Morrissey Central "Kung Flu" (April 16, 2020)

Morrissey Central: "Kung Flu" - April 16, 2020

Ricky Gervais demands global shutdown of all wildlife ‘wet’ markets to avert future pandemics – Totally Vegan Buzz

www.totallyveganbuzz.com

FWD.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, no, no and no.

In a word of vegans direct contact between humans and animals would not be extremely rare. On the contrary, it could exist more contact, but in a context or respect, and there would not be exploitation. Therefore we would all be healthier.

The "wet market thing" is not a racist term, it reflects the harsh reality of some countries. Sadly, in my third world country people eat a lot of meat. But we don't have "wet markets" because even in our extremely carnivorous culture those atrocities are not morally tolerated.

Not any virus that infects domesticated animals will infect humans, because the fact that some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years has allowed people's immunization. The huge problem arises when humans exploit wild animals, or they exploit domesticated animals differently than in the way in which the link between those animals and humans was originally established (eating dogs and cats, for example).

Well said ???

 

[Anonymous]

Exactly! That's happens when you perpetuate "funny" casual racism. Morrissey never learns. He's really ruined any kind of good will his new album has engendered.

Get a grip, honestly what could you find offensive about Kung Flu? It's a play on words that IS funny, crikey Kung Fu is funny itself and it's a term we all hear as kids and it crops up in jokey conversations from time to time everywhere. Thing is if you get offended by something like this how do you manage to get through a day because there are seriously offensive things happening out there and this ain't one of them! No offence meant by the way ?

 

[Anonymous]

What a jagoff. "kUnG fLu HURR HURR"

View attachment 55953

Nice new barnet Mozzer!

 

[Lujissey]

Well, no, no and no.

In a word of vegans direct contact between humans and animals would not be extremely rare. On the contrary, it could exist more contact, but in a context or respect, and there would not be exploitation. Therefore we would all be healthier.

The "wet market thing" is not a racist term, it reflects the harsh reality of some countries. Sadly, in my third world country people eat a lot of meat. But we don't have "wet markets" because even in our extremely carnivorous culture those atrocities are not morally tolerated.

Not any virus that infects domesticated animals will infect humans, because the fact that some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years has allowed people's immunization. The huge problem arises when humans exploit wild animals, or they exploit domesticated animals differently than in the way in which the link between those animals and humans was originally established (eating dogs and cats, for example).

What he said is perfectly accurate,I think the same , and i am also from the 3rd world,in Argentina you eat a lot of meat and this is higley appreciated so when tourists come from all over the world the first thing they want is to eat Argentine barbecue,but in my country there are no humid markets and we not have those macabre habits, like in China.
Everywhere there are evil people who mistreat animals, but they are not the majority,.!!!

 

[Oh my]

Well, no, no and no.

I think you are confused... though a lot of people are. You are mixing ethical ideas with science, but getting confused about science. You are not the only one here, a half of the posters seem to have a similar confusion.

I certainly agree with the ethical ideas... but when they are justified by poorly understood science, the obvious fallacy of many will always be stating that IF the scientific ideas are wrong, then the ethical ideas are nonsensical too... which is not the case.

It's as if we were saying that (human) murder is wrong because it may spread diseases... which is hardly a good argument against murder.

In a word of vegans direct contact between humans and animals would not be extremely rare. On the contrary, it could exist more contact, but in a context or respect, and there would not be exploitation. Therefore we would all be healthier.

Not true... the exploitation or lack of exploitation would not really make a change... Viruses are not ethical creatures (they are not even creatures actually). Animals can carry viruses which may be infectious for humans (or not), that's independent of how animals are treated.
The infamous dengue virus carried by mosquitoes is pandemic in Argentina, mostly in the north-east and the center of the country.... Whilst the Hantavirus carried by rodents is pandemic in the South... mosquitoes and rodents are not "exploited" and their lives would actually be identical if we all decided to go vegan.

