Rob_86

Well how would you qualify person-hood? There are many people with just the same degree of intelligence as cows, but if you're saying these are 'people' then you're saying cows are too - if we abandond the irrelevant characteristics of physicality. Cows are creatures with desires and a life which fares experientialy better or worse for the cow whose life it is, just like humans. To say this just means we should be nice to them before ending their lives, or whilst denying them the freedom their natural desires would give us a similar argument for doing so the mentally impaired. I know you hate that argument, but it's a very relevant analogy.

Well it's a question of what harm would be there if you didn't do it, which in a supply-demand led society is significant. We can all lay happily in our beds at night thinking we don't abuse anyone (well, most of us I hope), but our financial choices are our responsibility too. If people didn't demand meat, it wouldn't be produced. Animals are persons who live and experience their own life, so whoever's body you've paid to eat is the 'who' which you are harming.

I think everyone could begin to agree that morality is subjective to a degree. But when we all have shared moral bases, it becomes easy to develop shared moral extensions. I think Alkaline said he didn't mind eating humans, so presumably wouldn't mind the idea of needless harm towards them, but most of us would, and so therefore can reason why this is and develop from that point. It is fairly easy to see why we value humans in this way, and I think realistically speaking other animals share many of the attributes needed to be party to at least some rights etc.

It's all very well to say people can believe what they want, but the problem is when that starts impacting on other individuals - whether it has been done like this for thousands of years or not. The case for animal rights, whether it be on the issue of meat eating, pets, vivisection etc, poses vital questions to us all - and correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the great advantages of living in a civilised society is that morality can develop. It is an obligation every one has, in my opinion, to 'preach' flaws in people's/society's reasoning when it comes to ethical issues, and I really hate this idea that people should be left alone to think whatever they like. I mean it's true, people have a right to do what they like, but not when it harms others needlessly.

Haven't checked this thread since yesterday, am pleasantly surprised with it's civil manner to say the least - well done guys. Have a couple of points to add though. On the nutrition point, I eat a vegan diet and have researched it since going vegan and find nothing nutritionally suspect about it. I did go vegan originally as a moral choice, but nutritionally speaking what is missing? Calcium and omega 3 are of course the bigger myths, as calcium is largely unusable to a human being from dairy products (that 'calcium paradox' thing that the WHO noticed) and is present in loads of veggies, as is omega 3. Protein of course is found in higher concentrations in things like soya beans than all types of meat (except duck meat I think...). But moreover my concern nutritionally is with the problems of vegan and non-vegan diets (as both could fulfil nutritional requirements with perfect balances). Vegan diets are low in Vit B12, which is something non-vegan diets are often low in too though - the only two folk I know who suffered from B12 deficiency (one was hospitalised) were avid meat eaters. However the non-vegan diets seem to have more disadvantages. Our intestines don't digest meat particularly well as they are too long, hence the presence of beef for prolonged periods etc, which is what they think causes colon cancer (though this isn't fully researched I stress, it's pretty convincing). The links between dairy and breast/prostate cancer are pretty strong (not like your average sensationalised news story), in fact I think Jane Plant did studies in which 80% of terminal breast cancers go into remission on vegan diets... And obviously there is heart disease caused by cholesterol, which you don't find on a vegan diet. This is of course based on excess, but any cholesterol is going to clog up your arteries which isn't particularly nice, and it will have some effect on your health wouldn't it? Anyway, thats my thoughts on nutrition. Ethics-wise, this just seems so straight forward to me. Regardless of what we did in thr past, or what we think our bodies were built to do, ethics still exist. Some would say we were built to spread our seed as much as possible, which would suggest rape is moral, which of course it isn't. With animal use, it's a case of need. We live in a society where we don't need to eat animals to live healthily, so why do we? Why should it be only other humans that were interested in treating well? There are probably situations which humans will need to eat other humans in the future (plane crashes in deolate climates for instance) but this doesn't make it right for us to kill and eat humans now. Not even those humans with the mental capacity of pigs, so why is it okay to kill and eat the pigs? If nutritionally speaking there is no large issue, then morally speaking we're implored to respect the fact that these creatures are individuals, and hence should be left to live their lives.

