The nature of opinion, taste etc

[Guest]

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

[Mr Barguzin]

Bugger... it's 11.45PM and you expect me to be thinking laterally??

 

watch out tomorrow WEG

[ReFur]

When TOS first joined, I was a little "set back" by his "style". For many, when you first read his "rantings" and very strong "opinions," you will be put off. But, if you can, give him a chance. There is a lot more with him than all the "noise."

 

When I first tried to approach him to "cooling it" a little I believe he responded by posting a thread on the old main den of, "The UK is at war with US" or something like that. I really wanted to wring his neck at that point.

 

After spending an entire day of PMing each other back and forth I think we wore each other down on a subject not that different than this one. We both realized that we agreed more than differed. I believe that OFF had a similar experience with him.

 

I can tell you that now that I consider him to be one of my favorites on the site. I find some of his posts funny, especially after he has obviously returned from the Pub. When he goes off "the deep end" I just roll my eyes. I have to wait to read his long posts in the morning with my first cup of coffee. But, many times they are worth the time.

 

One thing that causes opinions to be a sometimes "touchy" issue here, is our incredible differences. We come from all corners of the world, from different religious backgrounds and of different sexual preferences. And, for some or language differences make communicating what we really mean more challenging.

 

Yet, it amazes me how well we do and how close we can be. With all of our differences we have a bond here. One that we must never forget transcends "Being Right"

 

I think of what my attitudes would have been if this site had been available to me when I was 20, ... 30, or ... 40. Or before I was divorced. Or, before I lived in Dubai. Or, before I re-married. I think in each of these stages of my life my responses and attitudes might have been very different here.

 

The biggest change that has occurred over the years for me, has been the realization that although a certain position or attitude maybe very certain for me now, it does not mean that will be correct for others. Or, maybe even for me at another time in my life. And, above all, I cannot say another is wrong. Only, that it is wrong for me.

 

When I was younger I needed to make a very uncertain world safer by viewing it as absolutes. I still sometimes fall back to that. I find as I age that I am safe enough to now see all the world's wonderful shades of gray.

 

One thing I have not been able to shed is my desire to have order in my life. I have not been able to abandon asking, "Why" nor do I handle "mediocrity" well. Which is a judgement in itself. Maybe in my 50's I will be able to conquer these issues as well.

 

Lastly, when debate and discussion is used to beat others into our way of thinking, the greatest gift is lost. And, that is the ability to open our minds to new ways of viewing life and expand our spirit.

 

TOS, you are a joy.

 

Linda

 

PS For those of you that are looking to expand your acceptance of life's issues, I have just listened to a great audio book on www.Audible.com. It is a book called Loving What is. I highly recommend the site and the book. Although I do not agree with all of her positions, it has opened my mind.

[allfurme]

Man, it's all too heavy for me and i am trying to read it at 13:19

[Guest]

I have a lot to say on this but will let other people speak first.

 

However just to say there is a difference between putting forward a dtrong rational argument and wishing to dominate people.

 

Often it is the simple ignorant view that dominates in a democracy...hence the hunting ban, and the eventual fur ban if this ignorance is not taken apart. I wouldnt be trying to put someone down...only question it, analyse and if necessary destroy it, not the person. tryxie disagrees with me sometimes as did OFF and Linda but sometimes such intense argument can lead to truth. Politeness can lead to and disguise war crimes.

 

I like someone who argues with me more than someone who is polite but thinks I am talking rubbish. I can only reconsider, learn etc when an alternative argument is put to me. I actually have very very few opinions

on anything other than horse racing fur and hunting and art. But on those I have studied and belive my opinion can be illuminating. BUT still I can be wrong, start to build on bad foundation etc so its better someone knocks it down so I start again with a more balanced view.

 

And I was very wrong about Cheltenham. Wont be about Aintree though

Even very informed opinion can be wrong its true. But we all must be open to discussion and get away from this absurd notion of opinions and taste being equal.

My opinion and taste in architecture could not possibly stand up to OFF's.

[Guest]

Like TOS, I have plenty more to say. There's 14 more paragraphs of his that need answered

 

But I'm gonna stay quiet for a while and lets others have a say

 

Tryxie said that

[ReFur]

I actually have very very few opinions

on anything other than horse racing fur and hunting and art.