The "wet market thing" is not a racist term, it reflects the harsh reality of some countries. Sadly, in my third world country people eat a lot of meat. But we don't have "wet markets" because even in our extremely carnivorous culture those atrocities are not morally tolerated.

False... the structure of the so called "wet markets" does not exist here, but small and somehow improvised markets where they sell the strangest animals as food are extremely typical in the North East and North West (of Argentina)... Yes, you can find markets where they sell snakes, capybaras, oysters, wild pigs, llamas... and only God knows what else. Specially true in the North East.

Not any virus that infects domesticated animals will infect humans, because the fact that some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years has allowed people's immunization.

Not true again... Imagine that a virus is somehow like a key... a key that needs a keyhole. MOST animal viruses simply don't fit into the "keyholes" that we have in our cells. It's not that we became immune, we simply can't get infected.
i.e, one of my cats recently died because of a Coronavirus, it was during the quarantine (yes, not Covid-19... there are lots of animal coronaviruses). The specific coronavirus that killed my cat can't infect a human, nor it can infect a dog or a mice or a roach or a snake or an ant or an elephant... its key can't get into any of keyholes of those other animals. It was not a process of immunization, it is simply that the virus does not have the right key as to attack most animals, even if it's a huge problem when it arrives to a cat.

The huge problem arises when humans exploit wild animals, or they exploit domesticated animals differently than in the way in which the link between those animals and humans was originally established (eating dogs and cats, for example).

Which disease can we get if we eat a well cooked dog or cat? I don't know any disease that we can get if we do it.

So... is it a scientific concern or an ethical concern?
I have excellent reasons for NOT eating a dog or a cat, but none of them is scientific, but ethical.
(in the same way that I do not know any scientific reasons that makes it "wrong" to murder a human.... even if anyone who is not a psychopath does not need a scientific reasons, because it's an ethical problem).

I think it's a mistake to try to find scientific justifications for what is ethically right... because in the long run you may end up finding out that science has no evidence that eating a cat or a dog is "wrong" or "unhealthy"... and yet such thing is not something that justifies the action of doing it (because it's an ethical problem, not a medical one).

And sorry for going against your arguments, I think we both agree on the ethical side of it... we probably disagree on the medical side of the issue, but I don't think the medical side of the issue is even relevant (in the same way that we do not look for medical explanations about why murdering other persons can be unhealthy for us).

 

[Lujissey]

Exactly! That's happens when you perpetuate "funny" casual racism. Morrissey never learns. He's really ruined any kind of good will his new album has engendered.

The indefensible cannot be defended simply by attacking Moz!!!.
He is right i support one hundred percent your thoughts Moz is a genious above and bellow the scenarios,.
ADMIT IT .HE IS THE MOST.
ALIVE MOZZI'SS!!!

 

[Anonymous]

I think you are confused... though a lot of people are. You are mixing ethical ideas with science, but getting confused about science. You are not the only one here, a half of the posters seem to have a similar confusion.

I certainly agree with the ethical ideas... but when they are justified by poorly understood science, the obvious fallacy of many will always be stating that IF the scientific ideas are wrong, then the ethical ideas are nonsensical too... which is not the case.

It's as if we were saying that (human) murder is wrong because it may spread diseases... which is hardly a good argument against murder.



Not true... the exploitation or lack of exploitation would not really make a change... Viruses are not ethical creatures (they are not even creatures actually). Animals can carry viruses which may be infectious for humans (or not), that's independent of how animals are treated.
The infamous dengue virus carried by mosquitoes is pandemic in Argentina, mostly in the north-east and the center of the country.... Whilst the Hantavirus carried by rodents is pandemic in the South... mosquitoes and rodents are not "exploited" and their lives would actually be identical if we all decided to go vegan.



False... the structure of the so called "wet markets" does not exist here, but small and somehow improvised markets where they sell the strangest animals as food are extremely typical in the North East and North West (of Argentina)... Yes, you can find markets where they sell snakes, capybaras, oysters, wild pigs, llamas... and only God knows what else. Specially true in the North East.



