Doc

Even if it wasn't stated it was the guardian, you can easily work out it's from a paper that advertises for, hands on, inclusively orientated, gender neutral Ph balanced, organic outreach councilling support fiddler to facillitate the reintegration of gay, black lesbian daleks from their previous universe domination standpoint to a more civilly concious productive contributory wellbeing factor of a urban renewal nature.

Best post on this thread !! That's the best attitude because sometimes you like things that are outwith genre's which are generally a record company invention' date=' I like some really poppy stuff, I love Dido and Tatu for example. Jo and I were discussing this the other day that when we were young there were hardly any subgenre's of music, it was rock, pop, dance etc... now they all have these weird subgenre's that I'll never understand, like music for the music not for the genre.

Cheers

Stuart[/quote']

Couldn't agree more. Clued up people listen to a tune and decide on a song by song basis whether they like that tune or not. For instance, I like Morrisey's 1st of the gang to die, but don't like his I forgive jesus.

And sub genres are a placebo for the musically retarded. Sunday Sport Tit pages for those so desperate to be cool that the only possible refuge for their own anally retentive distorted view of the world is the dank, damp confines of their own arseholes.

The metal/punk/hardcore "scene" is, relatively speaking, tiny in Aberdeen. That along with poor promotion will put off a lot of bands.

There seems to be no problem with mainstream acts like Travis, elton john, or even lulu pulling a crowd. I was even dragged along by my wife to see edi reader at the beach ballroom some time ago. To my surprise it was mobbed and a very good gig indeed.

This thread wins the prize for the most pointless subject ever in the history of the universe.

In answer to the moral agency proposal; While there is evidence of animals having interests and desires there is no evidence of moral agency' date=' if indeed any animal, human or non-human does have moral agency at all, a question that is not decided to say the least.

[/quote']

You obviously failed to understand the point of moral agency.

Let me put it more simply. Humans are regarded as being responsible for their own actions and are therefore punished when these actions conflict with various laws.

If you give animals the same rights as humans, then they too MUST BE regarded as moral agents and resonsible for their actions. It then follows that as animals will always behave as animals, ie. killing and eating each other, eating their own offspring, stealing food, fighting ect, then you have to punish them according to law.

So if animals cannot control their own actions, and as they operate entirely on instinct, they can't, then they cannot be granted human rights or any rights equivalent to human rights.

All the quoting of research and your love affair with pigs will not alter the facts that animals just do not give a fuck how much hand wringing protesting you do on their behalf.

And remember, vegetables are alive too. Do you know for a fact they are not aware?

interesting discussion!

Why is it that we believe that humans are worth more than animals? I suggest that because humans care about whether they live or die' date=' they have interests such as gaining pleasure and avoiding suffering: as such humans have intrinsic worth, they should not be slaves or exploited - we have rights because we have interests and desires that should not be taken away from us.

Since animals have all these things, such as the preference to live, interests and desires and the ability to experience pleasure and pain - just like human beings - then we should not treat them like animals, but as equals. All animals have mental states similar to our own, they feel pleasure, fear, depression, anxiety, etc. Chickens even know what a family is, and even insects like bees have complex societies. all this has been proven by scientific studies. But since they cant speak a human language, they cant communicate their suffering through any means we can understand easily.

Im a vegan of nearly 2 years, and i agree with allsystemsfail, we should not descriminate on the grounds of species.

Just as we have no right to descriminate on grounds of race, we should not treat animals as property and commodities. All the same arguments that meateaters and animal testers use to defend themselves, were used by advocates of slavery (except 'cos i like the taste of it' although some of those kkk guys....?!). such as "its natural", "they are lower than us", "survival of the fittest". we realise that was racist now, and i wager we are realising that our society is speciesist.

the discussion in the future will not be about, do animals have consciousness, do they feel pain. it will be - are they means to our ends, or ends in themselves. are they valueble only in how they benifit humans, or do they have intrinsic worth in themselves.

A chicken would know its family, were it not for vacuum packed meat.[/quote']

To do this we would have to treat animals as moral agents responsible for their own actions. This simply means for example, that we would have to treat domestic cats as serial killers and lock them up in Broadmoor at Her Majesty's Pleasure, or in the US, lock them up in death row for ten years pending appeals and then fry them in old sparky.

