Re: [microsound] MICROSOUND vs. ISSUES

["The pHarmanaut" <pharmanaut@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess I'm more interested in MICROSOUND ISSUES (I certainly don't see the
two as combatants or exclusive, as you've framed them in both the subject
header and in your recent posts.). Yes, my reaction telling Matthew
Waterhorse "to get a sense of humor" and "to get a life" was rude. But I
think that his barrage of data -- not an attempt to dialogue but just email
after email of links and copy-pasted articles -- was itself rude, especially
given the fact that every post this person made was framed by calling people
"morons" and "idiots." I saw absolutely no effort on the part of Matthew or
j.frede, jumping in with comments about popping peoples' heads in a vice,
did much to add to a conversation about this issue they apparently care so
much about. I was under the impression that they launched this whole thing
in a reactionary context.

My feeling is, if you want to point me to the specific relationship between
microsound and animal abuse, I'm interested. If you want to point me to info
on the relationship between ultrasonic undersea exploration and the
destruction of dolphin and whale habitats, and show me how that exploration
ties stems from the aesthetics of Xenakis, I'm in. If you want to post Alice
Walker and Einstein quotes again and again and again because someone's
off-color joke pissed you off, save your time.

I think that any further discussion of animal rights in-and-of-itself (and
divorced from the context of a discussion of microsound and
audio-creation,-reception,-critique,-distribution and so on) at the very
LEAST needs to be set off as [OT] or, more to the point, should probably be
reserved for another list. I just don't have time to sift through that much
tangential content.

-=Trace

----- Original Message -----
From: "s. arden hill" <s_ardenhill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: [microsound] MICROSOUND vs. ISSUES

