TTY / replies : January 2014 - true-to-you.net

Link posted by SomeTotallyRandomMozFan:

TTY / replies : January 2014 - true-to-you.net
2 January 2014

Morrissey has answered a sixth series of questions submitted by Questions And Answers participants. These questions and Morrissey's answers are as follows.

Excerpts:

Who inspired you to sing?
KARICACSARY, Fontana.
Bobby Hatfield. He was the smaller of the two Righteous Brothers, and his falsetto swoop made me jump backwards over the settee. You should You Tube their You've lost that lovin' feelin', and you'll see what I mean. When I made the record Ringleader of the tormentors, the producer (Tony Visconti), who is a very close friend of David Bowie, tried to get both Bowie and I together to do our version of You've lost that lovin' feelin', with David doing the deep Bill Medley parts, and me doing the Bobby Hatfield shrieks. I loved this idea, but David wouldn't budge. I know I've criticized David in the past, but it's all been snotnosed junior high ribbing on my part. I think he knows that.

I was lucky enough to see you in Istanbul in July 2012. It was an amazing night, very intense, and it was a dream come true. How was it to be in Istanbul, and what do you think about the audience and the concert?
MELIS, Istanbul.
Well, we are about to record our new album, and one of the tracks is called Istanbul. It is second to Rome as my most favorite city in the world...

You are one of the few personalities in modern times who have really influenced my thinking about art and life. Have you ever thought about writing a novel?
HANNA, Germany.
In 2013 I published my Autobiography and it has been more successful than any record I have ever released, so, yes, I am mid-way through my novel. I have my hopes...

---

Media coverage:

• Morrissey: 'I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia' - The Independent. Link posted by Amy.
• Morrissey: “I See No Difference Between Eating Meat And Paedophilia” - BuzzFeed
• Morrissey: eating meat is the same as paedophilia - The Guardian
• Morrissey: 'Eating animals is just the same as paedophilia, rape and murder' - DailyMirror
• Morrissey 'midway' through first novel - The Telegraph
• Opie & Anthony - Morrissey Stinks & Mayor Bill de Blasio Talk (01-06-2014). Link posted by an anonymous person - More media coverage of Morrissey's paedophile comment, by vaguely popular Sirius/XM presenters.
• The Smiths’ Morrissey Compares Eating Meat To Pedophilia, Because They Have So Much In Common - Elite Daily
• Morrissey Writing Second Book, New Album - The Hollywood Reporter

 

[realitybites]

Hindus are largely vegetarian, not vegan.

Thanks, I corrected my post.

 

[BrummieBoy]

NO animals have the same rights as human species, in any country. And it is doubtful they ever will. Some may earn a right to life. And a right to not be used as food, entertainment, or be experimented on. But they will never have the rights afforded humans, as they are not moral agents capable of being held legally or morally accountable for their actions.




I don't agree. I am a speciesist, if you need a label. Cockroaches are less than cats. I don't have a problem with cats and dogs and horses being eaten, if raised for food, or slaughtered at the end of their lives then processed into food--like horses are. Doesn't mean all cats and dogs and horses SHOULD be eaten. Not all cows or pigs become food either. Some are kept as pets. I don't think the great apes should ever be eaten. Full stop.



Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons--superstitious reasons. Not because they value animal life. They often abuse the crap out of bovines--working them to death in their rice and grain fields. And India has one of the worst human rights records, namely in the form of an institutionalized caste system. They are not only speciesist, they are classist, sexist, and racist as well.

An utterly absurd catalogue of Privilege assumptions. The fact that some Hindus mistreat some animals does not invalidate Hindu culture. You make the same mistake as Morrissey with his absurd Cognitive Colonialism against Chinese culture.

At least your recognise you are a speciesist and I'm sure your comments on cats will go down well with the average Morrissey LOL-cat. But I bet you don't eat cats or dogs, do you? As you are an Unconscious Carnist, steeped in the memes of Abrahamic Biblical Economics, despite your pretence at liberation from 'superstition'.

I do not support the caste system, that is a different topic. Wildly flinging out extraneous diversions is very silly. For an American to lecture another culture about class, sexism and racism is simply breathtaking.

regards
BB

 

[realitybites]

An utterly absurd catalogue of Privilege assumptions. The fact that some Hindus mistreat some animals does not invalidate Hindu culture. You make the same mistake as Morrissey with his absurd Cognitive Colonialism against Chinese culture.