 

 

 

Oh, my goodness! I guess you and I have different definitions of what an opinion is, Touch!

 

Linda

[Guest]

Bloody hell Kiddies

 

I'm gonna have to print this lot of & make notes!!!!!! else I won't be able to keep up - sports was always my thing, didn't have to think jus do!!!

[Mr Barguzin]

There are times when to live in this age is a blessing, specially with cut and paste *grin*...... sooooooooooo let's start with a couple of cut and pastes for "Opinion".... Firstly, from "The Free Dictionary"

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=opinion and the following extract:

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" Elizabeth Drew.

2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

 

and then "Wikipedia"

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/opinion

 

An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgement or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because it is not possible to prove (or disprove) an opinion.

 

For example, one may claim that strawberry is a better tasting flavor of ice cream than vanilla. Another might claim that vanilla is a better tasting flavor. (If you disagree with either of these opinions, substitute chocolate, butter pecan, or whichever flavor of ice cream you think tastes better than vanilla, for my use of strawberry.) The original claim is an opinion; it is neither true nor false, it is simply a claim which can neither be proven nor disproven. Now, if one claims that strawberry is a more popular flavor than vanilla, that is no longer an opinion, it is a fact, which can be proven, (or in this case disproven) by showing another fact, that more vanilla ice cream is sold than strawberry. (The presumption being that people buy ice cream in order to consume it, thus, more purchases of vanilla would indicate vanilla is more popular than strawberry since people would not purchase ice cream simply to throw it away.)

 

The issue of whether strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla ice cream is still, however, arbitrary and nonprovable, and thus remains an opinion (as would the opposite opinion that vanilla ice cream tastes better than strawberry. Note that simply because a particular opinion is more popular still does not make the opposite opinion incorrect or wrong). It would not be permissible for someone else to claim that either opinion on which tastes better is wrong because opinions are still arbitrary and can neither be proven nor disproven. It is permissible to state that one disagrees with the opinion. It is, however permissible to claim that the statement that strawberry is more popular than vanilla is wrong, because it is a claim of a fact, the claim having been contradicted by one or more other facts.

 

Opinions can either be made up by a person or taken over from another person. Sometimes some people try to force their opinions on others. In general, all people are free to form opinions as they see fit. However, in certain political regimes, it may not be advisable to express certain opinions openly. In economics, philosophy, or other social sciences, analysis based on opinions is referred to as normative analysis (what ought to be), as opposed to positive analysis, which is based on observation (what is). Not all schools of thought find this distinction useful.

 

 

Now let's go to "Taste"... the same sources in the same order:

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taste

 

5. A limited or first experience; a sample: "Thousands entered the war, got just a taste of it, and then stepped out" Mark Twain.

6. A personal preference or liking: a taste for adventure.

7.

a. The faculty of discerning what is aesthetically excellent or appropriate.

b. A manner indicative of the quality of such discernment: a room furnished with superb taste.

8.

a. The sense of what is proper, seemly, or least likely to give offense in a given social situation.

b. A manner indicative of the quality of this sense.

 

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/taste

 

Main article Taste (aesthetics).

 

Taste can also refer to appreciation for aesthetic quality, significantly applying the purely physical term to an intellectual quality. In such contexts Taste begins to be used in a metaphorical sense to refer to certain degrees of cultural competence, closely related to the concept of discrimination; it can set distinctions between "tasteful" and "tasteless" or the embodiments of "good taste" or "bad taste", thus providing categories for social division and reinforcing cultural hierarchy.

 

The modern concept of "taste" is a product of the 16th century Italian Mannerism: the idea of "taste" as a quality that is independent of the style that is simply its vehicle

[ReFur]

I am going to set down in the morning with my cup of coffee, strike that, my POT of coffee, and read all this.

[Guest]

And as for the bit about speciesism... or whatever that word was *grin*... what other species on this planet is able to sit down and have a detailed philosophical disertation on such an abstract as opinion.

 

 

Speciesism isn't about what other animal can sit down and discuss abstract thoughts. It exists becuase WE can sit down and discuss abstract thoughts. There is an assetion that animals have rights, it is this and this alone that requires the subject of speciesism to be addressed. If it is concluded that animals do not have rights, then the matter is of no import.

