF ITSELF, SUFFICIENT unto itself, THEN YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY IT, or moreover, THERE IS NO REASON to justify it.

Why do you argue with Rafiq you fucking idiot? Why don't you just end it with: "Rafiq and I have different brains and this is responsible for our differences"? Or is Rafiq simply not human at all, for him to allegedly harbor these inhuman ideas? YOU CLAIM HUMANS ARE ANIMALS, AND RAFIQ, A HUMAN, CLAIMS THEY ARE NOT. How does it FUCKING FOLLOW that humans are animals, if this very IDEA is controversial among humans? There are endless examples of the UTTER FUCKING stupidity of claiming 'humans are animals', but we know how stupid it is - the question which I have addressed numerous times over is why it holds so much weight and potency. And I say: Because of the rise of anti-democratic, anti-humanist Silicon feudalism, man can abstract every single aspect of himself EXCEPT his true self, his subjectivity, and pure subjectivity and access to universal reason is now PRIVATIZED, or organized hierarchically.

Look at the FUCKING ARGUMENTS you're using kiddo. You get to disrespect my arguments not by any cold use of reason but becuase "I dun have da researcH', which means, I AM NOT LEGITIMATE in the eyes of those who possess a legitimate-monopoly on the use of reason and knowledge, which 'mere human animals' aren't enough for. Fucking idiot will endlessly humble 'da humans' before their animality, BUT GETS ON HIS FUCKING KNEES and opens wide FOR UNIVERSITY DISCOURSE, for da precious 'evidence', for the precrious and sacred scholastic 'truth' which HE DEEMS AND THINKS OF AS NON-HUMAN AND ALIEN. In this FUCKING idiots mind, the ARGUMENT and CLAIM that "humans are animals" is not made by humans but gods - all 'da humble human animals' can do is potentially get on their knees to it... If they are lucky, for a good pat on the had. This disgusting philistine, ladies and gentlemen, should make your stomach churn, it should make you feel so utterly SICK. Meager humans are 'animals', but CAPITAL, this is GOD.

this again is a claim you make without any facts to back it up.

Let's make one thing clear you fucking idiot. Were I to claim that there is a purple unicorn on the moon, it is quite obvious that this would require 'facts'. I would be in need of empirically verified data, of some kind, to prove this, because I am making a claim specifically about empirical reality in the immanent sense, about empirical reality in itself. if I claim there is a purple unicorn on the moon, then the merit of the practical truth of this statement is whether IT IS NECESSARY, by merit of sensuously detecting the empirical processes on the moon, to be confronted with what is identified as a purple unicorn. So even if no such evidence for it exists, and even if it would be impossible to provide evidence for a purple unicorn on the moon, DEMANDING IT WOULD STILL BE JUSTIFIED.

MEANWHILE, DEMANDING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW EMPIRICALLY POSITIVE CLAIMS WHATSOEVER, IS UNJUSTIFIED, BECUASE UNLIKE HYPOTHETICALLY BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A PURPLE UNICORN ON THE MOON, THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY, BY ANY METRIC WHATSOEVER, TO EMPIRICALLY 'PROVE' WHAT I AM SAYING. You can't FUCKING wrap your head around this because you are a FUCKING idiot, when it is rather simple: WHAT I AM SAYING, BY THE QUALIFICATIONS OF YOUR FILTHY EMPIRICISM, IS WHAT IS CALLED UNFALSIFIABLE. MEANING IT IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE TO ESTABILISH ANY KIND OF EMPIRICAL TEST TO CONFIRM OR DENY IT - BECAUSE ITS TRUTH IS NOT DERIVED FROM KNOWLEDGE OF EMPIRICAL PROCESSES, ITS TRUTH IS DERIVED FROM KNOWLEDGE OF PROCESSES WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGUES: THE SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL DIMENSION. This kind of knowledge IS NOT THE KNOWLEDGE of external empirical objects, it is the knowledge of MAN HIMSELF, it is pure self-consciousness in and of itself.