It's interesting the 'mentally disabled - higher animal argument' has come up. Of course all humans and animals are individuals, and our moral arguments should always be based on this fact. I don't react to someone based on their physical attributes, I react based on who they are/what they are capable of. Being a member of the 'Cow' species is not a reason to kill and eat someone if you don't need to, no matter how long your ancestors have been doing so. Looking at animals as individuals, which of course they are, the mentally disabled analogy is very relevant. If we wouldn't farm and eat individual humans who have the same intellectual qualities of a pig, but would do so to a pig, then there need's to be a reason to justify this. And all of them (in my experience) involve some sort of discrimination based on physical/ intelligence based factors. And it should be painfully obvious to all of us that that sort of discrimination has never been right in our views before, so doesn't really make sense as a view to justify something else now. The only relevant characteristic, if you are considering an activity that would make a creature suffer or die, would be it's ability to suffer or die - anything else is arbitrary. On the same grounds that skin colour is arbitrary in a right to live, or sex is arbitrary in a right to freedom. An animal doesn't have an ability or intellect to vote, so shouldn't be granted the right, but in life or suffering it's very much equal.

Le Stu, I think you've hit on the animal rights vs. welfare debate - this guy would suggest that welfare has nothing to do with rights and vice versa for similar reasons to what you said - and hence that welfare has little strength of argument behind it. Whether that be right or wrong, I personally think he's got a point. Edit: just realised that link doesn't actually explain the view, it's just his blog post, but I'm sure you can find it on the rest of that site

So long as that's the case, you're view isn't unreasonable in any way. So long as you're consistent with it like that. I don't have a problem with telling people their views are wrong but only if it is inconsistent, otherwise it is just preaching opinion. I haven't met many people who would say killinbg/eating humans is fine and moral to them, but fair do's if that's what you honestly believe. I don't get this though 'Animals don't display morality in nature when it comes to eating so i'm not willing to either. Obviously i don't think that animals being farmed for consumption should be mistreated but killing is killing and is never going to be done in a manner that is moral enough for everyone.' Surely you dont treat animals, as they treat others?! You do realise they have no capacity for morality? Would be akin to throwing up on a baby or something. Either way, they don't have particular respect for treating their prey 'right', so if you do stuff because they do it, then you should have no need for being arsed about how they are treated. Otherwise it would be a bit of a mixed up view.

This is an interesting discussion. I don't eat meat, based on analysis of the arguments for and against (not much to do with outward emotional reaction). I think someone made the argument that we are natural meat eaters, and that we need meat to be healthy - well of course there is equal argument to say cutting meat out is healthier nowadays, and the natural argument doesn't make a lot of sense in a couple of ways (it's not particularly natural to be a meat eater which suffers from cholesterol intake - no other meat eating creature does regardless of the amount. And of course our naturally developed moral capacity shouldn't be ignored in favour of questions of 'naturality'). As for the actual 'moral' argument, I find this most interesting of all. Someone earlier said 'I like the taste of meat. I like the texture of meat. I would categorically not have a problem killing and eating any one of you lot or another human being i wasn't emotionally attached to (though if they were dead already i wouldn't have a problem eating them) if the need arose.' As much of a joke this was meant to be (I think..), it kinda sums up the issue. If it isn't right to farm or kill other individual humans for your diet when you don't have to, then it is very difficult to say it is okay to do so to other animals. If you are of the disposition that eating humans appears to be moral, then there should be no problem eating animals. However if you disagree with eating one but not with the other, then you have a job pointing out what the difference is that allows for it. Society assumes it is okay to eat animals because of the weaker 'natural' or 'other animals do it' arguments, but in reality it isn't right to discriminate on physical or intellectual factors (and thats what species difference is). As for animal welfare, I found this a difficult position to hold, and no longer do. The case for not consuming animals, and therefore not farming them, is the most compelling one to me - and is as strong as most of the other great social change causes over the last 200 years from a logical stand point. All I see that welfare does is preach the weird view that's it's alright to kill things needlessly so long as it is done nicely - and I can't find a way to support that with reason. I mean it's true that if animals are going to be used (and I'd imagine they will be for the rest of my lifetime) then they should be used as nicely as possible, but I think this just appeases people's consciences without ever needing to switch to do what's right. Anyway it's an interesting issue, and will be nice to see what other folk think about it.

I'd close this thread to be honest. There's not much point trying any serious discussion on this site thanks to an immature minority. God knows what it says about the 'scene' in Aberdeen, but last time i dipped my toe into the underground music scene, all be it not Aberdeen's, it wasn't full of guys trying to win each others friendship in increasingly childish ways, but about an actual scene with differing values, and not the 'we don't give a shit about anything except our mates and making them laugh' attitude, and nothing else. I apologise to anyone this doesn't relate to (I don't think it relates to a good number of people who I have read posts by), as there was some decent discussion at a couple of points and I'm sure a theres a group of really nice folks around too. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case on the whole though, and all that comes across is a couple of dicks trying to wind people up constantly.