Not true again... Imagine that a virus is somehow like a key... a key that needs a keyhole. MOST animal viruses simply don't fit into the "keyholes" that we have in our cells. It's not that we became immune, we simply can't get infected.
i.e, one of my cats recently died because of a Coronavirus, it was during the quarantine (yes, not Covid-19... there are lots of animal coronaviruses). The specific coronavirus that killed my cat can't infect a human, nor it can infect a dog or a mice or a roach or a snake or an ant or an elephant... its key can't get into any of keyholes of those other animals. It was not a process of immunization, it is simply that the virus does not have the right key as to attack most animals, even if it's a huge problem when it arrives to a cat.



Which disease can we get if we eat a well cooked dog or cat? I don't know any disease that we can get if we do it.

So... is it a scientific concern or an ethical concern?
I have excellent reasons for NOT eating a dog or a cat, but none of them is scientific, but ethical.
(in the same way that I do not know any scientific reasons that makes it "wrong" to murder a human.... even if anyone who is not a psychopath does not need a scientific reasons, because it's an ethical problem).

I think it's a mistake to try to find scientific justifications for what is ethically right... because in the long run you may end up finding out that science has no evidence that eating a cat or a dog is "wrong" or "unhealthy"... and yet such thing is not something that justifies the action of doing it (because it's an ethical problem, not a medical one).

And sorry for going against your arguments, I think we both agree on the ethical side of it... we probably disagree on the medical side of the issue, but I don't think the medical side of the issue is even relevant (in the same way that we do not look for medical explanations about why murdering other persons can be unhealthy for us).

Aye okay Dr Dolittle ?

 

[Lujissey]

Okay we'll call it Dung Flu then, whatever it's called it's Worldwide shit and these hellhole markets wherever they are should be shut down and banned immediately. No time for tip toeing around this now as the World is suffering, animals & humans alike.

Perfect !!! Tan cierto como el sol!!!!!????????

 

[Kill Oncologist]

I’d eat a dog raw just to annoy Morrissey

 

[Ketamine Sun]

I’d eat a dog raw just to annoy Morrissey

Morrissey will eat you just to see the dog happy.

 

[Moz Fan]

Well, no, no and no.

In a word of vegans direct contact between humans and animals would not be extremely rare. On the contrary, it could exist more contact, but in a context or respect, and there would not be exploitation. Therefore we would all be healthier.

The "wet market thing" is not a racist term, it reflects the harsh reality of some countries. Sadly, in my third world country people eat a lot of meat. But we don't have "wet markets" because even in our extremely carnivorous culture those atrocities are not morally tolerated.

Not any virus that infects domesticated animals will infect humans, because the fact that some animals have been domesticated for thousands of years has allowed people's immunization. The huge problem arises when humans exploit wild animals, or they exploit domesticated animals differently than in the way in which the link between those animals and humans was originally established (eating dogs and cats, for example).

"The "wet market thing" is not a racist term, it reflects the harsh reality of some countries. Sadly, in my third world country people eat a lot of meat. But we don't have "wet markets" because even in our extremely carnivorous culture those atrocities are not morally tolerated."

The same happens in my third world country.

 

[The Chameleon]

Or maybe it's just a joke and the idiots who are racist are gonna be racist anyway.

Are Irish jokes ok? Are jokes about New Zealanders or the Welsh being sheep shaggers ok?

Are jokes about Aussies being descended from convicts ok?

Are blonde jokes ok? Or ginger ones?

Or are you such a puritanical overbearing prude that all these types of humour outlawed in your dryballs world?

