I think what people find a little confussing if that you devote so much energy into sticking up for people you say you disagree with? I see you're maybe just trying to see the best in people, but I really do think a persons true character is really shown by their recreational activities. It is tradition that has put this world in such a dire situation. That kills thousands of people every year. Although I don't agree with violence in any way, i feel it was a good thing that the people who are into this sport ( mainly middle-classes) were exposed as having the capability of being as violent and thug-like as some of the people who show up for anti-capitalist/animal rights/redundancy demonstations ( mainly working classes). For however wrong the violence is, I can't help thinking at least those others guys (animal rights/anti-capitalists) have got their heart in the right place...however wrong their actions may be. It has at least shown society that they can behave just as appalingly. Which I hope will at the least push equality forward slightly.
Urban Alliance Communiqué Quote: On the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 September, elements of London Brigade Urban Alliance were on active service gathering intelligence on the countryside demonstration in Parliament Square. In the course of the surveillance operation, the opportunity arose to capture the banner of the Union of Country Sports Workers. The Volunteers seized their chance and successfully withdrew from the area with their prize. No casualties were sustained. Captain Swing Classic!
In my conception it would be arrogance to regard this as an absolute truth, yes. It is my firm belief that rape and torture are wrong, and that people should be stopped from doing them. But these are just my opinions. I have no belief in absolute truths. In fact I don't believe there are such things as "right" or "wrong" at all, these are just arbitrary constructions, names we give to our choice of behaviour and our self-created "morality". There is no right or wrong, there are just choices we make about the way we behave. There are no truths or fixed moral standards set in tablets of stone. In my humble opinion! Informing my aversion to absolutism is the realisation that nothing has any meaning whatsoever, we are simply bizarre accidental creatures hurtling around a vacuum on a lump of rock. Given this scenario, talk of absolute moral standards makes very little sense: where do they come from? God? Spacetime? The Hydrogen atom? Just one more thing: I don't know it to be wrong in absolute terms, I simply believe it to be wrong according to my arbitrarily chosen moral standards. I would also make the case that I would extend my notion of the wrongness of hurting another human to include people who have different moral standards than me. I would suggest it is wrong to hurt someone who supports fox hunting. And that's the kernel of the issue which sparked off this whole debate. It offends my moral standards to see people celebrating the pain of another human, no matter what that human has done.
Well this is where we differ. I disagree entirely with this assertion. I hold that our behaviour is informed by an inherent sense of what is right and wrong on a fundamental level. We may build all kinds of other artificial moral constructs (such as pro/anti abortion etc), but these are interpretive extrapolations. We still know that causing suffering is wrong on an intuitive level. Indeed. Which is one of the many reasons that I believe that we are spiritual creatures. Our understanding of basic morality would seem to imply a wider aspect to our nature than the merely physical. And this is where you're being coldly intellectual. Where are the feelings in all of this? When I see suffering, I feel it on a very basic level. I do not believe this to be simply a result of a cold and calculated set of moral rules inherited from society. Which again demonstrates how you're approaching this debate with your own set of assumptions. I have never once said that I believe it to be right to hurt anyone. It's not about celebrating pain. It's about celebrating the fact that the tables have been turned and the perpetrators of suffering are now reaping the consequences of their actions.
This takes the debate into another arena altogether. But I would be interested if you could explain to me this "inherent sense" and "fundamental level" of which you speak. Where does it come from? Explain its precise mechanism. This was in reference to Zonk's posts which he deleted. They were celebrating pain. Tables turned - fine. Irony - fine. Being pleased that a sentient human being has suffered physical pain - very not cool.
I'm not clear on what you mean by its mechanism. Do you mean explain the physical function? Clearly that's impossible since I don't believe spirituality to be of physical origin. Fine. Then we're cool
Showmet. You really have to TRY to understand what huntsabs and others have been going through for years and years. I wasn't going to post this up as there are some shockingly mutilated animals on the page but it also shows the level of violence inflicted on sabs EVERY WEEKEND. http://twotins.tripod.com/id26.html and http://www.keeponfighting.net/gallery/slideshow.php?set_albumName=20030717-Jonathan_Broise
I'd say I work in a pretty closed minded environment but we were all laughing our asses off at this: off Zonks post Sorry if i sound cruel... but it didnt half make us titter
I am extremely upset that hunt saboteurs have been treated with violence. It does not make me any happier about the notion of someone applauding a hunt supporter getting whacked. Call it a weakness, I just really hate the idea of suffering. No matter where it occurs. Chimpanzees in the wild inflict cruelty upon their own kind and other species of monkey. I would still not support someone being cruel to a chimpanzee.
I mean explain where this "inherent" sense of right and wrong comes from if it is not a product of the prevailing attitudes of society, or a product of your upbringing, or a choice you have made about the way to behave. You seem to be implying it is in some way an unchangeable absolute. What is the mechanism (physical or not physical) underpinning this unchangeable absolute? Where does it come from?
I would agree, but I suspect Dok wouldn't.... I think these things are a product of shared social understanding and as such not absolutes.
something really upset me tonight...I went out for one last drink with one of my closest friends...and she told me how fox hunting really wasn't that big a deal!!!it really shocked and angered me! It wouldn't have been so shocking, if she hadn't been such a caring and thoughtful close friend of mine. Truely shows...it takes all sorts to be pro-fox hunting! ( or at least, not really give a damn). Marie-Clare xxx
See this is where I disagree, as you might expect. As I said earlier, I believe that there are many areas of our morality that are conventions of society (or 'socialisatioon' if you prefer), and in no way absolute. Hell, we'd all believe the same thing otherwise, right? However, I'm convinced that our essential nature also informs us morally on a fundamental level. If there's no absolute morality, and if the universe is a cold place in which we're just a chance collision of atoms, then why should we give a fuck about a fox? What evolutionary advantage does it offer us to give a fuck? Hell, let's kill it for the fun of it. Why not? As I said, I believe this is a function of our spiritual nature. Unless we're one day able to put spirit under the microscope, then suggesting an explanation would be making a religious statement. I don't make any claim to be able to explain our spirituality, as I believe that would be arrogant. Such a thing is entirely subjective, and the most I can say is that I'm certain it exists. Really though, there's little to be gained by debating this point. You believe we're purely physical creatures, I believe we're not. Neither of us can convince the other of our point of view nor prove it conclusively.
