James Blunt defends Morrissey's comments; other Morrissey Nobel concert press

Re: Favorable article about Morrisseys presence in Oslo (norwegian newspaper)

To use this thread to gather all news about the event, there was a press conference with the artists today. James Blunt was asked if it was right for Morrissey to appear at the concert. He responded with something like "Of course it's right for him to play here. It's the week of Mandelas death and he talked about compassion and understanding. I don't know what [Morrissey] said, but we must forgive and move on."
 
Ha ha, Benny the bell end, Nothing happened you tit, why, no one listens it you.

No wonder nothing happened ! Did you see where he was ? Tucked away in a little corner about a mile away from the crowd with heavy security ! (Result)
He didn't have anything clever to say about peace did he? In fact it was a very droll performance on the whole "Its a shame, its a shame all my songs sound just the same !!!! Yeh ! Yeh ! Yeh! "
Good to see him in his Aladdin panto trousers though.


Benny-the-Butcher
 
Or, wait a minute. Actually, realitybites, I don't want you to reply to this at all.

Because the situation is this: you know uncomfortably much about what happens in the meat industry. For your own reasons, you've still decided to keep giving money to it. In the actual world it is very difficult to argue how this could be right. So you've come up with intellectual rationalizations that have very little to do with the actual problem.

I used to do the same thing. I buy things that I shouldn't buy all the time. I know that company x or company y is severely unethical, but I just can't be bothered to boycott it. For a long time I used to come up with highly philosophical and out-of-touch justifications for this. But then I understood that they were all comical excuses. The ones suffering wouldn't give a f*** about my intellectual nonsense. I was actually doing something I shouldn't do just because I am a hypocritical idiot, just like everybody else. That's it. Admit it. We suck!

Goodbye and thank you.

Not wanting/expecting a reply takes a load off my back. These types of back and forths seem pointless, in the end. We can argue all day about what rights are. Which ones animals should have, which ones they can never be given. How they can't be held responsible for their actions as they are NOT moral agents.

I love Perter Singer. But I do not hang my hat on his every word. But I think he is a likable person. His heart is in the right place. And he is a smart guy. I loved Hitchens. But I did not agree with everything he said either. I have a mind of my own. I look to intellectuals and experts for guidelines, inspiration. But not necessarily all the answers wrapped up in a neat bow.

I have read many moral philosophy texts... not just half of one book, as you suggested. But applied ethics is another thing altogether. We can talk all day about moral agency... empiricism, rationalism etc. etc. But after we get our heads out of the clouds, how do we apply these theories to real life... real circumstances? I don't know. That is not my field. Or even interest. I am more of an abstract thinker. I am better with questions than answers. I am sorry if this sounds like a cop-out. Maybe it is. I just don't have any practical solutions to offer. Telling you how I feel about animal rights/welfare will not change your opinion. You have already adopted values which have become salient to your identity. Anything I say will be met with resistance. You will have a careful response ready to go. You have done your own homework and have made up your mind. Animals are equal in value to humans. They suffer. And this fact alone, is your justification for your position. Period. Suffering is a commonalty, yes. But not enough. We suffer more. To me it is not black and white but a continuum. Humans suffer more than dogs. We have highly evolved brains which make us capable of experiencing a range of thoughts and emotions which are not found in simpler animals such as fear of the future and regret.

Your, pig beaten to death, scenario was silly and pointless, as I never said a pig should be beaten to death. I believe humans are stewards of animals and that we should consider their welfare. We are the only species capable, it seems, of caring for and attending to the needs of other species. This makes us caretakers. And gives us a moral responsibility... makes us moral agents, for the animal world. Doesn't mean we should do as we please... beat and torture animals for fun, as some species actually do. See orcas, for example. But it does make us the lawmakers. Hopefully we will elect sound, empathetic persons to legislate. That is where animal rights activists come in. You guys put pressure on the lawmakers. Keep things balanced. But if there weren't pragmatic types out there as well to pull the animal rights activists back down to earth, the world would be a zoo--literally. I know I have said too much without really saying anything.