And imagine the spectacle of leo the lion in court defending himself against a charge of killing a wildebeest and disposing of the body by eating it. His co-accused would be hyenas and vultures who helped him dispose of the corpse.

Do you actually listen? I said that if followed properly' date=' a vegan diet will cause no harm. And did you check the link? No, I thought not. You also ignored my recommendation of Singer.

I'm sorry, but joy is indeed an animal experience. Evidence proves you wrong. And time will tell? Can you be more arrogant? But then you've demonstrated such arrogance from the outset, throwing insults at folks such as Zombie Munch - calling folks here stupid or idiots just coz they don't hold with your view.

I also suggested a contradiction in your defence of the fur trade (and yes, you have indeed sought to defend it) which you've failed to address. I suggest that it is your arguement that is skewed. You believe it correct that animals should be farmed (and killed) for reasons of vanity?

Yes, the testing of cosmetics on animals is indeed not permitted in Britain. I did not say otherwise.

And yes, it is a legal requirement that if a drug is to be accepted as safe, then it's testing must first involve the use of animal trials. That however does not prove a drugs safety as the facts often clearly show the opposite to be true. And no, these are not lies and half truths.

And activists do indeed target government policy. Do you know anything at all about the AR movement? Clearly not.

And I'm sorry, but many scientists do support the use of animals as test subjects. There is however a growing number who do not.[/quote']

It's not like you to talk nonsense or hurl insults which means the truth hurts. Do you listen?Obviously not as you've sought to twist everything I've said to suit your own stance. No change there then.

Joy is not an animal emotion. Prove to me it is. The thalidamide arguement is a half truth. The botox arguement is a downright lie.

i fear you must be zombie pricks alter ego.

and the vegan site is blatant propaganda.

Yes' date=' I am indeed a true vegan, and so do not use any animal products. And no, I do not, and have never used supplements. Their use is unnecessary. Really, your understanding and knowledge of veganism, as is your understanding of anarchist thought, is extremely wanting. So far so good? If you'd actually taken the trouble to read my posts - which clearly you haven't, you will have seen that I have been vegan for over 18 years. Have not eaten meat for 22 years, and have suffered no ill effects as a result. If followed properly veganism is beneficial to health. Suggest you check out the following link: [url']http://www.vegansociety.com

Sentience? Can an animal not experience pain, feel joy? Of course non human animals cannot understand as we can - they have no concept of death etc. However, this should not mean that we can do with them as we wish. Check out philosopher Peter Singer's seminal work Animal Liberation.

I gotta say that I find your defence of the fur trade kinda strange. You do deplore the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics do you not? You see no contradiction? These animals, whether for use in cosmetics tests or in the rearing of animals for their coats, are used for reasons of frivolity.

Regarding tribal peoples - their use use of animals in somewhat different from ours. They see them not as things as we do, but as living feeling creatures.

Yes, those involved in animal liberation oppose the use of animals in tests. But do you not also? You have talked of failed results, of alternatives to animal testing - the use of tiisue culture etc.

Only 18 years? Time will tell on that one. If you follow a strict vegan diet, then you are causing yourself long term harm. Sorry. Again it's your choice. I've had to deal with the consequences of vegan diets. Atkins is just as bad of course.

Joy is a human emotion and not felt by animals. Animals are not sentient.

I don't defend the fur trade, I merely refuse to attack it on the basis of skewed morality. I see nothing wrong with properly farmed fur products.

Animals are not used for cosmetic testing in this country. I oppose the unnecesary use of animals in medicine. As I said before it is a legal requirement to test drugs on animals before they go on to human testing. Where animal testing has to be used it should not be on a concsious animal.

Protestors often quote so called animal testing failures and mostly they spout lies and half truths. A common one is thalidamide which was tested initially on mice. Some mice did show deformities in this study but not statistically significant ones, but the human trials showed no problems at all. So it was the human trial which was flawed and not the animal. Not every woman who took thalidamide had deformed babies, a proprtion with a certain genetic make up did with tragic results.