 

But there mere fact that governments have passed laws to protect the welfare of animals has given animals rights under the law.

[Guest]

And as for the bit about speciesism... or whatever that word was *grin*... what other species on this planet is able to sit down and have a detailed philosophical disertation on such an abstract as opinion.

 

 

Speciesism isn't about what other animal can sit down and discuss abstract thoughts. It exists becuase WE can sit down and discuss abstract thoughts. There is an assetion that animals have rights, it is this and this alone that requires the subject of speciesism to be addressed. If it is concluded that animals do not have rights, then the matter is of no import.

 

But there mere fact that governments have passed laws to protect the welfare of animals has given animals rights under the law.

 

Maybe so but ultimately "Mother Nature" will decide for all of us as to what claim we have to this planets resources & as humans currently (as a whole) have no respect for the land we've all got it coming in my opinion?

[Mr Barguzin]

Speciesism: Walt Disney, Warner Brothers and Pat O'Sullivan (to name but a few) have a lot to answer for.

 

I somehow get the feeling that those who say it is a form of discrimination to not allow animals the same rights as mankind watched Mickey and Pluto, Bugs and Daffy, Felix the Cat and other cartoons too much for our own good. They actually believe that animals are our equals; can read, write and aquire great wealth; can plot as well as Machiavelli could write. HELL READ "ANIMAL FARM"!!.... What;s that? oh, you have. *blush*

 

Baby seals look so cute, big brown eyes... and later on, ravenous appetites. Increase the number of seals, add man's fishing and its only natural that fish stocks will dwindle. Like so many things that look like a good initial idea, there will be unknown or inforeseen consequences.

 

Does this mean that should these animals be granted mankinds rights that we will be forced to distinguish between killing for food and killing just for the fun of it or are we going to hand feed and rear these newly emancipated brothers?

 

Does this mean that if a lion kills a farmer that he will have the right to a fair trial with a jury of his peers?

 

Or are we going to be selective in just who we allow to be "our equals".

 

To be perfectly honest, it is like so many ideas that are thrown into the general morass that is called the media to see what happens: it will have its moment in the sun, and then the feathers will start to fall from the wax used to hold them in place and it shall quietly fall to earth and be eaten by army ants with great gusto. Hmmmmmmm Anticide?

 

It is but another example of small minded folks having too much time on their hands and the mindset of a ten year old child.

 

man has a responsibility to this planet and all inhabitants, be they flora or fauna. Unfortunately, two things hinder our response: Greed and narrowmindedness and yes, both cut both ways.

 

We want but to attain that we need to destroy... and it won't affect us so why worry (current powerbrokers).

 

If anything, speciesism will be like and likened to PC; some will take it seriously, whilst others will see it for what it is. A chance for non-entities to appear to be greater than what they are worth.

[Pluto]

Dear you all!

 

(I won't write too much, try to contribute in few words, since I am on the thin ice of a foreign language.)

 

Whenever feeling something to be "wrong" (a situation, an opinion, somebody else, ...) I ask myself what I can do to get things in order, not "in the outward" (change the settings of that situation, counter with my opinions, persuade others, ...), but "inside me". Which is in no way surrender, it is coming to peace with a part of myself that resonates on anger and all facettes of aggression I suppose aiming at me - non biologically lethal threat provided. This is my one and only way to break the cycle of opinion and counteropinion, "my world" and "your world". There's no discussion or arguing. It helps me to calm down immediately, deepens tranquility and inner peace.

 

Before I encountered this, I couldn't believe it would work, as it does not judge the parties into winners (that are "right") and losers (that are "wrong"), but focuses on me - the only person I can change indeed.

 

Life gets boring without fight and discussion? It obviously doesn't, as far as I learnt. I freed large amounts of personal energy that I bound to what I thought that others had to do to fit into my world and measures, and now am spending them enjoying the pleasures of life (fur, for example).

 

This attitude doesn't solve any problems in question? No, it doesn't. It changes my perspective, thus there are no "problems". "Um des Kaisers Bart", as we say in German.