I'll just close with this. I think factory farming is problematic. There are better ways to source animal protein. I don't know what they are. People are working on that as we speak. I am not vegetarian. I hate Sea World and other parks who exploit animals for the amusement of humans. Animal experimentation seems to be a necessarily evil at the point in time. Though I am over the moon that chimps are being used far less. This is a small step, but a very important one. I don't think it is morally wrong to consume animals. I did a month-long vegan challenge a while back to test if it would open up some pathways or change my thinking. It didn't. it made me more aware. But in the end, I still eat meat. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary torture on conscious creatures. Suffering should be minimized. Maximize happiness. Minimize suffering.
 
Last edited:
No wonder nothing happened ! Did you see where he was ? Tucked away in a little corner about a mile away from the crowd with heavy security ! (Result)
He didn't have anything clever to say about peace did he? In fact it was a very droll performance on the whole "Its a shame, its a shame all my songs sound just the same !!!! Yeh ! Yeh ! Yeh! "
Good to see him in his Aladdin panto trousers though.


Benny-the-Butcher

Problem for me with posters like you, Benny the bummer, Johnny the condom sucker and brummie bummer is that you think all Morrissey fans are the same idol worshipers. Well they are not, i don't give a shite that he is vegetarian, or what he said about the mass murder in Norway, or what kecks he wears, or anything else in his personal world. Do you 3 dicks think that you will change his views or that of his more deep thinking fans? Well you won't as to Morrissey you are probably about as influential as a snot on his finger nail.

Personally I simply like his music, what's wrong with that you trio of bell ends
 
Oh my god it is too late for this and I am fairly certain everyone else on this thread is going to hate us, but I'll try to concisely say a few things to make my positions more clear


I don't know if Singer ever mentioned pigs. Ever. But I have heard the argument that pigs are intelligent (I think I've heard people say as intelligent as a three year old--but that's not quite the point). As I said earlier in some thread somewhere I am an atheist and I don't think animals or humans have souls. So if you start from that premise you have to start thinking about--well what is a life? What is something worth protecting? Obviously, I think the death a human is a tragedy. I don't really care about the death of plankton though. Why? Is it because plankton don't have a soul and humans don't. Obviously not. But what is it? And what about the spectrum of life between plankton and humans?

Are humans special because they are human? Maybe? But if so why do I think that? Is it because I am human and not only need to be loved, but don't want to be eaten? Probably, but is it something else? Is it about the level of cognitive development? The ability to feel pain? To suffer? And than we're getting into if a pig is as intelligent as a three year old or you know there are animals species that engage in what's clearly mourning than we have to ask aren't these worthy lives to? What are are criteria? And than I feel like we're getting into Peter Singer territory.

I said earlier the question of animal versus human life is complicated and I said that because I think this is something that really science is going to determine and as we learn more about animals and their cognitive capacity, their ability to feel emotional and physical pain we are going to have to start asking ourselves some tough questions. Though probably not about plankton.

Peter Singer and abortion. I said his comments are unhelpful and I meant just that. I feel like he's one of those academics who likes to make controversial remarks and draw a lot of attention to themselves, but than completely undermines larger causes. Zizek is another one. Zygotes, fetuses, etc. aren't people. They are not. And running around saying they are, but it's not wrong to take human life I feel like you are playing way too much into the arguments the rabid anti-abortion people are saying and I don't think it makes people more supportive of reproductive health care. And I guess what matters to me isn't that some guy at Princeton can make super slick intellectual arguments and show his peers how clever he is, but how do we win the right for women to be able to access reproductive medical care and make sure we don't lose it. That's sloppy and more flippant than I'd like it to be, but like I said it's late and I am being brief. I suspect you're probably not sympathetic to this perspective, but at least I am honest about what it is I ultimately care about.

