Guest Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 A few days ago TOS made a posting on the Music thread ( http://thefurden.com/bbden/viewtopic.php?p=5816&highlight=#5816 ) I took issue with his second paragraph, I haven't got round to the others yet, and took my dissagreement to PM's. The outcome of which has been that we agreed we should take the matter public. Not because we want to wallow in the glory of our own rhetoric, but because we think there is something of value to be found in a wider participation, and it's something everyone can join in with. There's going be be a lengthy intro to get you all up to date on this, but bear with us. It should be worth the read. So here goes. The link to TOS's post which sparked this off is above. Unfortunately i seem to have deleted my response to that but I'm sure TOS can oblige. He in turn wrote this:- Well think about it like this. If I had an opinion about cardiac surgery how could it be equal to a heart surgeons ? You are a fashion student and surely your knowledge of fashion carries superior weight to someone who has little knowledge. I would argue for example that thierry mugler drapes and enhances female form superbly...to an iconic status....but thats from a man and an artists viewpoint. The clothes may be badly made or reactionary in fashion terms, and if you said so then I would accept your vastly more informed view. So I have an argument which could be defended against many but unlikely against you...you are a professional. On things like music and art there tends to be this idea that its all a matter of taste and that taste is impossible to qualify. I have no interest in stopping people listening to Green day so I am not trying to dominate or control them...only questioning the bands vaidity as important.....I actually did it tongue in cheek, though I have since qualified why I think they are poor. If you cant criticise withouit people taking offence its not a true forum. I would be first to admit that as far as say, relative skills in guitar playing are not an issue I would feel confident in having an opinion on of equal worth to someone who could actually play guitar themselves. I am just saying that taste can be good in terms of appreciationg something from an artistic/cultural viewpoint. you have excellent and varied musical taste but my neighbour listens to Billy Joel. I tell him its rubbish because it is. He laughs...he doesnt take offence!!! Is there a qualitive difference likewise between junk food and cordon bleu? Yes there is...but I am not trying to force people to stop eating junk, even eat it myself regularly but know its crap. But me or another junk food fan have an opinion worth that of Gordon Ramsay....no . You argue very well.....and I have respect for your very well considered, informed opinions. But poorly informed opinion isnt equal is it? Best regards TOS ps I will always admit defeat when I come across superior argument, or at least think and accordingly change my mind...as I did with our last pm debate. As for PETA their arguments, like that of hitler in Mein Kampf, were fundamentaly flawed from inception and the idea of racial supremacy of accepted can lead to frighteningly superb logic....but it needs to be taken apart at the base. You mentioned speciesism but didnt expand. Do you think we are superior to animals? I genuinely dont. We are animals with a speciality likle all of them. So like all of them we have the right to kill to survive....they have the right to kill us too. And nothing more. Now respect, or welfare....they are different premises entirely. So a bad fur farm is bad, a good fur farm is good...and yes, lots of shades of grey in between in that one. But to say its all bad because animlas have rights is a nonsensical argument. To say they deserve to be respected is different.....I would argue that respect and good husbandry actually leads to better fur, meat, etc etc. Its a considered viewpoint starting from entirely logical grounds unlike PETAS. So, should I accept an absurd premise which then a huge fascistic argument is then based on because all opinion is of the same worth? However this is where it gets complicated becasue sometimes the opinion of a child, a cat or a horse can be very illuminating. and my response Where to begin with this one? I still maintain that eveyones opinion is no greater or lesser than any one elses. However after analysis of its contents it maybe that it contains ill concieved ideas, things founded on incorrect information, or just personal feelings, or lack of knowledge. But to dismiss an opinion is demeaning to all others and say the smart ass is right every time and opinions become the perogative of the elitist intellectual. Opinion Apartied. touchofsable wrote: On things like music and art there tends to be this idea that its all a matter of taste and that taste is impossible to qualify. Taste is valid, music and art are about personal perception, particularly for the layman who has had no formal schooling in art. I'm sure amongst academics there is heated debate on art, is half a dead fish art, or maybe its better than that pile of bricks, at the end of the day you can talk it till you're blue in the face but its still a subjective observation, even for the learned ones who preach psychobabble to justify their position. touchofsable wrote: I have no interest in stopping people listening to Green day so I am not trying to dominate or control them...only questioning the bands vaidity as important.....I actually did it tongue in cheek, though I have since qualified why I think they are poor. If you cant criticise withouit people taking offence its not a true forum. I don't worry about peoples tastes in music so much, again, to me it's subjective. But i won't dismiss their opinon that Mozart is crap and Daisy Chainsaw isn't. I would disagree, but thats my preference. I happen to like music that has more than 4 chords and lasts longer than 3 minutes, but that doesn't mean i don't listen to other stuff to, as you know. touchofsable wrote: You argue very well.....and I have respect for your very well considered, informed opinions. But poorly informed opinion isnt equal is it? Yes of course it is, it might only be badly formed through lack of knowledge which can be corrected, as opposed to stupidity which is genetic. And even with poorly formed opinion an effort has been made to grasp a concept and analyse it. It might also uncover truths unfound in someone elses opinion. Would you ever know if it was just dismissed because it wasnt on an intellectual par. touchofsable wrote: As for PETA their arguments, like