[bob23]

Baby seals look so cute, big brown eyes... and later on, ravenous appetites. Increase the number of seals, add man's fishing and its only natural that fish stocks will dwindle. Like so many things that look like a good initial idea, there will be unknown or inforeseen consequences.

 

The 'cute' factor is certainly a major card with many, but I think that equally important is our paternal instinct towards the young. Aggression against those that are helpless is considered by many to be one of the greatest crimes man can commit.

[Guest]

Flip tryxie weve started something now!!!

However all that has been stated is very very interesting and I think that it may prevent senseless argument in future. Debate over differing opinions can actually be highly illuminating.

However sometimes being required to back up an opinion, judgement or taste is not a rude question. Some of these things if left unchallenged are dangerous (even mine ) or absurd.

 

On the ice cream thing consider the following:

 

Ice cream sales are higher in hot weather so therefore ice cream causes summer.

Summer makes hot weather so therefore ice cream sales rise.

 

Both are opinions based on observation but it IS possible to disprove the first....its just very slightly based on a false premise that hasnt been tested.

Now that is an absurd exageration. However many opinions, and even "facts" are based on equally unsound science.

 

Are both observations of the same worth?

 

Tolstoys theories as to what constitutes great Art still have never been effectively challenged.......so I will go along with him until I read something that makes more sense. Basically he said:

Language/writing is about the expression of ideas. Art is about the expression of feelings, and effective communication of such feelings constitutes great Art".

 

Now thats a book in a senetence, but using this theory I can criticise music as being mediocre(just entertainment, or toytown politic) or great.

Ride of the Valkeries for example would move anyone of any culture, and

even say Abba can get a lovely emotion over, language not being important. The Yakut drum dance or welsh harp music equally expressive and communicating of feeling.

 

On PETA and animal rights. Rights imply some appreciation of morality in law...it require mutual respect. Animals are amoral. So its like the ice cream and summer thing. Now this isnt quite sound as for example one could argue children have rights, with little knowledge of others rights...hence discipline is required. But if we havent the right to kill an animal he doesnt have the right to kill us either. Quite absurd.

Any animal rights argument should be based on animal law not man law.

Otherwise you have to teach a cheetah to repect a gazelle as the gazelle has the right not to die. Its garbage.

 

The law is an ass.

Except thats an insult to an ass.

Edited March 21, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

On PETA and animal rights. Rights imply some appreciation of morality. Animals are amoral.

The law is an ass.

 

Lucky it has rights. Now it can be a right ass

[Guest]

[Guest]

 

man has a responsibility to this planet and all inhabitants, be they flora or fauna. Unfortunately, two things hinder our response: Greed and narrowmindedness and yes, both cut both ways.

 

We want but to attain that we need to destroy... and it won't affect us so why worry (current powerbrokers).

 

 

Spot on Mr B.

 

Narrowmindness - Maybe not? - Lack of awareness & education, Definitely!

 

How many obese people who stuff there face with their Big Mac meal realise that in order to get that Big Mac, fertile farmland or Amazon rainforest has been turned to desert to allow Cattle heards to graze & destroy the land for their fast food meal, whilst in other parts of the world Millions starve who could have been fed via these fertile farmlands - It's all about awareness & educating folk who the real enemy are? The corporate dollar is more a threat to our existence on this planet than any terrorist ever will be!

 

It's a shame that someone like Heather Mills-Mc Cartney (Who needs a purpose in life as her hubby is famous) doesn't champion worthwhile causes like taking on the big coorpartions who're laying waste to our planet.

 

It's not us Fur-wearers - We're utilising the by-product of Native peoples who are culling pests in order for them to survive (Ie Seals eat all the fish & we loose both the Inuit & Seals from our eco-system!!)

 

Bit of tangent maybe, but it at least illustrates something about opinion - Who actaully voices there opinion let alone have an informed one? - Not many people in reality - Most are sheep & can easily be regulated by consumer advertising & media control - I mean if WE ALL had an informed opinion it'll be anarchy - wouldn't it?

[Guest]

its just ...an...other....count...try....

another council tenancy

get pissed

destroy.

 

couldnt resist that furelli. You are spot on actually. Very very little public opinion is informed by anything other than a lowest common denominator

corporation bought media spew.