Utilitarianism. I don't have anything against it per se, but I think it has a tendency to sidestep a lot of issues about oppression and just quite frankly ignore the world as it actually is. Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save" is a perfect example of it. I found it to be an incredibly frustrating book that doesn't really say very much about global poverty. I don't have a problem with giving to charities and I understand the immediate life versus death issues--and there is a case to be made for that. But ultimately individuals giving to charity isn't going to solve the issue of poverty and poverty isn't caused by the fact that not enough people gave to Oxfam. It has to do with the big structural issues that no one likes to talk about--the legacy of colonialism, how the international economic institutes were set up to perpetuate power imbalances, the role of exploitative corporations, corruption, geopolitical wrangling, the usual things you can solve over afternoon tea. If you have a country that's rich in resources, but everyone is poor because the dictator made an agreement with some foreign company and when people try to protest it the company pays the local military to hang them or brings in its own thugs that's not a problem I can fix for just the price of coffee a day. It is a problem that can be fixed though--I very much believe in "pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will" (bonus points to which ever soloer knows who I am quoting--no google please). But if we're going to solve these problems we've got to be clear about what they are and clear about what kinds of solutions there are. I don't see Singer doing that. And I don't see other utilitarians doing that.

Anyways whose this guy Morrissey--I think he sings songs demeaning Norwegian chickens for wearing sweatpants or something--what's that about?

Aww, Chip, I feel bad you labored by candle light, writing this careful reply, while I skirted off to bed. Apologies. :D Thanks for your thoughtful response. As always, you take the time and give attention to the issue(s). I appreciate this, as I am certain other readers do as well. You are a generous and valuable poster here.

My previous post to anonymous, addressed utilitarianism, Singer, suffering, and my general positions. so I won't restate these things here.

Utilitarianism looks great on paper. But applying it, as Singer does, can be problematic and dehumanizing, as you suggested. But it is my moral philosophy of choice, if I am to pick one. There really aren't too many options, are there?

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape? He offers an alternative... taking morality and applied ethics out of the realms of the philosophy and religion departments. And brings science in. Arguing that morality is, in fact, something that science can address. His version is definitively a form of utilitarianism. But he backs it up with research done in the field of neuroscience. So essentially he challenges the notion that we can never take an ought and make it an is.

You might want to check out The Moral Landscape--as if you don't have enough titles already on your list of books to read. He is also an outspoken atheist as well, as you probably know. Why are most of the brilliant philosophers and scientists out there atheists? Most intellectual are. :p
 
Last edited:
Problem for me with posters like you, Benny the bummer, Johnny the condom sucker and brummie bummer is that you think all Morrissey fans are the same idol worshipers. Well they are not, i don't give a shite that he is vegetarian, or what he said about the mass murder in Norway, or what kecks he wears, or anything else in his personal world. Do you 3 dicks think that you will change his views or that of his more deep thinking fans? Well you won't as to Morrissey you are probably about as influential as a snot on his finger nail.

Personally I simply like his music, what's wrong with that you trio of bell ends

If you don't care, might I suggest you stop arguing with people who do? Just stay indifferent i.e. silent. Let the debates happen between the free thinkers and the sycophants. You can just watch the action from the side lines. :)
 
I have a child. Having children doesn't mean that you have to become an irrational cretin who's too uncontrollably hysterical to care about facts. The modern meat industry is a much bigger crime than one violent massacre in Norway, period. It doesn't change the fact that one violent massacre in Norway is a horrible thing too, and it doesn't change the fact that Morrissey's timing and choice of words could have been better.

No matter what goes on in the meat industry it is not worse than the massacre of children and nobody will ever convince me otherwise, but then I'm not vegeterian
 
We have highly evolved brains which make us capable of experiencing a range of thoughts and emotions which are not found in simpler animals such as fear of the future and regret.

This crow is using a mayonnaise jar lid to sled down a roof because it's fun. Don't tell me "simpler animals" don't understand past, present, future, fun, sadness, isolation, elation or REGRET. Tell that to the calf that walked down the chute.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh dear. Later.

Leviticus 11. God was trying to protect the animals by calling them unclean, that's why it's a good idea to hang out in the pigsty. As for the chew the cud bit I believe whoever read that read the bird wrong, we're ESPECIALLY not supposed to eat the cud chewers and divided hoofed, it got lost in translation and now we're stuck here with a factory farming snowball that got out of control. :(
 
The animals that provide milk, cheese and butter for McDonalds and KFC are the same animals that provide Dairy for Morrissey in luxury hotels and restaurants.