that of hitler in Mein Kampf, were fundamentaly flawed from inception and the idea of racial supremacy of accepted can lead to frighteningly superb logic....but it needs to be taken apart at the base. Wrong. I haven't read Mein Kampf, so cant speak for it, but PETA I know a little about. Their arguement is quite simple. They promote veganism, end of arguement. That is their fundamental ethos, there is nothing unsound about that, and their arguements support that. They contest that animals should not be used in any way by mankind, a firm principle supporting veganism. Where they fall down in their doctrine is in its promotion. Harrasemnt, intimidation, arson, hate mail. The same methods used against the jews and jew lovers by the Nazis. It gives them much more publicty than saying excuse me that's meat would you consider eating vegetables in furure because... On the whole they get success and lots of money because there is no reason for mr general public to complain, theyre not affecting him yet, his beef arrives on his plate, his milk is delivered, what does he care if the Canadian seal cull is banned, or someones fur coat gets covered in paint. Not his problem, and you are unlikely to ever get him involved untill his beef goes missing. The fur coat wearing rich are the victims, not him. In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me. Poem by Rev Martin Niemoeller That is the situation you will have, and Joe Public will be the last man in the chain. touchofsable wrote: You mentioned speciesism but didnt expand. Do you think we are superior to animals? I genuinely dont. We are animals with a speciality likle all of them. So like all of them we have the right to kill to survive....they have the right to kill us too. And nothing more. Now respect, or welfare....they are different premises entirely. So a bad fur farm is bad, a good fur farm is good...and yes, lots of shades of grey in between in that one. But to say its all bad because animlas have rights is a nonsensical argument. To say they deserve to be respected is different.....I would argue that respect and good husbandry actually leads to better fur, meat, etc etc. Its a considered viewpoint starting from entirely logical grounds unlike PETAS. Before we can consider Speciesism another issue has to be addressed. Animals have rights, or do they not have rights. Both of these are equally valid opinions both with equally valid arguements behind them. Animals have rights holds the moral high ground. We are animals, we are part of the animal kingdom. Both morally and ethically therefore any rights we have should be extended to all animals. (If you want the whole arguements I can direct you to a web site) But this is plainly a ridiculous situation, can you have a ferret drawing welfare payments, and how will you collect his taxes, because that's what equal rights will mean. Do the animals have a right to self determination and a choice as to whether they can be eaten as food by others or used for soley for their skins. But with rights come resposibities, which animals are capable of exercising those in a morally resposible manner, do some animals derserve more rights than others, which animals? etc. So, certain descisions have to be made on behalf of the animals, 'cos we don't comunicate to well together. This is speciesism. We have a similar thing in the human world, its called predjudice and racism, so don't think specism doesn't and can't exist, its part of a fundamental truth, you can't just support the part of the arguement you like and dismiss the other bits. Its a moral minefield which is why philosophers and theologists spend years debating such things. To argue contrary to this is to say animals have no rights, which may indeed be the case if a sufficiently strong arguement can be put forward that becomes popular opinion. Alas no one has and no court rulings have been made, so PETA push forward. The opposition groups are the fur centres, and they are only interested in promoting themselves and their members, they have no counter offensive against PETA and the furriers are just left to fight it out alone. Tryxie said this. And for the finale, so far, TOS's latest reply Hi tryxie thankyou for adressing my points with very considered and balanced argument. Yes I think it is worth posting if you can on a thread of its own....though we have differences here its a important thing to be discussed. I still disagree with some of what you say as I think the initial unsound basis of an argument can lead to frighteningly simple logic: if you can convince someone that grass is pink then its easy to explain why. If you check out PETAs website and go in a few levels you will see how that works. If you read Mein Kampf it makes sense if you accept the intial hypothesis of genetic and racial superiority. However I think....and thats why I posted such an argumentative idea on the music thread..that this at least needs to be discussed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I still maintain some opinion is more informed and therefore carries more weight than others. However, also I do take your point about intellectualisation of some specialist fields to protect professional control. Art in particular as you point out quite rightly. As a concession to this , I had already posted a joke to illustrate exactly your point (the Irish labourer and the Philistine skeleton). I agree 100% by the way on the observation about the fur industry. For example the native furs have never been well promoted by the fur industry because the furriers have always traditionally thought that smart women will shy away from native furs. They, sadly, have as you suggest only been interested in fighting their own commercial corner. On a different note, I wonder if a valid criteria for assessing the quality of furs can be made a case for...I dont know. Its a long time since I heard that piece you quoted; thankyou for reminding me of it. As usual Tryxie you have made me think...thankyou and best regards TOS ps your point about veganism and PETA may be partly true. The principle of veganism however is just as flawed in terms of ethical treatment of animals since it would result in the lack of need for animals which would logically result in their eventual decline. Just like steam engines. Ironicallyu, whilst I respect the choice of an individual in this matter its a good job we arent all vegetarian(though we are) else there would be no more domestic animals...no lambs in spring would make Wales a bleak landscape indeed. Now its over to you guys. Tryxie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now