SO WHEN YOU FUCKING DEMAND 'RESEARCH' OR 'DA EVIDENCE', YOU LOOK LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT: NO AMOUNT OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, NO KIND OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, WOULD SUFFICE TO 'CONFIRM' MARXISM , WOULD SUFFICE TO CONFIRM THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. THAT IS BECAUSE TRUTH IS PRACTICAL - TRUTH DOES NOT FUCKING CARE ABOUT ITSELF, IT IS PRACTICAL.

please provide some research, and no the burden of proof is not with me here.

Actually, you fucking idiot, it is totally fucking arbitrary where the burden of proof rests upon. It is a matter of whether you want to righteously possess faith in your superstitions which translate into positive empirical claims WHICH ARE INEVITABLY UNPROVEN, or whether you should DISCARD them, and stomp god under your feet. The Communists CHOOSE the latter. Not because THEY HAVE TO. You overestimate the significance of natural-science: It is not holy or sacred truth, it is just that bourgeois society as a whole, despite its partisan disagreements, agrees about knowledge of empirical processes. It only reaches controversy at the level of knowledge or un-knowledge OF THE SOCIAL dimension.

But since Rafiq IS NOT INTRODUCING NEW EMPIRICAL CLAIMS at all, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. I am not FUCKING saying "there is something in the brain which, upon locating it, would verify and justify my statements". On the contrary, YOU ARE FUCKING SAYING THAT. And you FAIL to prove it, by the correct qualifications! I am not FUCKING saying there are structures in the brain which positively enable me to reject your fucking superstitions, YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THAT HUMANS ARE "BIOLOGICAL MACHINES" and that animals allegedly speak Latin when humans aren't looking. Fucking idiot fails to understand or respect what constitutes actual evidence: You fail to understand that the metric of whether something is appropriate evidence or not is whether it controls for the necessarily conditioned variables. THE VARIABLES OF RELEVANCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CAN NEVER BE EMPIRICALLY LOCATED. So if you locate structures in the brain which correlate with human-behavioral processes, YOU ARE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE NECESSARY VARIABLES, you are not PROVING the ones which would be necessary to justify that these structures are RESPONSIBLE for human behavior. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, OR DO I NEEDLESSLY NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU LIKE YOU ARE A FUCKING 11 YEAR OLD IDIOT. THAT IS BECAUSE NOTHING IN EMPIRICAL REALITY JUSTIFIES THE CLAIM THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE 'DETERMINED' BY ANYTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! NOTHING DETERMINES 'MEN AND WOMEN', THEIR IMMERSION IN THE SYMBOLIC ORDER IS ABSOLUTE AND IRREDUCIBLE, AND IT IS THE SOLE HORIZON OF ANY AND ALL MEANING, the SOLE horizon of the representation of the ENTIRE universe MEN AND WOMEN ALONE are responsible for, UNTO themselves and without recourse into ANYTHING external to themselves. I WROTE A FUCKING 180,000 WORD BOOK ON THIS, CHILD, DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK YOU ARE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOALS HERE? DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK THAT? DO YOU THINK I AM NOT GOING TO IMMEDIATELY FUCKING DESTROY ANYTHING YOU SAY?

DO YOU NOT THINK THAT WHATEVER RESPONSE YOU MAKE TO THIS POST ALONE, I AM GOING TO BURY ALMOST IMMEDIATELY?

F i would claim: animals are self aware. then i would have to provide evidence, which i already did in preivous post in this thread.

NO YOU FUCKING DID NOT YOU FUCKING IDIOT, IGNORING THIS POINT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ITS TRUTH GO AWAY. FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANIMALS ARE SELF AWARE, THERE IS ONLY EVIDENCE THAT THEY ELICIT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FROM EXTERNAL STIMULI WHICH IS CAUSED BY THEIR PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THEIR ENVIRONS, THIS IS NOT SELF-AWARENESS YOU FUCKING IDIOT, OR AT LEAST, NOT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING INSINUATE WHAT THAT MEANS. YOU ARE CONFLATING MECHANICAL 'SELF-DETECTIONS' WITH FUCKING SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT ANIMALS ARE 'SELF AWARE', ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NONE, BY ANY METRIC OF WHAT BEING 'SELF AWARE' ACTUALLY MEANS. You stupid FUCK, you talk out of your FUCKING ASS like it's nothing. FUCKING idiot.