The same animals whose deaths for such food are ignored by voiceover actor David Morrissey who reads bogus animal rights propaganda from hypocrite Morrissey for money.

Morrissey is a delusional hypocrite in using torture/slaughter footage of dairy animals in his concerts as violent shock porn, as if he has any right to do so:he has none.

His 'fans' exhibit all the signs and symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome cult captives, refusing to address this simple fact: Morrissey eats Dairy, which can only exist because animals are tortured and slaughtered.

His words about the slaughter of humans in Oslo are thus utterly ridiculous, as is 'Meat Is Murder' as is the audiobook of his Autobigotrophie.

His fans are seriously disturbed sociopaths. His career will come to be seen an an entirely hypocritcal endeavour by future generations once the tiresome Boomer cohort that are his peers and funding income stream shuffle off this mortal coil alongside their cult leader.

Morrissey is NOT a serious artist and never has been: his work with the Smiths is now revealed as the opportunistic troll-fest of an uneducated arriviste wannabe.

regards
BrummieBoy

ps: James Blunt has a blunt brain if he comments on statements he hasn't read.
 
The animals that provide milk, cheese and butter for McDonalds and KFC are the same animals that provide Dairy for Morrissey in luxury hotels and restaurants.

The same animals whose deaths for such food are ignored by voiceover actor David Morrissey who reads bogus animal rights propaganda from hypocrite Morrissey for money.

Morrissey is a delusional hypocrite in using torture/slaughter footage of dairy animals in his concerts as violent shock porn, as if he has any right to do so:he has none.

His 'fans' exhibit all the signs and symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome cult captives, refusing to address this simple fact: Morrissey eats Dairy, which can only exist because animals are tortured and slaughtered.

His words about the slaughter of humans in Oslo are thus utterly ridiculous, as is 'Meat Is Murder' as is the audiobook of his Autobigotrophie.

His fans are seriously disturbed sociopaths. His career will come to be seen an an entirely hypocritcal endeavour by future generations once the tiresome Boomer cohort that are his peers and funding income stream shuffle off this mortal coil alongside their cult leader.

Morrissey is NOT a serious artist and never has been: his work with the Smiths is now revealed as the opportunistic troll-fest of an uneducated arriviste wannabe.

regards
BrummieBoy

ps: James Blunt has a blunt brain if he comments on statements he hasn't read.

Ha ah yet MORE shite from Bummer Boy the bell end
 
Leviticus 11. God was trying to protect the animals by calling them unclean, that's why it's a good idea to hang out in the pigsty. As for the chew the cud bit I believe whoever read that read the bird wrong, we're ESPECIALLY not supposed to eat the cud chewers and divided hoofed, it got lost in translation and now we're stuck here with a factory farming snowball that got out of control. :(

Your animal rights soapbox is getting old and redundant. You are a hypocrite. If you really care as much about animal suffering as you claim, you would be vegan. That you go on and on and on, day in and day out, about suffering and moralizing and preaching to the rest of us--particularly targeting me--trying to shame anyone and everyone who consumes flesh, while you scarf down those Cheese-Its is arrogant and pathetic. You are a fool. Be vegan or shut the f*** up.
 
Your animal rights soapbox is getting old and redundant. You are a hypocrite. If you really care as much about animal suffering as you claim, you would be vegan. That you go on and on and on, day in and day out, about suffering and moralizing and preaching to the rest of us--particularly targeting me--trying to shame anyone and everyone who consumes flesh, while you scarf down those Cheese-Its is arrogant and pathetic. You are a fool. Be vegan or shut the f*** up.

Stop believing your soulless cat is talking to you then, you Atheist fraud.
 
This has nothing to do with me or my position on animal rights or souls or atheism. For Pete's sake. Are you that dense?

You made it about you when you pulled the lowest common denominator fight card, "You're a hypocrite so nothing you do matters!" Are you watching Fox News now? We all know you mimic your surroundings like an alien trapped in a foreign land. Go pretend to be smart with anonymous people and leave me alone.
 
Not wanting/expecting a reply takes a load off my back. These types of back and forths seem pointless, in the end. We can argue all day about what rights are. Which ones animals should have, which ones they can never be given. How they can't be held responsible for their actions as they are NOT moral agents.