You have to get the testing regime right in the first place. Even if you use humans. What would be the use of using caucasians in a drug trial for sickle cell aneamia when only afro-caribbeans contract it? It would skew the results totally.

Protestors should get it together and stick to the truth. It's the government who demand animal testing, not the majority of scientists. They should target the government.

The use of the word liberation involves no anthropomorphism. Animals are sentient beings and so deserve our respect.

So' date=' we agree regarding the use of animals in experiments.

The farming (and trapping) of animals so that we may enjoy the pleasure of fur is abhorrent, and cannot be defended. We need not fur to survive, to protect us from the cold. These poor creatures are killed for vanity.

Regarding the particular incident to which you're referring - that is the digging up of human remains, you cannot damn an entire movement on the basis of the actions of just a few individuals.[/quote']

Sentient means "aware of self" as in "I". most animals and certainly food animals are not sentient. They do not know what death is, or cruelty, or morality, they have no sense of individuality. Your own words prove you anthropomorphise them. They have no concept of respect so therefore cannot apreciate it. You are grafting your own moral sense onto animals who have no need of it.

Try telling an amazon indian he can't trap and use animals. I have no truck with those who wear snow leopard, but farmed fur is a different story. Class warfare again??

I don't damn a whole movement. There are plenty of good hearted people who work for animal welfare without hurting people or peoples' livliehoods-I know and have engaged with many of them. The people who dug up that grave and who are intimidating people are thugs and terrorists and should be dealt with...deny it. The people who are preventing research are thugs and terrorists. They are harming the people in need of this research.

Incidentally. Are you a true vegan? No animal products or supplements whatsoever? I don't condemn your lifestyle, just interested. I've treated people who have been in dire straits by following such a diet. If you have suffered no ill effects, all I can say is-so far, so good. I hope you don't have cause to remember this conversation 15 years down the line.

Those who seek animal liberation (as I do) do not consider animals in anthropomorphic terms. Also' date=' while I have some difficulty with the activities of some, and under no circumstances condone the infliction of harm, I do understand their frustration, their compassion. But terrorists? Not at all.

Primate experiments under current legislation are indeed permitted. I suggest you look again.

Vivisection is bad science. Many oppose it not on the grounds of animal suffering, but on the basis that it is an obstacle to progress in understanding and treating human disease. Such experiments tell us not about how a human may react to a given drug, but about how the animal test subjects will react.Many drugs proven beneficial to human health are harmful to animals. The reverse is of course also true.

I agree that the production of faux fur will indeed cause some damage to the environment. However, I would not encourage the wearing of such garments.

The farming of fur bearing animals natural? What nonsense. You believe keeping a still wild creature in a cramped environment and without access to water in which to swim natural? The present government, as much as I despise them, were correct in prohibiting the farming of mink, and did so on basis of the evidence proving the animal's cruel treatment.

And what's with this activist thug nonsense?[/quote']

In using the word liberation in connection with animals you anthropomorphise them. Experiments on apes are banned. Monkeys are not apes.

In fact results from animal tests differ no more than tests between individual humans.

Wearing fur for humans is or was natural. Farming is natural for humans. That is no excuse to not farm animals responsibly, however. It's perfectly possible to farm mink in a humane manner. Now thanks to "animal liberators" we have them running around the country doing extensive damage.

People who dig up the remains of someone's mother are thugs and terrorists. Period.

I will add, that I was very active in campaigning for the ban on both cosmetic testing and testing on apes. I'm still hopeful of extending this ban to all primates soon.

It is still necesary to carry out some experiments on living tissue, but this does not require whole live animals and with the advent of stem cell techology, tissue can soon be grown for particular tests. Eg, kidney cells for testing kidney treatment ect. Always assuming that ill informed luddites do not try to ban it on the ground of cruelty to individual cells.

Each to their own I say. Just remember, humans are as much part of nature as any other animal and as someone said we're omnivores designed to eat meat and some but not all fruit and veg. Try eating grass and see where it gets you if you don't believe me.