Keep FUCKING saying the same thing, I will SIMPLY repost what I said:

You mistaken conscious awareness with adapted physiological responses to environmental stimuli. Animals ARE NOT self aware. Rather some animals - strictly some - physiologically respond to external stimulations of their physical presence (i.e. such as their reflection in mirrors, ETC.). This is not because they are self-conscious, it is because the animals which actually are capable of 'recognizing' themselves - for instance in a mirror - are relatively 'social' ones, meaning, they are heavily conditioned to respond to and interact with (in a purely mechanical way) others like them, certain responses are elicited in relation to visual, etc. stimuli.

But even if you were to argue that 'self-awareness' goes beyond passing the mirror test, again, it is the same thing: These are mechanized responses which either are testament to that species' ability to continually physically reproduce itself (i.e. 'survive') or exist for no reason at all and developed without interfering with their contingent ability to reproduce themselves. But even so, this is the highest absurdity itself: Animals are not on Revleft arguing about whether they themselves are animals, or whether other 'species' are humans. That is becasue categories like 'animal, species' ETC. ARE UNIQUELY HUMAN AND ONLY EXIST INSOFAR AS THEY ARE MEANINGFUL FOR MEN AND WOMEN. My god, do you even understand the fucking ABSURDITY of what you are trying to argue? Do you understand the depths of how nonsensical the claim that animals are 'self-aware' is? You are saying that animals posses IDEAS? Are you STUPID? You are saying that animals posses an IDEA of themselves? That is just as fucking stupid as claiming a rock has an idea of itself. But given the postmodern machinic-animism that plagues the youth today, I wouldn't actually be surprised if you really did believe that sincerely. God, god help us all.

Finally, not only is it 'unproven' that animals cannot 'interpret' their surroundings, it is actually in a sense quite proven, by the standard of reason that which Communists - and not bourgeois ideologues whose agnosticism is by default positively superstitious in practice (I.e. one may not claim to positively believe in god, but in all circumstances they act as though they do)- operate.. It is the fact that men and women have history, while animals are only constituted - ONLY - by their natural/biological history. In other words, animals only change themselves or their environmental surroundings in accordance with natural-physiological changes, while humans relate to the natural world around them - including their own physical biological bodies - by means of what is called in Lacanian psychoanalysis the symbolic order. Or in traditional Marxism, the social/historical dimension - the mode of production, if you will. This is subject to infinite change, because there is a difference between the empirical/natural world which you allege determines individuals, and the world of subjectivity, rationality and meaning in general.

What does this actually mean? It means that interpretation itself, is an example of a difference or dissonance, an 'imbalance', if you will, between men and women and the natural world. Men and women represent the natural world in their imagination, and they register it through the symbolic order, the world of rationality, language and meaning. This is their only actual access to it. The representation of the natural world in the heads of men and women, is actually a practical act, because upon recognizing forces outside of them which exist independently of their will, the possibility opens up of changing those forces. Thus, men and women have history, because the margins between their relationship to the natural world, and how this registers in their consciousness (and subsequently, in their social relations) is constituted by antagonisms. The first and most primary, primordial antagonism is between the world outside of the symbolic order, and the symbolic order itself. The world outside exists independently of men and women's will, their thoughts, their subjectivity. And this is what constitutes the antagonism. What we call history centers around this antagonism, but not self-consciously. Thus, class antagonism itself, the social antagonism, is at this level, it's at the level of how many demons men and women are still projecting onto the natural or external world, it relates to the margins of superstition.

Interpretation is practical. It is practical to interpret things. Because at the outset of interpreting something, you are isolating that something from its wider 'natural' context of wholeness and making it contingent. At the outset that which you interpret something, you subject it potentially to your will.