Perhaps 'scening' - a new hobby designed for members of online music scenes to jump on any new members in the vain attempt to make themselves look cool, whilst stopping the local music scene around you from growing. And yet eventually complaining that their club nights at music venues aren't as popular as they should be (the last bit is a glimpse into the future in case you didn't work it out)

Please read my last post. Or at least attend a logic course or something - I know for a fact that the uni does formal logic, and at least used to do advanced logic - that might be a good start. Or keep pretending you have knowledge of how an argument might sound logical or not, when clearly it is your own views that can't be defended - to a degree where this sort of distraction has become useful in your own mind.

Look, if you don't have anything interesting to say start a new thread called 'things i like to cut and paste off the internet' and post there. Your desperation to be involved in this issue, by any, and I mean ANY means necessary is growing tiresome.

Well quite a few folk in this thread have understood my arguments, written back with their own and generally discussed in a respectful manner. If you find these conversations akin to the nonsensically structured paragraphs generated there, then perhaps it isn't what is written that is at fault

Before anyone thinks he made this up himself and thought it was funny, he copied it across from the random letter generator page linked to earlier. The random things in it must have been so funny that it was worth copying across...oh wait hang on, no. They must have been relevant somehow to this thread...no, still not it. Ah yes, the poster must be funny and intelligent on a level most grown men are unaware of. Cue some sort of childish response from any number of 'scene' people? This is such fun, we must carry it on - if only to keep you posting here instead of reproducing.

Oh dear, I apologise to everyone for indulging the idiots

Haha sorry guys, I forgot how this thread is for comedy geniuses, such as yourselves, only

Aw does someone need an output for his defensive emotions?!

Ah it's got to this level - okay we can play 'look at the pictures' too if this discussion has got too difficult for you?

Kinda makes sense now...lol

Yeah I'm getting that jist too. Well it doesn't have to be wasted though, if someone has a point/discussion to bring up it's just important that those of us interested do post and show how irrelevant those other type of comments are. I don't think the Aberdeen scene should be berift of discussion like this, and it's a shame if there is a set of people that thinks otherwise for whatever reason.

Oh wow, what an intellectual. An excellent addition to the debate, anything else to add? Just one thing - what exactly are these amazing values of yours that I am offending so? Or perhaps you could just make up some clever sounding new insults instead of replying to the question? Personally I think they make you sound really cool.

The analogy was made upon public perceptions, not intentions. So it is still a pretty good comparison - a band who intend to promote violent, irrational behaviour, and a band who don't intend to but mistakenly do due to attempting offense to certain sectors of their own community ( or whatever the purpose was, I have no idea).

Your argument, more clearly put, is that you don't like analogies/don't see how they work. As gangster rap is a poor example compared to nazi bands! Granted, perhaps gangster rap does have a lot to answer for, but makes little sense to bring it in as an analogy in this situation. I'll make the case one more time, please read it rather than attacking it based on the fact that your mates were in the band. If a group attempts to ironically create a band promoting domestic abuse, but fails in the eyes of the masses so as it is perceived they are a band promoting domestic abuse, then they face the same moral problems as bands of other types who genuinely are promoting domestic abuse. Given there are few of these around (and none I am aware of) then it makes sense to use an analogy of a band which promotes other violence inciting ideas - ie, those who promote violence not based on gender situations in the home, but perhaps race situations (something which 'Nazi' bands do). Your point if I understand it correctly is that I should be careful so as not to tie this band under this group of nazi bands? Well to what end? Is it not better to make points, using analogies to make things clearer, so as to see the moral issue itself clearer, than to avoid making a now defunct band into sounding ' a little bit like a nazi band' or whatever? Especially when it has been made clear that it is an analogy, many times, and what the analogy is as well. Analogies have always been used in moral issues, so as to compare what is going on with values we hold, and so as to make the issue clearer. If it happens that this one makes you angry, perhaps it is because the likeness it outlines is not one you're happy with? I can not see how the analogy itself is flawed, and neither has a point as to why been bought up (except that it is unfair to compare any band to a nazi band - regardless of the analogy, which is strange given that racial and sexist values are indeed very similar in their nature and hence are a useful comparison). And this 'attack' hasn't been at all personal in intention, or from what I can see in form. I apologise to you or the guys in the band if it is thought otherwise, but I think from the way I have written you can see it is clear no personal insults/disrespect has been put across in these arguments.

I thought so