At least your recognise you are a speciesist and I'm sure your comments on cats will go down well with the average Morrissey LOL-cat. But I bet you don't eat cats or dogs, do you? As you are an Unconscious Carnist, steeped in the memes of Abrahamic Biblical Economics, despite your pretence at liberation from 'superstition'.

I do not support the caste system, that is a different topic. Wildly flinging out extraneous diversions is very silly. For an American to lecture another culture about class, sexism and racism is simply breathtaking.

regards
BB

I do not eat cats or dogs because I am a speciesist. I don't eat grasshoppers or beetles either. But I understand they are tasty and packed with protein. Enculturation. If I lived among a people who ate insects, and was brought up eating them, I almost certainly would.

I brought up the caste system to demonstrate that India does not treat its people well, nor its animals. It abstains from eating bovines for superstitious reasons, not moral ones. In other words, they have a poor animal rights record and are a bad example. Should have chosen the Buddhist monks in Nepal who are vegans for compassionate reasons.

 

[Olli Brander]

realitybites.

I'm the anonymous you had the longest conversation with. (The educated high school dropout. / The one with Susan, Mike and Frank.) This is the second time I discuss animal rights with you. The first time took place about a month ago. (I still haven't forgotten your idea of 'moral agents'; I hope you've let that argument go, as it is incredibly irrelevant.)

Mainly you're great. You are an intelligent person. You're certainly more intelligent than 99% of the people I've had these conversations with. This makes me like and respect you. The thing that doesn't make me like and respect you is that some of your intelligence seems to be pseudo. You hold on to vague philosophical theories when often all you need is common sense. You lack backbone to say: ok, I may have been wrong this time, you seem to know more than I do.

After all: you obviously don't have a clear stance on animal rights. You don't really know what you think about the subject, or why you see things the way you do. You've yet to find a stable, rational basis for your beliefs. At the moment, the basis is merely emotional: you simply have this feeling that humans are more important than dogs, and you'd like to be able to rationalize it. That's not enough. Many people intuitively react to the suffering of a dog more strongly than to the suffering of a human. That doesn't make dogs more important than humans.

You keep repeating that you and 'many others' / 'most people' are speciesists, as if this somehow justified speciesism. A hundred years ago most people were racists. Of course they were. People are not rational beings, people are cultural beings. Cultures evolve.

To someone like me, who's actually spent years writing books on the subject, these conversations are honestly f***ing tiring. I hate this. This wears me out. I mean, let's face it: you don't like it when Morrissey compares the modern meat industry to the Holocaust mainly because you personally eat meat. You find the comparison uncomfortable. Therefore you don't like the idea of it being factual. And that's it. You can admit this without going vegetarian.

Many of your arguments have been inconsistent and, more than anything else, irrelevant. (Reading your responses, I often find myself wondering: how on Earth is this relevant to anything I said?) You claim that 'many vegans' use 'emotional arguments', yet the only emotional arguments in this conversation have been written by you. According to you, some vegan somewhere has claimed that animals are 'sacred' - so what? What does that have to do with our conversation? I'm an atheist. I don't think that anybody is 'sacred'. In this conversation, many posters have used very good, extremely rational arguments to explain why your arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new invalid arguments. -> Other posters explain why these arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new pseudo-philosophical crap, and I'm sure this could go on forever. You clearly haven't thought this through. That's okay. Accept that in this conversation, other posters make more sense than you do. They don't have their moral self-image at stake. Give up.

_____________________________

On some of your latest arguments:

"Humans have a potential for great suffering because of our potential for interconnectedness." As I said, this isn't relevant. We are talking about the meat industry. The animals in the meat industry have enough suffering even without the burden of their parents. They already suffer every second of every day.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that all vertebrates are complex, sentient beings. Now, suddenly: "We don't know how much of what we are seeing is fright or just behaviors that look like fright responses. A cat may hear a noise and react--its ears pop up and it runs under the couch. Does she actually experience fear? Pain? Suffering? Or are we interpreting what looks like these things, to be that? Anthropomorphism?" Cut the crap!

I wrote: "About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry."