Animals interpret nothing because they don't alter the environments around them, outside of their physiological responses to it. Humans, by contrast, can infinitely manipulate and transform the physical world around them - and there are no limitations to it. Humans have history, but animals only have natural history. Now of course, humans for tens of thousands of years lived at the level of subsistence, and did not alter the environment around them outside of what is necessary for subsistence. But that's actually not really true - there was still an excess, which is why every pre-agricultural human society was also engaging in the production of animistic fetishes and rituals, crazy ritualistic dances and wild beliefs in demons all around them. This wild, crazy excess doesn't exist in the case of animals, and why? Because animals are sufficent unto-themselves for their survival, in terms of their pure physiological conditioning. The degree that which animals are 'social' and depend upon, say, nurturing, is the same degree to which they depend on other external factors for survival such as temperature, ecological niches, plant distribution, strict and specific diets, spatial details, and so on. None of these things exist for humans that aren't contingencies - in the sense of being purely meaningless limitations which we have already overcome or are in the process of overcoming. Man is not at the mercy of his environment, and where he is, it is owed not to his physiological limitations but to his own ineptitude, one way or another. Even if all of your limbs were cut off and you were thrown in the middle of the desert, that is literally just a stupid, random circumstance - you would think to yourself "Ah, what a stupid fucking thing that has happened to me, and how stupid that I can actually do nothing about it." But the reason for that is because it is still just a contingent circumstance, it's just that something outside of YOU, disallows you to do what YOU want. But that's just it - there is still a YOU which is irreducible to your body, or your contingent physiological circumstances, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS LACKING AMONG ANIMALS.

Certain external factors presently outside of man's control permit the continued endurance of the human body, and subsequently the brain, of that there is no doubt. But those factors, unlike for animals, are contingent. We say "I need all of this stupid shit so my brain can go on, and so subsequently, I can pursue the love of my life" or in the case of the Communist "I need my stupid body to work, so i can continue my duty to the revolution". Man's physiology is a contingent obstacle to the pursuit of what is fundamental to the life of men and women. Men must consciously survive. Animals, conversely, survive without the need for the use of reason at all. It is the horizon of human reason that which the entire universe passes through, only through which only becomes meaningful.

So you cannot say that "in the same way that a wolf mechanically calculates risks when scouting terrain, human categories of 'reason' are built in the same way for its survival' because you would also have to subject THAT VERY SAME STATEMENT to the same qualifications of being 'mechanically' elicited. You keep abstracting your 'reasonable' statements from the same 'humanness' they are directed at which alleges men and women are animals. This is your ultimate stupidity and it is disgusting that you don't see it. You are trying to step into the shoes of god to argue something about humans, and it's so hilariously clownish. The point is - humans made god too. The symbolic order is inescapable and irreducible. It is the sole horizon of meaning. Nothing outside of it can speak for you. There is, in this sense, nothing outside of men and women - the eye of man is supreme, and absolute. Nothing can escape its horizon.



Finally FUCKING idiot, posting google-book codes IS NOT A FUCKING SUBSTITUTE for argumentation. I could FUCKING pull out of my ass 1,000s of books that would show you, you are a FUCKING idiot, but since I am a responsible subject posting on an online forum, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ARGUING, SPECIFICALLY, ORGANIZING WHATEVER RELAVENT ARGUMENTS could be derived from whatever 'source' books you want. You FUCKING idiot, I am a Communist, I am not some reddit pussy who is intimidated by academic journals - I ACTUALLY TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY and judge them BY THE VERY PRECISE CLAIMS THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE and with the very PRECISE means they use to draw their conclusions - as any Communist does. No one is fucking intimidated by THE MERE UTTERANCE of 'evidence', The fact of the matter is that as it concerns the qualifications for empirically PROVING animals are 'self-aware', your FUCKING 'evidence' does not pass this test, rather, it leads us to a conclusion THAT DOES NOT INHERENTLY OR INEVITABLY IMPLY they are secretly fucking self-conscious YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Listen to me you FUCKING idiot - you can whine all you want about da lack of university seal-of-approval on what I say, BUT MY ARGUMENT STANDS. You can at least have the FUCKING decency to admit: "I cannot comment on that, it is a complete gaping hole which I cannot even speak on, because god does not permit it to me" - Instead you CONTINUALLY fucking respond as though it's going to change anything. IT WON'T.