Consider the difference between what might be called aggressive racism and what might be called casual racism. It's true that there are always going to be racists and they will find a way with or without encouragement. I think that sort of racism is mostly treated as idiotic as you say.
It's a type of racism that results in actions that actually harm people whereas jokes could be said to be harmless, and definitely can be harmless depending on context.
But this casual racism is something that can be attractive to a much larger percentage of the population. "Kung Flu" is a joke and we might argue about how funny or clever it is, but it is a joke and in itself harmless, as opposed to say smashing windows of Asian markets.
But the thing we have to consider is that casual racism might be even more dangerous because, as you say, these (aggressive) racists are idiots. And most of them are cowards. They won't act if they think their actions will have consequences. The problem I think should be considered is that when we accept racist humor as harmless, in times like these, we send the message that racism is acceptable.
Remember when Morrissey talked about "what people really think," or something like that? He was referring to the idea that lots of people say these things privately and this is what they really think. The aggressive racist doesn't see himself as a coward. He sees himself as someone who is saying what others "really" think. He sees himself as brave and others who don't make racist statements or jokes as cowardly.

So acceptance of racist humor signals to these people that they have support from great numbers of people who would like to smash windows of Asian markets, for example, but are too cowardly to do so. It gives them the nod and the encouragement to act on their own racism as if it is some kind of brave mission.

Slightly separate issue: Wanting to call it "the Chinese virus" is questionable. I can't see the motive here unless it is to shame China. If the goal is to shame China and this is a strategy that advocates of naming it "Chinese virus" believe in I can understand that. Calling it "Kung Flu" on the other hand is really ignorant and it's unavoidably racist. There is no way to make an argument that it's simply a joke.
If New Zealanders having sex with sheep had led to this pandemic then those jokes would have a different context. As far as any joke about a nation or ethnicity goes, whether or not it's offensive might be partially decided by whether the person telling it belongs to a group that has historically exploited the group that the joke is being told about. it's why racial slurs against blacks used by whites are very offensive but I don't care if black people use the word "cracker." Being white has never caused me any problems. Being 100% Jewish is another story.

 

[bhops]

Consider the difference between what might be called aggressive racism and what might be called casual racism. It's true that there are always going to be racists and they will find a way with or without encouragement. I think that sort of racism is mostly treated as idiotic as you say.
It's a type of racism that results in actions that actually harm people whereas jokes could be said to be harmless, and definitely can be harmless depending on context.
But this casual racism is something that can be attractive to a much larger percentage of the population. "Kung Flu" is a joke and we might argue about how funny or clever it is, but it is a joke and in itself harmless, as opposed to say smashing windows of Asian markets.
But the thing we have to consider is that casual racism might be even more dangerous because, as you say, these (aggressive) racists are idiots. And most of them are cowards. They won't act if they think their actions will have consequences. The problem I think should be considered is that when we accept racist humor as harmless, in times like these, we send the message that racism is acceptable.
Remember when Morrissey talked about "what people really think," or something like that? He was referring to the idea that lots of people say these things privately and this is what they really think. The aggressive racist doesn't see himself as a coward. He sees himself as someone who is saying what others "really" think. He sees himself as brave and others who don't make racist statements or jokes as cowardly.

So acceptance of racist humor signals to these people that they have support from great numbers of people who would like to smash windows of Asian markets, for example, but are too cowardly to do so. It gives them the nod and the encouragement to act on their own racism as if it is some kind of brave mission.

Slightly separate issue: Wanting to call it "the Chinese virus" is questionable. I can't see the motive here unless it is to shame China. If the goal is to shame China and this is a strategy that advocates of naming it "Chinese virus" believe in I can understand that. Calling it "Kung Flu" on the other hand is really ignorant and it's unavoidably racist. There is no way to make an argument that it's simply a joke.
If New Zealanders having sex with sheep had led to this pandemic then those jokes would have a different context. As far as any joke about a nation or ethnicity goes, whether or not it's offensive might be partially decided by whether the person telling it belongs to a group that has historically exploited the group that the joke is being told about. it's why racial slurs against blacks used by whites are very offensive but I don't care if black people use the word "cracker." Being white has never caused me any problems. Being 100% Jewish is another story.