Your response: "It just isn't ALL about suffering, as far as I am concerned. It is more than that. Suffering is unavoidable, inevitable. In fact, it can be argued that suffering is a part of the human condition, just as much as pleasure is. And that a flat line, no pleasure/pain dichotomy, or just a constant steady stream of pleasure, would be undesirable. The lows make the highs noticeable. We need that contrast. It is what being human is all about."

I don't see how this is relevant. The Holocaust was wrong because it caused pain and suffering. Period. That 'more than that' factor sounds religious. It does not exist in scientific reality.

What I wrote about the amounts of suffering ^ makes complete sense. It should end this conversation. Since you're unable to tell me that I'm wrong, you should admit that I'm right: the meat industry is a greater crime than the Holocaust, since it creates more pain and suffering.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that suffering is the point. Now, suddenly: "Humans have equal moral value. But NOT because we all have the potential to suffer. But because we are human with human QUALITIES." This is religion. You could just as well say that only white people have equal moral value, because only white people have 'white people qualities'. The only morally relevant thing that a popular child genius and a homeless, mentally challenged orphan have in common is their ability to suffer if we hurt them. That's why we shouldn't hurt them. = human rights. This applies to non-human animals just as well. = animal rights.

Finally:

You say that all humans are morally equal as if this (unlike animal rights) was some sort of universal truth. It's not a universal truth. You've simply learned the concept of human rights. If you think about it, equal human rights don't necessarily make much 'sense'. This is the first time in the history of our species when people claim to believe that all humans are equal. It is not a natural idea. It is just as unnatural as the idea of animal rights. Hopefully, societies will eventually adopt the unnatural idea of animal rights the same way they've now adopted the unnatural idea of human rights. It would be fair.

To assume that all humans are morally equal isn't any more obvious than to assume that all sentient beings are morally equal. (In fact, the latter is the more consistent option.) If we start to measure an individual's value by, say, counting their family members, we lose the whole point; human rights, just like animal rights, are a matter of faith and agreement. They're not 'real'. We simply have to choose to start believing in them.

This is a f***ing massive post! I hope we can seriously wrap it up here. There isn't really anything smart to add. Thank you, my friend. o7

 

[realitybites]

realitybites.

I'm the anonymous you had the longest conversation with. (The educated high school dropout. / The one with Susan, Mike and Frank.) This is the second time I discuss animal rights with you. The first time took place about a month ago. (I still haven't forgotten your idea of 'moral agents'; I hope you've let that argument go, as it is incredibly irrelevant.)

Mainly you're great. You are an intelligent person. You're certainly more intelligent than 99% of the people I've had these conversations with. This makes me like and respect you. The thing that doesn't make me like and respect you is that some of your intelligence seems to be pseudo. You hold on to vague philosophical theories when often all you need is common sense. You lack backbone to say: ok, I may have been wrong this time, you seem to know more than I do.

After all: you obviously don't have a clear stance on animal rights. You don't really know what you think about the subject, or why you see things the way you do. You've yet to find a stable, rational basis for your beliefs. At the moment, the basis is merely emotional: you simply have this feeling that humans are more important than dogs, and you'd like to be able to rationalize it. That's not enough. Many people intuitively react to the suffering of a dog more strongly than to the suffering of a human. That doesn't make dogs more important than humans.

You keep repeating that you and 'many others' / 'most people' are speciesists, as if this somehow justified speciesism. A hundred years ago most people were racists. Of course they were. People are not rational beings, people are cultural beings. Cultures evolve.

To someone like me, who's actually spent years writing books on the subject, these conversations are honestly f***ing tiring. I hate this. This wears me out. I mean, let's face it: you don't like it when Morrissey compares the modern meat industry to the Holocaust mainly because you personally eat meat. You find the comparison uncomfortable. Therefore you don't like the idea of it being factual. And that's it. You can admit this without going vegetarian.

Many of your arguments have been inconsistent and, more than anything else, irrelevant. (Reading your responses, I often find myself wondering: how on Earth is this relevant to anything I said?) You claim that 'many vegans' use 'emotional arguments', yet the only emotional arguments in this conversation have been written by you. According to you, some vegan somewhere has claimed that animals are 'sacred' - so what? What does that have to do with our conversation? I'm an atheist. I don't think that anybody is 'sacred'. In this conversation, many posters have used very good, extremely rational arguments to explain why your arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new invalid arguments. -> Other posters explain why these arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new pseudo-philosophical crap, and I'm sure this could go on forever. You clearly haven't thought this through. That's okay. Accept that in this conversation, other posters make more sense than you do. They don't have their moral self-image at stake. Give up.

_____________________________

On some of your latest arguments:

"Humans have a potential for great suffering because of our potential for interconnectedness." As I said, this isn't relevant. We are talking about the meat industry. The animals in the meat industry have enough suffering even without the burden of their parents. They already suffer every second of every day.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that all vertebrates are complex, sentient beings. Now, suddenly: "We don't know how much of what we are seeing is fright or just behaviors that look like fright responses. A cat may hear a noise and react--its ears pop up and it runs under the couch. Does she actually experience fear? Pain? Suffering? Or are we interpreting what looks like these things, to be that? Anthropomorphism?" Cut the crap!

I wrote: "About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry."

Your response: "It just isn't ALL about suffering, as far as I am concerned. It is more than that. Suffering is unavoidable, inevitable. In fact, it can be argued that suffering is a part of the human condition, just as much as pleasure is. And that a flat line, no pleasure/pain dichotomy, or just a constant steady stream of pleasure, would be undesirable. The lows make the highs noticeable. We need that contrast. It is what being human is all about."

I don't see how this is relevant. The Holocaust was wrong because it caused pain and suffering. Period. That 'more than that' factor sounds religious. It does not exist in scientific reality.

What I wrote about the amounts of suffering ^ makes complete sense. It should end this conversation. Since you're unable to tell me that I'm wrong, you should admit that I'm right: the meat industry is a greater crime than the Holocaust, since it creates more pain and suffering.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that suffering is the point. Now, suddenly: "Humans have equal moral value. But NOT because we all have the potential to suffer. But because we are human with human QUALITIES." This is religion. You could just as well say that only white people have equal moral value, because only white people have 'white people qualities'. The only morally relevant thing that a popular child genius and a homeless, mentally challenged orphan have in common is their ability to suffer if we hurt them. That's why we shouldn't hurt them. = human rights. This applies to non-human animals just as well. = animal rights.

Finally:

You say that all humans are morally equal as if this (unlike animal rights) was some sort of universal truth. It's not a universal truth. You've simply learned the concept of human rights. If you think about it, equal human rights don't necessarily make much 'sense'. This is the first time in the history of our species when people claim to believe that all humans are equal. It is not a natural idea. It is just as unnatural as the idea of animal rights. Hopefully, societies will eventually adopt the unnatural idea of animal rights the same way they've now adopted the unnatural idea of human rights. It would be fair.

To assume that all humans are morally equal isn't any more obvious than to assume that all sentient beings are morally equal. (In fact, the latter is the more consistent option.) If we start to measure an individual's value by, say, counting their family members, we lose the whole point; human rights, just like animal rights, are a matter of faith and agreement. They're not 'real'. We simply have to choose to start believing in them.

This is a f***ing massive post! I hope we can seriously wrap it up here. There isn't really anything smart to add. Thank you, my friend. o7

I appreciate such a careful, well thought-out response. I can tell that you care very deeply about animal rights. It sounds like this is your greatest passion in life. This is admirable. You have thought about these issues far more than I have. I have read less than a dozen books on the issue. I have concerned myself more with human rights. I agree that the concept, 'rights', is a construct, and a fairly new one. Perhaps you are right, that culturally we will evolve to see animal rights as a no-brainer, much in the same way we view human rights today, in the developed west.

I'd love to read one or more of your books. You can send me a PM or email if you want. Maybe by reading some more, I will see things differently. I am open to new ideas.

 

[Anonymous]

realitybites.

I'm the anonymous you had the longest conversation with. (The educated high school dropout. / The one with Susan, Mike and Frank.) This is the second time I discuss animal rights with you. The first time took place about a month ago. (I still haven't forgotten your idea of 'moral agents'; I hope you've let that argument go, as it is incredibly irrelevant.)

Mainly you're great. You are an intelligent person. You're certainly more intelligent than 99% of the people I've had these conversations with. This makes me like and respect you. The thing that doesn't make me like and respect you is that some of your intelligence seems to be pseudo. You hold on to vague philosophical theories when often all you need is common sense. You lack backbone to say: ok, I may have been wrong this time, you seem to know more than I do.

After all: you obviously don't have a clear stance on animal rights. You don't really know what you think about the subject, or why you see things the way you do. You've yet to find a stable, rational basis for your beliefs. At the moment, the basis is merely emotional: you simply have this feeling that humans are more important than dogs, and you'd like to be able to rationalize it. That's not enough. Many people intuitively react to the suffering of a dog more strongly than to the suffering of a human. That doesn't make dogs more important than humans.

You keep repeating that you and 'many others' / 'most people' are speciesists, as if this somehow justified speciesism. A hundred years ago most people were racists. Of course they were. People are not rational beings, people are cultural beings. Cultures evolve.

To someone like me, who's actually spent years writing books on the subject, these conversations are honestly f***ing tiring. I hate this. This wears me out. I mean, let's face it: you don't like it when Morrissey compares the modern meat industry to the Holocaust mainly because you personally eat meat. You find the comparison uncomfortable. Therefore you don't like the idea of it being factual. And that's it. You can admit this without going vegetarian.

Many of your arguments have been inconsistent and, more than anything else, irrelevant. (Reading your responses, I often find myself wondering: how on Earth is this relevant to anything I said?) You claim that 'many vegans' use 'emotional arguments', yet the only emotional arguments in this conversation have been written by you. According to you, some vegan somewhere has claimed that animals are 'sacred' - so what? What does that have to do with our conversation? I'm an atheist. I don't think that anybody is 'sacred'. In this conversation, many posters have used very good, extremely rational arguments to explain why your arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new invalid arguments. -> Other posters explain why these arguments are invalid. -> You come up with new pseudo-philosophical crap, and I'm sure this could go on forever. You clearly haven't thought this through. That's okay. Accept that in this conversation, other posters make more sense than you do. They don't have their moral self-image at stake. Give up.

_____________________________

On some of your latest arguments:

"Humans have a potential for great suffering because of our potential for interconnectedness." As I said, this isn't relevant. We are talking about the meat industry. The animals in the meat industry have enough suffering even without the burden of their parents. They already suffer every second of every day.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that all vertebrates are complex, sentient beings. Now, suddenly: "We don't know how much of what we are seeing is fright or just behaviors that look like fright responses. A cat may hear a noise and react--its ears pop up and it runs under the couch. Does she actually experience fear? Pain? Suffering? Or are we interpreting what looks like these things, to be that? Anthropomorphism?" Cut the crap!

I wrote: "About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry."

Your response: "It just isn't ALL about suffering, as far as I am concerned. It is more than that. Suffering is unavoidable, inevitable. In fact, it can be argued that suffering is a part of the human condition, just as much as pleasure is. And that a flat line, no pleasure/pain dichotomy, or just a constant steady stream of pleasure, would be undesirable. The lows make the highs noticeable. We need that contrast. It is what being human is all about."

I don't see how this is relevant. The Holocaust was wrong because it caused pain and suffering. Period. That 'more than that' factor sounds religious. It does not exist in scientific reality.

What I wrote about the amounts of suffering ^ makes complete sense. It should end this conversation. Since you're unable to tell me that I'm wrong, you should admit that I'm right: the meat industry is a greater crime than the Holocaust, since it creates more pain and suffering.

So far, I think we've agreed on the fact that suffering is the point. Now, suddenly: "Humans have equal moral value. But NOT because we all have the potential to suffer. But because we are human with human QUALITIES." This is religion. You could just as well say that only white people have equal moral value, because only white people have 'white people qualities'. The only morally relevant thing that a popular child genius and a homeless, mentally challenged orphan have in common is their ability to suffer if we hurt them. That's why we shouldn't hurt them. = human rights. This applies to non-human animals just as well. = animal rights.

Finally:

You say that all humans are morally equal as if this (unlike animal rights) was some sort of universal truth. It's not a universal truth. You've simply learned the concept of human rights. If you think about it, equal human rights don't necessarily make much 'sense'. This is the first time in the history of our species when people claim to believe that all humans are equal. It is not a natural idea. It is just as unnatural as the idea of animal rights. Hopefully, societies will eventually adopt the unnatural idea of animal rights the same way they've now adopted the unnatural idea of human rights. It would be fair.