Again you make negative claims without evidence or any facts that seem to show that you are even remotely right.

ARE YOU LITERALLY FUCKING MENTALLY HANDICAPPED?

DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENTIRE POINT OF NEGATIVE CLAIMS IS THAT THEY DO NOT REST UPON EMPIRICALLY POSITIVE EVIDENCE YOU FUCKING IDIOT? THERE IS NO FUCKING SUCH THING AS "EVIDENCE FOR NEGATIVE CLAIMS', NEGATIVE CLAIMS CANNOT HAVE POSITIVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NEGATIVE CLAIMS AND NOT POSITIVE ONES YOU FUCKING IDIOT. YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT ANIMALS ARE SECRETLY SELF-CONSCIOUS WHEN TEHRE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO THINK THIS AS FAR AS WHAT IS NECESSIATED BY THE INTERACTION AND OBSERVATION OF EMPIRICAL REALITY ALONE. ALL EMPIRICAL REALITY TELLS US IS THAT THEY PHYSIOLOGICALLY REACT TO WHAT IS DETECTED AS HAVING BEEN CAUSED BY THEIR PHYSICAL PRESENCE - THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY ARE 'SELF-AWARE', IT DOES NOT PROVE THEY ARE SELF-CONSCIOUS, IT ONLY PROVES THAT THEY PSYCHOLOGICALLY REACT TO CERTAIN EXTERNAL STIMULI IN A CERTAIN WAY. YOU FUCKING IDIOT, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

Come with some real facts instead of a big blubber of words without any substance.

The naivety is almost FUCKING hilarious, these stupid cliches. Are you actually trolling me? "Come at me with some real facts" - you stupid FUCK, facts are meaningless outside of the actual conscious use of reason, which you admit you are not capable of. Fucking IDIOT, I am not playing your FUCKING game of the scholastic hierarchy of truth, that SHIT doesn't and hasn't for a long time passed on Revleft. Fucking idiot, YOU DON't CARE ABOUT So-CALLED 'FACTS' BECAUSE OF THEIR STRICT ACTUAL CONTENT BUT BECAUSE OF THE LEGITIMACY THEY CONVEY. I don't give a FUCK about your priesthood-ordained laws of bourgeois scholastic truth. Stop trying to FUCKING think that is going to hold any sway: It won't.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the anti-humanism of the present and future in practice. Literally, my words become empty, they become meaningless, and access to universal reason is now denied not only to others but more specifically to oneself. In excess of what can be discerned of what I say through the conscious use of reason, they are dismissed, rendered hollow, and utterly and completely meaningless. My words become mere, empty hieroglyphics, completely and totally meaningless. The arbiter and standard of meaning of the bourgeois ideologues in Silicon-feudalism is mediated scholastically. We partisans of Communism, we radical democratic-thinkers, are told we are futile before this. But it is precisely the real and actual hatred towards your precious order, manifested 'irrationally', that should inspire and invigorate us to keep going. This is precisely the irrationality that is in this very post, with my bold fonts, with my red text, and my giant fonts: This is the irrationality that is necessary to even try and convey any kind of rational point. One should bear precisely in mind that my 'caps lock', my bolded, highlighted words, my excess use of cursing, my large fonts, this is the irrational excess which actually secretly underlies every single kind of 'argument' for the philistine ideologues - it is the extra-excess of the legitimacy ordained to them if they posses the university-seal of approval, if they posses legitimacy in the eyes of the big Other, if they posses legitimacy in the present order of things. Each and every argument I have made is thoroughly and completely reasonable, upon giving it thought, but the conscious use of reason is not enough: The excess of large fonts, of caps-lock, of attention-grabbing 'irrational' excesses is enough even to enable individuals to POTENTIALLY see the conscious use of reason behind the formation and presentation of the arguments.