I love Perter Singer. But I do not hang my hat on his every word. But I think he is a likable person. His heart is in the right place. And he is a smart guy. I loved Hitchens. But I did not agree with everything he said either. I have a mind of my own. I look to intellectuals and experts for guidelines, inspiration. But not necessarily all the answers wrapped up in a neat bow.

I have read many moral philosophy texts... not just half of one book, as you suggested. But applied ethics is another thing altogether. We can talk all day about moral agency... empiricism, rationalism etc. etc. But after we get our heads out of the clouds, how do we apply these theories to real life... real circumstances? I don't know. That is not my field. Or even interest. I am more of an abstract thinker. I am better with questions than answers. I am sorry if this sounds like a cop-out. Maybe it is. I just don't have any practical solutions to offer. Telling you how I feel about animal rights/welfare will not change your opinion. You have already adopted values which have become salient to your identity. Anything I say will be met with resistance. You will have a careful response ready to go. You have done your own homework and have made up your mind. Animals are equal in value to humans. They suffer. And this fact alone, is your justification for your position. Period. Suffering is a commonalty, yes. But not enough. We suffer more. To me it is not black and white but a continuum. Humans suffer more than dogs. We have highly evolved brains which make us capable of experiencing a range of thoughts and emotions which are not found in simpler animals such as fear of the future and regret.

Your, pig beaten to death, scenario was silly and pointless, as I never said a pig should be beaten to death. I believe humans are stewards of animals and that we should consider their welfare. We are the only species capable, it seems, of caring for and attending to the needs of other species. This makes us caretakers. And gives us a moral responsibility... makes us moral agents, for the animal world. Doesn't mean we should do as we please... beat and torture animals for fun, as some species actually do. See orcas, for example. But it does make us the lawmakers. Hopefully we will elect sound, empathetic persons to legislate. That is where animal rights activists come in. You guys put pressure on the lawmakers. Keep things balanced. But if there weren't pragmatic types out there as well to pull the animal rights activists back down to earth, the world would be a zoo--literally. I know I have said too much without really saying anything.

I'll just close with this. I think factory farming is problematic. There are better ways to source animal protein. I don't know what they are. People are working on that as we speak. I am not vegetarian. I hate Sea World and other parks who exploit animals for the amusement of humans. Animal experimentation seems to be a necessarily evil at the point in time. Though I am over the moon that chimps are being used far less. This is a small step, but a very important one. I don't think it is morally wrong to consume animals. I did a month-long vegan challenge a while back to test if it would open up some pathways or change my thinking. It didn't. it made me more aware. But in the end, I still eat meat. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary torture on conscious creatures. Suffering should be minimized. Maximize happiness. Minimize suffering.

I'm not the anonymous that you talked to earlier, but I feel that I have to say something on this subject.

Firstly. "Humans suffer more than dogs. We have highly evolved brains which make us capable of experiencing a range of thoughts and emotions which are not found in simpler animals such as fear of the future and regret." - What you're saying is that humans experience a wider range of different emotions than other vertebrates. That may be a fact, but it doesn't mean that humans suffer 'more'; it doesn't affect the intensity of emotions at all. A brain-damaged person or a pig may have simpler thinking processes than I do, but we can't draw the conclusion that because of this, their suffering would be less intense. Actually some would argue that without the ability to reason, emotions play an even stronger role.

Secondly. As a father of two I find your idea of a 'moral agent' quite cruel. In this case, it seems like one of those philosophical ideas that only blur reality. One can't just go kick a dog or a severely retarded kid in the head and then justify it with, "Well, they'll never become moral agents." (Naturally, this is just an example; I'm not trying to say that you ever suggested anything this extreme.) Whoever it is that gets kicked in the head, the pain is the same. Suffering happens in the present. Life happens in the present. What we will or will not become in the future doesn't help us at all.

Other than that, very interesting thoughts. It's nice to see that there are still people who think.

(In terms of better ways to source animal protein, I strongly believe in the future of lab-grown meat. To be honest, I think it will save the world.)
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom