It's sometimes a shame when the idea these believers, not just anarchists, present might be plausible yet they can't argument it in such way that would make sense to ordinary people.
Often of course it springs from some emotional experience that keeps the whole fervor running. I guess once it has become such a big part of their identity to admit that they are wrong, is an earth-shaking blow to their ego which makes its critical examination especially painful.
--
https://www.consumerfreedom.com/2004/08/2628-hyperbolic-hypo...
PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:
“I’m an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products — and I have no qualms about it … I’m not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don’t see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.”
—Glamour, January 1990
Such people, generally people on the extreme side of any debate, are often not rational. Not always of course, but.. often.
Even if this person abandoned all her belongings and moved to the middle of nowhere, all her knowledge is still the direct product of societies that have been using animals for (at least) the past 10,000 years.
In 1990 insulin production was derived from animals.
Similarly, I'm not all that obsessed with stopping climate change, but I don't think there is a substantive criticism when people talk about Al Gore or whoever flying to climate conferences.
The fundamental reason I think purported hypocrisy is irrelevant, is that generally organizations and people who are trying to change the world are not part of a religion that is imposing a standard of personal morality.
There is always going to be human and animal suffering, and there's always going to be something made of hydrocarbons burning somewhere. The goals people have involve reducing the amount.
I still think mass animal farming is grotesque and that we should end all factory farming immediately and seriously question our assumptions about animals as legal property.
Are you saying that in a world where life saving medicine requires animal products that those who use such a medicine cannot legitimately criticize the use of animals in science? It seems to me actually those with little choice in the matter have the most to make noise about. They need help from the rest of society to change the way the medicine is produced. They cannot do that themselves.
As a vegan I can completely understand why someone who believes in animal rights would compromise for life saving medicine. I also do not think you or anyone else has to be vegan, but I do think it’s important to talk about.
Honestly your comment reminds me of Mr Gotcha: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK.
PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life.
Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them?
Special little them?
It's OK.
They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'.
This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".
Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?
> we ultimately need to end animal testing
and,
> work hard to eliminate animal testing
One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals?
By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them.
The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?
No, the boots aren’t life saving. I bought them the first year that I became vegan, when I was focused on adjusting to a vegan diet. I got a new job and looked around but couldn’t find any suitable work boots that were vegan. I actually still have not been able to find them. I will say that I was experiencing some ankle problems including an incident where my ankle gave out on stairs, so it was important for me to get good supportive boots.
Two years in and the boots are still working well, but it is super frustrating that I can’t find work boots made from canvas or whatever. I am very happy with my vegan diet but I know I have more work to do rooting animal products out of my life.
Edit:
That said my problem may have been looking for “vegan boots” or “canvas boots” rather than “vegan work boots”, which seems to return some helpful results, including this nice page from PETA: https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/vegan-work...
That same staff member lamented that her sister had gotten her some N95 masks, but she was prohibited from wearing them. I can imagine if Covid continues much longer (as it will until we find a magic vaccine, as there is no societal will to contain it), enforcement of the rules will become even more mechanical and unforgiving. Glaringly suboptimal outcomes imposed by top-down structure is a tyranny anarchists take issue with. Although the group behavior around Covid shows why the ideal is ultimately impractical for everyone, I still consider myself a libertarian.
I would clarify that they have not gotten a studentship either.
A co-op doesn't magically suppress all problems and abuse.
It sets up a context where they can be dealt with without any "big thingie" (in most cases some government body).
Therefore what did you do after discovering the abuse, and what were the effects?
More generally anyone paying for Internet access should receive some explanation about why the gateway/router/hotspot/wotever password must be kept secret.
When someone abuses (be it a neighbor or a member of the co-op) you brief everyone authorized to access ("NEVER give the password") then change the password, hardening it if you suspect that it was discovered by bruteforcing.
If the freerider is in the co-op you may first explain the situation to him, then ask him to either pay his future share, or abstain from using this service. If you are unhappy with his reaction you may talk about it to the other members of the co-op when briefing them, maybe with a proposal (to give the boot to the free rider, to have everyone lesson him...) and ask for other proposals.
This situation (freeloader in the co-op) seems better to me than the classic one, where the freeloader is a neighbor. Confronting a neighbor may lead to unpleasant experiences (you first have to discover which neighbor is the culprit, he may try to deny or to punch you, or ack whatever you say then abuse again...).
During University, I was a believer in co-ops as a form of organization. I lived in and was actively involved in student housing co-ops. During grad school, I lived in a large house with 12 other people. I was the house organizer, and arranged for and paid for our internet service. Everyone else in the house gave me ~$5/mo.
Except one person, who opted out. This person was a self-described anarchist activist, and extremely active from what I could see (lots of anarchist events, protests, marches, etc.). Halfway through the year, I discovered they had just “borrowed” the password from someone else in the house almost straight away, and used the connection as much as anyone.
So the anarchist activist (who would happily give you an unsolicited lecture on how “self-organizing” works), couldn’t even self-organize with his 12 house mates, and instead let a bunch of broke students cover them. (And this person wasn’t under-privileged or anything. I’m pretty sure their education wasn’t self-funded.)
So, yeah — even if you limit an anarchist society to just the true believers, I don’t think it’s gonna work.