> For some reason the past series of posts have really bothered me. Maybe
its
> becuase over the past couple years I realized my understanding of some of
> the issues related to animal rights, ecology and human involvement. I am
> frustrated because no discussion came out of these posts, only anger. Is
> this natural? I find this with my parents and some naive students i have
to
> interact with, when issues come up they rather get angry then listen or
> become informed. Do we not have enough time to get informed or are we
> already overloaded?
>
> maybe our animal/eco friendly patron should provided a more dynamic
context
> before launching into so much discourse.
>
> Why is it that on this list we find animal rights and ecological issues
off
> topic, where we endlessly discuss MAX and what minidisc to buy? yes these
> are tools we use to create the music we all like, but animal rights and
the
> issues surrounding are lives are equally influential to the music we make
> and listen to, just as Max is?
>
> Maybe i am just frustrated with this list right now and have to remove
> myself, but I really think that the behavior of those few in regards to
the
> real issues, informed or not informed, joke or not a joke - although jokes
> are consided subliminal criticisms, tell me how superficial this list can
> be.
>
> >yes, i would rather.
> >i get enough of that from the other lists i belong too.
> >well.....on second thought, the nn thread should die...
> >listen, had no problem with a couple, but that guy just kept going and
> >going and going. and links to some rahter shadey and misinformed
> >information as well. thats just spam if you ask me.
> >just my .02
> >  "s. arden hill" <s_ardenhill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Lance, I really think
you
> >should consider what your saying. would you rather
> >go back to taking about who is nn? or what everybodies top 5 albums ther
> >listeningt o right now? than being informed about how stupid humans can
be,
> >and how we might prevent further inhuman acts towards animals, people and
> >nature.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >can someone please get rid of this guy?
> > >hey listen, take it off list or this is just so much spam.
> > >besides all of us animal beating carnivores might get offended......
> > > Matthew Waterhorse
> >
>wrote:http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/abortion_and_animals.ht
ml
> > >
> > >Abortion and Animal Rights:
> > >
> > >Related, but Importantly Different, Issues
> > >In a recent letter (August 2001, p. 5), a "Veg-News" reader asked why
she
> > >does not see the vegetarian and animal rights communities taking a
stand
> > >against abortion. She said it seems to be a "great contradiction" to
> > >respect
> > >animal life, but to not equally respect human life by opposing
abortion.
> > >She
> > >asked that this issue be addressed. I would like to do so.
> > >
> > >
> > >Those who challenge the status quo regarding our society's consumption
> >and
> > >treatment of animals do this from a wide variety of moral and
> >philosophical
> > >perspectives. But all within the movement agree on this: a fundamental
> >evil
> > >of animal agriculture and a diet and lifestyle that involves animal
> > >products
> > >is that they cause pain, suffering, and early death that is totally
> > >unnecessary, for both animals and humans. The conviction that evils
like
> > >these should be opposed and that we should bring an end to them is what
> > >motivates and unites many people in the vegetarian and animal rights
> > >community.
> > >
> > >
> > >Should these people also be motivated to oppose abortion?
Unfortunately,
> > >the
> > >safest answer seems to be this: no and yes. The answer is not simple
> > >because
> > >abortions affect two importantly different kinds of fetuses: those that
> >can
> > >experience pain and those that cannot. Scientific evidence suggests
that
> > >early fetuses, those in the first trimester and slightly beyond, cannot
> > >experience pain since they lack the necessary neurological development.
> > >Although reliable data is hard to come by, most fetuses that are
aborted
> > >are
> > >early fetuses.Since they cannot experience pain in the procedure, the
> > >vegetarian and animal rights advocate's opposition to unnecessary pain
> >and
> > >suffering does not apply here since there is no pain and suffering to
> > >oppose. There is no "great contradiction" here.
> > >
> > >
> > >While most abortion providers will not perform abortions past the
fourth
> >or
> > >fifth month (check your yellow pages under "abortion") and so there are
> > >relatively few later-term abortions, there are strong reasons to oppose
> > >later-term abortions due to the fetal pain and suffering. While
probably
> >no
> > >abortions are taken lightly, these definitely should not. The
vegetarian
> > >and
> > >animal rights advocate should find these abortions morally troubling,
> > >considered in themselves.
> > >
> > >
> > >We might, however, suspect that in many, if not most, cases of
later-term
> > >abortion that the woman's health or safety is in question, or that the
> > >fetus
> > >is aborted to prevent a very unfortunate future from befalling it due
to
> > >disease or serious disability. While the pain and suffering of the
fetus
> >is
> > >very bad (although it might be preventable with anesthesia), these
cases
> >of
> > >later abortion might be permissible, given the complications of the
case
> > >and
> > >that others' interests are at stake as well.Later-term abortions done
for
> > >trivial reasons (if abortions are ever done for trivial reasons) are
> >likely
> > >to be morally inexcusable from many vegetarian and animal rights
> > >perspectives, since they cause serious pain and suffering without
> >adequate
> > >justification or need.
> > >
> > >
> > >There are other arguments for and against abortion that I can only
> >briefly
> > >address. Some ask, "How would you like it if you had been aborted?"
> > >suggesting that this shows that abortion is wrong.But one can ask right
> > >back, "How would you like it if your parents had used birth control?"
> >Since
> > >most don't view birth control as immoral and the arguments are
parallel,
> > >this shows this anti-abortion argument to be weak.
> > >
> > >
> > >It is often said that "all fetuses have a right to life," but this is
> >just
> > >another way of saying "it's wrong to kill fetuses. "If it's wrong to
kill
> > >fetuses, why is this so (and which ones)?Unfortunately, groups that
> >oppose
> > >abortion tend to not address these questions and, when they do, fail to
> > >realize their best answers imply that living beings that are more
> >conscious
> > >and sentient than human fetuses -- animals -- have a "right to life" as
> > >well. Since anti-abortionists tend to be opposed only to the ending of
> > >fetal lives and indifferent to the tragic lives and brutal deaths of
farm
> > >animals and fur-bearers, it's a serious misnomer to call them
"pro-life."
> > >
> > >
> > >On the other hand, pro-choice groups tend to refuse to admit that some
> > >choices of abortion result in intense pain and suffering for some
> >fetuses.
> > >They stubbornly uphold a woman's right to choose to abort at any time
and
> > >for literally any reason (or none whatsoever), no matter the
consequences
> > >for the fetus, including late-term ones.Anyone convinced, as
vegetarians
> > >are, that causing unnecessary pain and suffering is seriously wrong
> >cannot
> > >accept an unconditional pro-choice position, one that gives infinite
> >moral
> > >weight to a women's right to choice so that fetal pain counts for
> >nothing,
> > >morally-speaking.
> > >
> > >
> > >However inadequate most debate of the morality of abortion is and
however
> > >muddled most common arguments for and against abortion are, at least it
> >is
> > >an issue that there is public debate over and that most people believe
is
> > >important. Politicians' fates can be sealed by their views on abortion.
> > >Will there ever come a time when a "litmus test" for a candidate's
> > >viability
> > >is whether he or she believes that animals have the right not to be
> >eaten,
> > >worn, or experimented on? Will there come a time when campaign
> > >contributions from the meat industry will be viewed with as much
> >suspicion
> > >as those from "Big Tobacco," as they both peddle products known to be
> > >harmful to human health?Vegetarian and animal rights advocates hope
that
> > >their work makes it all the sooner that the answer to these questions
is,
> > >"Yes."
> > >
> > >
> > >Many vegetarian and animal rights advocates have likely been asked why
> >they
> > >don't spend their efforts on supposedly "more important" issues, such
as
> > >abortion.This question, of course, presumes that abortion is a "more
> > >important" moral problem. I have argued that since most aborted fetuses
> > >are
> > >not conscious and so cannot feel pain, the two issues-abortion and
animal
> > >rights-are importantly different and so indifference to some kinds of
> > >abortions is consistent with a commonly-held motivation for advocating
> > >vegetarianism and respecting animals.
> > >
> > >
> > >For those fetuses that can feel pain, this is a serious issue, one that
> > >should not be dismissed. However, the number of these fetuses is tiny,
> > >compared to the tens of billions of animals slaughtered each year and
the
> > >vast numbers of humans who unnecessarily suffer as a consequence of
> >eating
> > >them. Also, there already are a large number of defenders of these
> > >fetuses:
> > >whether they will be able to convince a critical political mass might
> > >depend
> > >on their substituting reason for their current rhetoric.
> > >
> > >
> > >Since abortion already is a public issue, the best thing vegetarian and
> > >animal rights advocates can do is continue striving to make their
issues
> >a
> > >common topic of public debate and scrutiny. We do this by educating
> >people
> > >about the horrors of factory farming, the utter lack of necessity for
any
> > >of
> > >its products, the unreliable of animal-based medical research and
product
> > >testing, and the health benefits of a vegan diet. Given the huge
numbers
> > >of
> > >animals and humans that are harmed by this system and whose lives would
> > >change for the better were it abolished, it's not clear that there's
> > >anything "more important" to be done.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
> > >http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >website: http://www.microsound.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------
> > >
> > >Lance Grabmiller
> > >www.praemedia.com
> > >
> > >------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >website: http://www.microsound.org
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Lance Grabmiller
> >www.praemedia.com
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
>