It is of course unnacceptable to inflict unecesary cruelty on our prey. (I buy free range organic, fair trade meat)

But humans have a habit of grafting sentimental, anthromorphic characteristics onto animals, who all eat each other without mercy. This just leads to terrorist wankers like those attacking that guinea pig farm and anyone who lives near it.

Just for the record. The reason there are still in vivo (animal) experiments is because the law demands it for medical treatments. Cosmetic testing has been banned for years as have ape experiments. And don't tell me botox is cosmetic like the apologists for terror, botox is a medical treatment for nerve pain, it just happens to have a side effect on wrinkles. Leave the twisting the of the truth to those defending the indefensible. The activist/thugs should target the government who makes the law, but then it's all about hurting people and not saving animals.

I believe it is quite possible to develop drugs without animal experiments but the law forbids it.

Enviromentalists should also consider the negative effects of the production of faux fur products, made from petrochemicals,ie oil, a non renewable assett. Real fur, farmed non endangered, is natural, renewable and lasts for life and does no harm to the planet. Can't have it both ways, chaps. Save the planet or save the mink.

Interestingly, I ride a motorbike and wear leather to do so. I'm a six foot, two rugby player and no activist/thug has ever tried to spray my leathers red, unlike what the brave eco warriors do to a size six woman.

Yeah' date=' things are getting sorted, thanks for asking. She picks up her flat keys tomorrow! Cue an orgy of painting and form-filling, she's due on the 21st of December. It's been a bit of a nightmare, but developments at last.[/quote']

Good grief a xmas baby!!! Hope it all goes well for you.

Mastering is the last stage before commiting your work to a glass master. Here you address things like final EQ, track order and overall volume of each track (so you don't have to keep adjusting the volume between each track).

The object is to achieve a sonically balanced and pleasing mix of songs and to make your album a complete package.

It's a specialist skill and mastering engineers compete to make the loudest tracks while still maintaining the dynamic range.

You should never both mix your tracks and master them yourself-do one or the other.

You didn't used to post under the name of Ibid' date=' did you?[/quote']

No, been a member here for just a few months.

Did you get your girlfriend sorted btw?

ouch!!

ok' date=' ill give u an example of what i meant....

earlier this year i went to see jamie cullum at the royal concert hall in glasgow and i can safely say it was the most entertaining gig ive been to my whole life, there were no fireworks, no costume changes, no flying snow tigers or any of that sort of stuff, it was just pure musical entertainment, him, and his band, and they didnt stop for about two hours, and i was utterly utterly impressed!! i saw the darkness at leeds and yes, the show was good to watch, but only because it was big and bright and vibrant and colourful and extravagant, that is just an extension of what the darkness are...extravagant!! and i dont think theres anything wrong with that....i was just commenting...a mere observation....you just took me the wrong way![/quote']

I know what you mean. Sorry. Not having a go at you just the general antipathy towards the darkness often displayed on this board, I just happened to quote from your post.

I was at the Jamie Cullum gig in Glasgow too and it was fantastic. No 30 minute set for him!

Aye there was one in O'donaghue's annoying the band the other night. He was shouting that the singers were miming and not really playing the guitar and swearing a lot. He then climbed on stage and attempted to prise the mike from the girl singer's hands and was promptly nutted to the floor by the guitarist. I heard the nose crack from where I was. He was then flung out by the bouncers arriving late on the scene. Priceless.

Ned....the word is from Glasgow in the 30's and is an acronym for ne'er do well.

hhmm' date=' ok maybe i didnt explain what i meant very well. im not saying that theyre a bad band, or that they lack talent, i just think perhaps what makes their shows so worth seeing is the total showmanship of it, rather than them just being a totally awesome band....like, i have been to other gigs where bands have just got up onstage, played their tunes and gone off, and i was far more impressed with their musical ability than i was seeing the darkness prance about in several different outfits, with big flashing lights and fancy pyrotechnics, i just think their gigs are probably a bit more theatrical and more like a show than a gig....if that makes any sense.. ?([/quote']

Ah I see. You mean they actually tried hard to entertain the people who paid to be entertained instead of trotting out some really cool and valid incomprehensible shoe gazing self indulgent We Must Get Our Political/Sexual/Hip message across And Change The World Before Disappearing Up Our Own Arses pish that passes for music and entertainment these days.

Here's a newsflash...music is about entertainment and putting on a show. Always has been, always will be.

So the Darkness dare to enjoy themselves. Good for them. I'm sure the green eyed monsters slagging them off really bother them.

To them it's about mind over matter. They don't mind and you don't matter.

Who gives a flying fuck? I mean, really. Who the fuck really cares one single iota?? just wear what you want. Pretend you've been alive for a few more years, you know, at the age when you do your own thing and disregard peer pressure and don't give a shit what anybody thinks. You'll be much happier.

Run tae fuck.

What a wonderful minger statement that is. You must be one of those that Prince "Jug Ears" Charlie was on about.

Haha owned.

Come on give him a chance to get his shit in order guys. Im sure not every lable that has started has been perfect from day one. Just because he's young dont mean this isnt going to work out for him.

Owned my arse. Go and check and I think you'll find that looney tunes use the correct release forms.Barcoding is irrelevant if you're not interested in the charts or woolies, but no label with the output of looney tunes would dream of not protecting themselves or their artists. And relese forms was the issue, not barcodes.

How is it you trendy scenie types put it? oh yes. Ha Ha, owned.

Also once you commit a song to a mechanical media, even if you didn't write it, then the record company owns the rights to that particular recording. If you don't have a release form the the recording company can distribute the record and not pay the artist fuck all. It's a contract to protect both the artist and the company.

It's not a legal requirement to use MCPS for original material, it's just another safety net. It is a legal requirment for MCPS fees for covers.

As for barcodes, essential if you want a record in the charts and most big distributors and stores will not touch records with no barcodes. So if yo want your stuff in Woolies, barcode it. And while many indies don't bother with barcodes I bet they use PPL release forms, because they'd be fucking stupid if they didn't.

I don't know if those figures took into account the 11pm price hike' date=' it only mentioned smoking.

However, the 11pm price hike shouldn't affect jobs, the amount of jobs in a pub depends on how many people are needed at the busiest times, so if it's busier before 11 they should need more staff, or at least the same as before, not 14% less.

If pubs in Ireland close at midnight normally, I can't see that having an effect on staff levels at all, only on their paypackets.[/quote']

I don't know either, but will ask. However I do know that the fierce resistance from the licensed trade has been stirred up by representatives from the tobacco firms visiting pubs and clubs and quite frankly scaremongering by thrusting heavily biased figure and stats under the noses of licencees already under financial pressure. The more sensible people are telling them to fuck off and in fact I know at least one pub in Elgin which has already banned smoking and reports an upturn and no loss of smoking regulars.

As regards the Dublin figures' date=' I thought "wouldn't it be a great idea to just ask the pub owners in Dublin what their figures are"

Someone has:

The licenced vintners association asked 277 Dublin pubs (roughly half of Dublins pubs).

turnover was down 16% and staff levels were down 14%.

That's more than one full time and two part time jobs per pub according to them.

Looks like students won't need to worry about breathing in smoke at work, there won't be any work.[/quote']

I too, thought i'd have a look at this, as most if not all of the negative figures have been sponsored by the tobaco industry. Speaking to some friends who own a bar in Dublin revealed that the percieved downturn was more due to the hiking of post 11pm drink prices than the smoking ban as the sales figures pre 11pm had actually increased.

Speaking of filters and ionisers, I was in a bar in Kinloss, watching a band. The pub has a state of the art filter/ioniser fitted. The singers (non smokers) struggled against a rising fug of smoke all night. Why? The fucking thing was turned off. I asked why and was told it's too dear to run. With an attitude like that, the licensed trade deserves a blanket smoking ban.

Strictly speaking a label is not a label unless it is a member of PPL because it won't be using the appropriate release forms. It should also, idealy, barcode its products. It should also fill out MCPS forms, even for original material.

If it doesn't do all that, I would avoid it.

There's something perverse about multi-millionaire rock stars trying to get working class people on a minimum wage to contribute to charity...

I caught the video when they played it on every channel on TV the other night. It was disturbing to see all these pampered, over paid egos trying to pretend they gave a shit.