trained_chimp

Wednesday June 22nd at The Tunnels, 7-11pm: Benefit gig - monies raised from which will benefit aberdeenshireG8actions, who are a Dissent! affiliated group organising against the G8 with music, comedy, poetry, and clowns. Those appearing include - Wendy Ivers, Gus Abbot, Simon Spoor, Tony Littler, Rapunzel, George K, Hilda Meers, Jerry Jablonsky, Nath, and The Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army. Tickets 4/3 concessions.

Sunday June 26th at The Tunnels: Zapatista benefit show Alan Cynic / The Kitchen Cynics: spot - on observational singer - songwritering The Videos: sci - fi pop - punk Spike Pile Driver: the shortest distance between two points Sidca: Mongol horde of noise; possibly acoustic on the night (and introducing......) Bill Ely and the Catnips: in their guitarists own words, ahem, "Cajun punks weld you two a two time pirate beat, Shinto style". 3 entry 7pm - 1am For info on the Zapatistas check out http://www.edinchiapas.org.uk/

I dont mean to offend you or anything, i realise that forums are very impersonal, but i felt i should respond to your criticism. firstly, i dont see a problem with citing research. I dont know how the pigs were treated in this experiment, i guess since it was psychological testing it wasnt too bad, but they may have become bacon. But the point is that all research conducted on animals, suggests that we have no right to experiment on them at all. So i have no problem citing research since the vast majority reinforces my opinion, but i still move for the abolition of cruel and inhumane animal tests etc. For the record i dont feel it would be a problem to test animals when they are being treated well, we do this with children for developmental psychology, where we put them through tests very similar to the pig ones i am referring to. secondly, since the vitamins and minerals gained from eating animals, can also be gained from eating various vegetables etc, this is not a good argument for eating meat. The only argument i can see left is one of personal preference ie "it tastes good". thirdly, i really did answer your "is any death cruel" point. What i said above was that every animal, human and non-human (bar the suicidal) would rather be alive than dead. So even if you can have a completely painless and suffering-free death, which personally i dont believe happens, you are still being cruel in the sense that you are taking their life away from them. In the ideal situation, an animal would be treated exceptionally well, then killed in a painless and suffering free way; the animal would still die, which i have an issue with, but would not suffer in its entire life. This argument is a moot point, since this ideal situation does not exist anywhere - if you eat meat in our society you necessarily cause the suffering and the death of the animal concerned, it is unavoidable even with free range organic etc. certainly there are better or worse situations for animals, but unavoidably they suffer and die for our pleasure. So all i suggest is that you consider all the options and all the evidence, and make a decision for yourself whether you want to eat meat. But dont have some false consciousness that there is any reason, in our society, for eating meat other than because you enjoy it.

Let me give you guys an example of how we arbritrarily give humans more moral worth and value than animals. It has been proven that pigs can perform simple tasks, they have a sense of family, they have interests and desires. Now let us compare the pig, which is considered food and a fit candidate for scientific/medical experiments, to a mentally disabled human individual. This individual has very little awareness of his or her surroundings, does not recognise family and has very little in the way of desires or interests. I would never dream of suggesting we eat the disabled person or conduct medical experiments on him/her. But which out of the pig and the disabled person would you give more moral rights? I propose that a pig should be considered equal to a human being that has the same level of interests, desires, awareness. In this way animals should be equal to human beings. Not in the absurd sense that has been proposed by a couple of people on this thread. We do the same amongst humans, The young are treated differently in our society, people with a mental illnesses or other disabilities are also treated differently. But we do not make these decisions arbitrarily as we do when considereing animals - we come to an objective understanding of the levels of awareness and responsibility that each individual has when helping or restraining a person. And so it should be with a non-human animal. In this way animals are equal to human beings in the same way that humans are equal to humans. In answer to the moral agency proposal; While there is evidence of animals having interests and desires there is no evidence of moral agency, if indeed any animal, human or non-human does have moral agency at all, a question that is not decided to say the least. And to the criticism that i am giving non-human-animals the same brain capacity as human-animals, that is ridiculous. What i have been saying all along is that we should treat animals in a way which is not arbitrary, but afford them rights according to their moral worth, which is in many ways very similar to our own, but not identical. And as i have shown with the examples of the young and the disabled - we do not treat everyone "the same" either. "is any death cruel"? I believe that every animal, human and non-human would, if we could get an answer from them all, say that they would rather be alive. (The exception here are the suicidal person who I hope everyone here would agree that they need help from us.) In this way we should not set out to kill them for no good reason other than "they taste good". Can animals vote? They do not have the capability to put a cross on a ballot paper and vote like we do, but open the cage door and they will vote with their feet. So perhaps this kind of "voting rights" should be given to them. So to conclude - Animals are not "the same", they are different, in the same way that many humans have many differences. Animals should be equal to humans in the same way that humans are equal to humans. I think you would all agree that it would be absurd to make all humans "exactly equal", so i dont think it is necessary to make all animals "exactly equal" to humans, or eachother for that matter, because humans and animals are not all "the same".

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, 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.