Because Rafiq is an animal, because Rafiq - a meager Marxist - is illegitimate, and because owing to this illegitimacy he has no right to access to universal reason, NOTHING he says matters. It does not matter what I type or what I argue. So long as it is not 'da facts', so long as it is not something which is enough to be taken seriously by "I fucking love science", or the university discourse, it is literally empty, and meaningless, and I may as well be a raving homeless person on the side of the street yelling a bunch of nonsense. This is the madness of rafiq, this is the irrationality which underlies him on Revleft consistently, it is the IRRATIONAL EXCESS of bourgeois-scholastic truth, of the markers of legitimacy and power (in the eyes of the big Other) of certain exercises in the use of reason. The Communists, who assert universals equal access to the use of reason, inevitably must embody this irrational excess INSOFAR as they are engaged in a bitter war against ruling ideology, against the superstitions which constitute the present order of life. And the Communists, Rafiq included, proudly accept this.

OUR WORDS are futile and meaningless to the bourgeois ideologues. COMPLETELY and UTTERLY hollow. We righteously, actively, as SUBJECTS, as INDIVIDUALS, as COMMUNISTS, continue to write and talk IN SPITE of it!

1 call the person an idiot

That this meanigless excess is purported to constitute a whole third of your apprehension of my substantive points is enough to prove the above paragraphs -namely, that this 'irrational' excess is all you care about, becuase it is a substitution for the irrational excess which constitutes your fucking value-judgeemnts as it concenrs so-called 'truth'. Congradultations for proving this point.

claim that science is somehow bourgeouise and that it cant prove anything

No, you fucking idiot, science cannot prove anything because science is not a subject, it is a fucking word. Only individuals can prove things (to other individuals), and if that proof concerns knowledge, by scientific means. Science means nothing more than systems-of-knowledge. it carries no other weight here on Revleft, so you can shut the fuck up about so-called 'science'. Scientific practice concerns knowledge of empirical processes - you do not provide us with knowledge, but quite on the contrary, you use knowledge to justify non-knowledge, namely non-knowledge of the historical and social dimension. No one is fucking denying that if you rip open a skull you'll find that there's shit going on in the brain, which reflects a person's so-called 'behavior': The point is that this is not enough to JUSTIFY the UN-KNOWLEDGE of the irreducible dimension of subjectivity, rationality, or more generally the symbolic. YOU ASSUME AS A GIVEN what can actually be shown to be SUPERSTITION.

I am not going to react to the rest of your post because it is all the same factless rhetoric

Fucking idiot and coward picks and choose what he decides to read and ignore because he knows that IF YOU WERE TO ACTUALLY 'REACT' TO MY POST IN ITS ENTIRETY YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OWN UP TO ALL OF IT: BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. Because it is QUITE EXPLICITLY CLEAR in my post that THERE IS NO ESCAPING - YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG. It's that fucking simple.

But go ahead child. I am more than prepared to respond to EACH AND EVERY FUCKING WORD you throw out here. We can go at this for as long as you like.

Your basic arguments alw

You are in no fucking position to make any judgement about my arguments whatsoever, because it is either clear you are either unable to understand them, or you DISHONESTLY fucking ignore them and pretend they don't exist. MY POSTS aren't going anywhere, and neither are the substantive points as they are raised.

Nobody fucking cares about trying to convince you, you FUCKING rat, but every person can see what a fucking idiot you are, and what a scoundrel you are as it concerns the etiquette you've presented here. I have dealt with LITERALLY dozens of broken records on this website, you are not any different.

I get more and more FUCKING angry because they are literally - LITERALLY - MORE AND MORE UN-FUCKING-ORIGINAL in their CLAIMS. It is almost INCREDIBLE, like they are trolling me.

Go ahead. You can expect my next response tonight, after you get in your snide comments and stupid fucking arguments which I have no doubt already addressed. Go ahead, little rat, your turn! Go ahead! Keep at this, go on! Keep WASTING MY FUCKING TIME, keep DETRACTING my efforts from more important work. SEE how far it will go.

i cant quote you because your too long texts fucks up the input box so excuse me for doing that.
anyways since you are prepared to respond to anything i ask or propose, here are some questions i have for you.

1. how do our thoughts come into existence?
2. do you believe we can prove things with science?
3. Why, if at all, is it wrong to hurt a human for no purpose? im not talking about self-defense, but just hurting someone for pleasure.
4. do you agree with the golden rule: doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves
5. why are you a communist?

Thanks in advance for your response and your thoughts

also it would great if you used a bit of a smaller font, this big font makes it hard to read.

You ASK these questions, in a typically anglo-American way, as though there can be a simple response. No. Quite every single thing you ask is addressed, somewhere, in a previously written work here on Revleft. Knowing full well that I have far more important work to attend to, you command from me answers to whatever questions you have on your mind. No, I'm not going to give you what you want, considering that if your questions were sincere, then you would have already found your answers in the various, extensive works I have dedicated that relate to these questions. Especially, most especially, the first. I will simply address the problem in this question:

Originally Posted by IbelieveInanarchy

2. do you believe we can prove things with science?

A meaningless question. That is purely tautological. If the we accept scientific qualifications for proof, then it follows that things can be proven by scientific means. The notion of proof, as you are using it, is already in and of itself scientific. I have already addressed this matter, about what 'science' actually is in the first place. Again, I have written a fucking book about it, let alone everything I have done here on Revleft.

Your third and fourth questions have already been extensively covered and dealt with in the past. If you are actually a fraction of being sincere in asking them, then be humble enough to know that there is a great deal you don't yet know or understand as it concerns these issues - at least as it concerns how I have previously presented them.

5. why are you a communist?

I have dedicated a lot to this question, but I have not dedicated enough works to clarify it. And the book which I am presently either preoccupied with, or preoccupied with finding the time to work on, deals centrally with this question, of what Communism is, of what it means to become a Communist and why one becomes a Communist. Notice that this is not a simple question in any meaningful sense, I have dedicated many, many lines of text to it. You should, if you are actually curious, search for them.

Thanks to you, it will certainly be delayed a number of days.

by all means don't waste your time if you feel its a waste.

One last question, what is the name of your book and where can i read it? As you might understand i have no interest in skimming through endless non-indexed walls of text to find a possible response to my concerns.

It is on jrachblog.wordpress.com.

Which is presently inaccessible and will be accessible the minute when I am done with the text I am presently working on.

Any effortful use of the search function on this website will yield you all the answers you are looking for.

The notion that animals posses the same kind of cognizance that a human does is patently absurd. IbelieveinCapitalism and Plutocracy are both quite correct: There IS no "organ" or "subset of an organ" that will explain the historical processes of man. This is of course, proof that everything they are saying is utter bullshit, without them realizing it. Humans aren't merely "social animals", they are above all rational beings. And a very simple way of illustrating this is the fact that humans are the ONLY "animals" that accept ideology. This alone is sufficient proof that we aren't merely "higher versions of animals". Have a bonobo stare at a picture of a monkey version of Hitler and he will NOT, I assure you, start segregating the other bonobos or reflexively refitting his society to accommodate his new material conditions.

The example of willing human sacrifice 'victims' is the perfect example. There have been throughout history numerous examples of willing participants in such things, but there has never been and their will never be an example in the animal kingdom. Wolves will never convince one of their own to kill himself in order to "save" their wolf community.

Suffice to say that the whole "beautiful parks and pristine lakes" phenomenon only began after the industrial revolution. Why do you think that is? This whole "we must save nature" bullshit is something that means something ONLY to you. To the primitive man, to the hunter-gatherer nature was his "home", he both feared and lived in it. To the peasant and those living in the neolithic, "nature" was all that separated him from the luxuries of life: Wood, precious metals, potable water, construction material, clothes etc... To someone living in poverty under Capitalism nature is what he has been relegated too. Unless of course you don't think that a shit-infested swamp in Liberia isn't "Nature" while Central Park is.

To me communism is about creating a world where there is peace for everyone, enough basic needs for everyone and general happiness and morality.

And of course, the current meat and dairy industry is the grossest show of capitalism at work.