Rifke any chance you could vocaroo this for me? I couldn't get past the first couple of sentences.

 

[Life_Is_A_Pigsty]

Kung Fu is of Chinese origin and so is Covid-19 so what's the fuss? No one in their right mind would attack random and innocent Chinese people.

 

[Morrissey's left nut]

Rifke any chance you could vocaroo this for me? I couldn't get past the first couple of sentences.

It's funny how that tends to happen when a well thought out argument smashes your previous statements through logic, ability to forge connections, and identifying the problem clearly.

 

[Anonymous]

Consider the difference between what might be called aggressive racism and what might be called casual racism. It's true that there are always going to be racists and they will find a way with or without encouragement. I think that sort of racism is mostly treated as idiotic as you say.
It's a type of racism that results in actions that actually harm people whereas jokes could be said to be harmless, and definitely can be harmless depending on context.
But this casual racism is something that can be attractive to a much larger percentage of the population. "Kung Flu" is a joke and we might argue about how funny or clever it is, but it is a joke and in itself harmless, as opposed to say smashing windows of Asian markets.
But the thing we have to consider is that casual racism might be even more dangerous because, as you say, these (aggressive) racists are idiots. And most of them are cowards. They won't act if they think their actions will have consequences. The problem I think should be considered is that when we accept racist humor as harmless, in times like these, we send the message that racism is acceptable.
Remember when Morrissey talked about "what people really think," or something like that? He was referring to the idea that lots of people say these things privately and this is what they really think. The aggressive racist doesn't see himself as a coward. He sees himself as someone who is saying what others "really" think. He sees himself as brave and others who don't make racist statements or jokes as cowardly.

So acceptance of racist humor signals to these people that they have support from great numbers of people who would like to smash windows of Asian markets, for example, but are too cowardly to do so. It gives them the nod and the encouragement to act on their own racism as if it is some kind of brave mission.

Slightly separate issue: Wanting to call it "the Chinese virus" is questionable. I can't see the motive here unless it is to shame China. If the goal is to shame China and this is a strategy that advocates of naming it "Chinese virus" believe in I can understand that. Calling it "Kung Flu" on the other hand is really ignorant and it's unavoidably racist. There is no way to make an argument that it's simply a joke.
If New Zealanders having sex with sheep had led to this pandemic then those jokes would have a different context. As far as any joke about a nation or ethnicity goes, whether or not it's offensive might be partially decided by whether the person telling it belongs to a group that has historically exploited the group that the joke is being told about. it's why racial slurs against blacks used by whites are very offensive but I don't care if black people use the word "cracker." Being white has never caused me any problems. Being 100% Jewish is another story.

You need to get to the point quicker pal because I can guarantee nobody is reading that in full. I scanned it briefly and several things you say are utter nonsense.

 

[Morrissey's left nut]

Kung Fu is of Chinese origin and so is Covid-19 so what's the fuss? No one in their right mind would attack random and innocent Chinese people.

But plenty of people are not in their right mind, and will take this casual racism as encouragement to abuse others. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

What a jagoff. "kUnG fLu HURR HURR"

View attachment 55953

Blonde suits ya Moz!

 

[bhops]

It's funny how that tends to happen when a well thought out argument smashes your previous statements through logic, ability to forge connections, and identifying the problem clearly.

Nope, if you've followed this for any length of time I simply prefer to not engage with Dave. It's been that way for a while. Sorry to burst your bubble champ.

 

[The Chameleon]

You need to get to the point quicker pal because I can guarantee nobody is reading that in full. I scanned it briefly and several things you say are utter nonsense.

Here's a quick point. I don't do very well at calculus and yet I'm assured that it isn't nonsense just because it's difficult for me to understand.
Not responsible for your inability to read or form a reply. Don't care if you read it or not.
scan:
look at all parts of (something) carefully in order to detect some feature.

You don't "scan something briefly" you f***ing moron.