This is why you and Plutocracy are jokes and Starbucks liberals. I can just imagine it now. Plutocracy walking down a slum in Mumbai, a 40 lbs 10 year old walks by, and Plutocracy hands him a "Buy $10 lattes to stop the meat industry!!!!". Because this is what it boils down to. Your fixation on the "meat industry" and "dairy industry" is completely abstracted from people's actual needs so completely you don't even realize it.

No, you know what the "grossest" show in Capitalism is? Its the nicely ordered rows of organic foods in Trader Joes, which is something ONLY a person of extreme privilege can subsume himself in, you will never see a starving person ask, "Is this organic?". That is 10x "grosser" than anything in the 'meat industry'. Have you ever wondered why so many cults/religions and political hacks advocate vegetarianism? And before I get an idiotic reply: I could care less if you eat dung, I am speaking of the ideological connotations of it. See, a peasants, was by his POSITION a "vegetarian", naturally, he never had a 'choice' exactly in the matter. The 'choice' was always in the purview of the ladies and gentlemen of the court, of the priests, of the parasites.

4. do you agree with the golden rule: doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves
5. why are you a communist?

Oh how cute. You quote a "rule" developed by Chinese philosophers. Do you know what a lot of people don't seem to get about these schools of philosophy though, you know, the "oops" part? They all came about during the Warring States period. Another example of meaningless ideological huckstering by ruling elites to justify whatever savagery they are committing. "Oh, I just burned the city to the ground. But I forgave my brother for fucking my wife!!".

And no, Communists do not follow the golden rule. Communists aim to destroy the Capitalist class, extirpate it totally and completely from the face of the earth. But what has Warren Buffet "done" to me? Its so abstracted, he is, in this liberal hippie shit you are both uttering, just some nice old guy that worked hard for his cash and likes to give back to charity.

Entertaining but more of the same nonsensical flaming and limited ability to convey a point.

This is why we fight against the power and authority of the state and government that you Liberalists and faux-revolutionary's seek to establish while decrying every day online.
Because people as mentally disturbed and limited as you should not have the authority over other living things.

I can see it now; sitting in your room yelling at a potted plant.

*Gets demolished in an argument, proceeds to make a 3 line post about how the person above "can't make a point and just flames", proceeds to then, not make a point and flame, ignoring everything said above*

Do you not have any shame?

Hahaha that drivel demolished nothing.
You simply claimed that you are right over and over while insulting us.

Cant write a response because you offered nothing worth debate.

Originally Posted by Exterminatus

animals do not feel anything, are not actually even aware of themselves or their surroundings, they are nothing but biological machines (as another member put it earlier) "programmed" to elicit certain responses in contact with the environment. That is it.

That may be the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on RevLeft. And that's saying a lot. Humans are animals ourselves. So much evidence exists that refutes your claims about non-human animals. Even just having a pet animal would refute that.

(I'm also a meat-eating omnivore who agrees that communism is about human liberation first and foremost.)

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

That may be the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on RevLeft. And that's saying a lot. Humans are animals ourselves. So much evidence exists that refutes your claims about non-human animals. Even just having a pet animal would refute that.

(I'm also a meat-eating omnivore who agrees that communism is about human liberation first and foremost.)

Humans are animals in the sense that this is our taxonomic history and physiological composition. The very fact that you are able to sit back and contemplate whether you are part of a subgroup of completely unrelated (a dog doesn't realize a pig is also an animal') species, bound together only by a taxonomic designation that exists only in the human mind.

And how would a pet disprove that? First off pets are domesticated beings which originally served only a function such as aiding in hunting or preying upon pests that harmed crops. Your animal, be it a dog or a cat, doesn't actually care about you. Your pet will eat you if they cut you up and cook you for him. He will feel absolutely no remorse in doing so or apprehension. Pets are 'loved' by us because they are us, we project onto them. A fat puppy becomes a human baby. The 'old dog' becomes the grandfather and so forth. We don't have a 'special' relationship with them besides this.

In India cows are sacred but in the US they are just walking steaks. Same thing.