To assume that all humans are morally equal isn't any more obvious than to assume that all sentient beings are morally equal. (In fact, the latter is the more consistent option.) If we start to measure an individual's value by, say, counting their family members, we lose the whole point; human rights, just like animal rights, are a matter of faith and agreement. They're not 'real'. We simply have to choose to start believing in them.

This is a f***ing massive post! I hope we can seriously wrap it up here. There isn't really anything smart to add. Thank you, my friend. o7

What an intelligent person on Solow!
Whish I knew what your books were

 

[Anonymous]

I appreciate such a careful, well thought-out response. I can tell that you care very deeply about animal rights. It sounds like this is your greatest passion in life. This is admirable. You have thought about these issues far more than I have. I have read less than a dozen books on the issue. I have concerned myself more with human rights. I agree that the concept, 'rights', is a construct, and a fairly new one. Perhaps you are right, that culturally we will evolve to see animal rights as a no-brainer, much in the same way we view human rights today, in the developed west.

I'd love to read one or more of your books. You can send me a PM or email if you want. Maybe by reading some more, I will see things differently. I am open to new ideas.

A complete pretender. I bet if the writer didn't have any books published you would have caved.
So easily impressed.
Girl if you have to read books to change your mind about eating animals there is something wrong with you.
The book person mads some good points but it's all obvious stuff. Really it is.
A applaud book person for keeping there temper as well as the did

 

[realitybites]

A complete pretender. I bet if the writer didn't have any books published you would have caved.
So easily impressed.
Girl if you have to read books to change your mind about eating animals there is something wrong with you.
The book person mads some good points but it's all obvious stuff. Really it is.
A applaud book person for keeping there temper as well as the did

I am ALWAYS open to the idea of being wrong. Perhaps his books say things he is not saying here. Or a new way of saying them. I have my views. He has not changed them. No one here has. I am trying to be kind. He was kind to me. It doesn't always have to be a pissing match.

I applaud the person for remaining civil as well. This is rare here--especially when people are talking about emotionally charged issues.

 

[Bluebirds]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust

Morrissey's favourite website apart from YouTube

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust

Morrissey's favourite website apart from YouTube

Interesting that Jewish thinkers seem to be at the centre of this theory.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

Interesting that Jewish thinkers seem to be at the centre of this theory.

Not as interesting as the left's racism against Jews and tacit backing of Islamic terror.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Interesting that Jewish thinkers seem to be at the centre of this theory.

It makes sense from a Jewish perspective, since the Holocaust is a fundamental part of the Jewish identity at this point in history. Most people think that it is somehow denigrating to compare the suffering of "food" animals to the suffering of the victims of the Shoah, but that sense of awful, grinding, inescapable mass-suffering and death is lodged permanently in the Jewish consciousness. Most tragically, it has become a part of the Jewish identity. We are sensitized to it: many see it where others do not. There is a kind of kinship there - after all, racists and murderers are enabled by thinking of their victims as other-than-human. If we begin to feel love and compassion for other-than-human, than we cannot inflict suffering with such pleasure and/or indifference. I love the Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz quote: "I have suffered so much myself that I can feel other creatures' suffering by virtue of my own." He survived Dachau - he knew.

Of course the Holocaust = McDonalds argument gets a bit thorny when it comes from non-Jews. Then the Jews = animals argument begins to smack of denigration once again. Morrissey's continuous use of the analogy with no further statement or debate, and PETA's jingoistic use of the imagery strikes me as somewhat counter-productive.

Then again, here we are on Solo discussing the issue at great length, so Morrissey "fans" do think about these things by virtue of his outbursts. Whether this is a good thing that will lead to greater compassion, or just a way for people to waste time arguing with strangers on the internet only time will tell.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Not as interesting as the left's racism against Jews and tacit backing of Islamic terror.

f*** off Barleycorn

- - - Updated - - -

It makes sense from a Jewish perspective, since the Holocaust is a fundamental part of the Jewish identity at this point in history. Most people think that it is somehow denigrating to compare the suffering of "food" animals to the suffering of the victims of the Shoah, but that sense of awful, grinding, inescapable mass-suffering and death is lodged permanently in the Jewish consciousness. Most tragically, it has become a part of the Jewish identity. We are sensitized to it: many see it where others do not. There is a kind of kinship there - after all, racists and murderers are enabled by thinking of their victims as other-than-human. If we begin to feel love and compassion for other-than-human, than we cannot inflict suffering with such pleasure and/or indifference. I love the Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz quote: "I have suffered so much myself that I can feel other creatures' suffering by virtue of my own." He survived Dachau - he knew.

Of course the Holocaust = McDonalds argument gets a bit thorny when it comes from non-Jews. Then the Jews = animals argument begins to smack of denigration once again. Morrissey's continuous use of the analogy with no further statement or debate, and PETA's jingoistic use of the imagery strikes me as somewhat counter-productive.

Then again, here we are on Solo discussing the issue at great length, so Morrissey "fans" do think about these things by virtue of his outbursts. Whether this is a good thing that will lead to greater compassion, or just a way for people to waste time arguing with strangers on the internet only time will tell.

Excellent stuff.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

f*** off Barleycorn

Shouldn't you be polishing your jackboots for the weekend, you despicable creature?

 

[Orson Swells]

Not as interesting as the left's racism against Jews and tacit backing of Islamic terror.

 

[Peterb]

Not as interesting as the left's racism against Jews and tacit backing of Islamic terror.

Hi Johnny, I do understand where you are coming from saying this.
Indeed I have encountered a number of those on the Stalinist end of the spectrum with whom I have very little in common.
However, whilst I am no authority on political thought, I can assure you that myself and those who I engage with, Labour party members, Socialists and whatever, would never countenance or condone any sort of racism or violence, neither through action or through willful ignorance.
I agree that for those of us on the left there can be issues where on the one hand we would want to be multicultural and on the other observe practices we would not consider acceptable.

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

Shouldn't you be polishing your jackboots for the weekend, you despicable creature?

Shouldn't you be f***ing off to somewhere where everyone hasn't written you off as a twat?

 

[Anonymous]

It makes sense from a Jewish perspective, since the Holocaust is a fundamental part of the Jewish identity at this point in history. Most people think that it is somehow denigrating to compare the suffering of "food" animals to the suffering of the victims of the Shoah, but that sense of awful, grinding, inescapable mass-suffering and death is lodged permanently in the Jewish consciousness. Most tragically, it has become a part of the Jewish identity. We are sensitized to it: many see it where others do not. There is a kind of kinship there - after all, racists and murderers are enabled by thinking of their victims as other-than-human. If we begin to feel love and compassion for other-than-human, than we cannot inflict suffering with such pleasure and/or indifference. I love the Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz quote: "I have suffered so much myself that I can feel other creatures' suffering by virtue of my own." He survived Dachau - he knew.

Of course the Holocaust = McDonalds argument gets a bit thorny when it comes from non-Jews. Then the Jews = animals argument begins to smack of denigration once again. Morrissey's continuous use of the analogy with no further statement or debate, and PETA's jingoistic use of the imagery strikes me as somewhat counter-productive.

Then again, here we are on Solo discussing the issue at great length, so Morrissey "fans" do think about these things by virtue of his outbursts. Whether this is a good thing that will lead to greater compassion, or just a way for people to waste time arguing with strangers on the internet only time will tell.

You claimed in 2010 that Christians cannot sing, not think and not do scientific research.

You also constantly type the most outrageous insults and prejudices in sandwich form (say something good, outrageous, good). To use this pattern, does not make your insults and prejudices any less so.

I saw that somebody made the effort to write a longer article on Hitler and his religion into Wikipedia. I haven't read it all, but what I saw looks about right and the very same reseason, why I find the tought process of so many who visit this website simply outrageous. What did you learn from history? Nothing. Absolutly nothing. It is folks like you why the next disasters are just around the next corner. People who think that people are nothing more than robots with flesh whose computers are programmed. And of course the metal robots are already in the making. To a large extend the internet and the American and British supercomputers are nothing more than getting a hold of people's knowledget to use it elsewhere. It can also be called stealing of intellectual property - or the brain content of others.

People like you know how to use words like "compassion", but you don't really know what it means.

How come that the train lines to Auschwitz were never bombed?
How come that Germany was closely watched from the air and details of images analyzed and yet Americans and Brits claim that they didn't know about the concentration camps?
How come that people who were "freed" from concentration camps, found themselves in British camps with barbwire surrounding them shortly afterwards? When I heard a British soldiers's explanation "we were only following orders", I cringed, thought of Kohlberg's steps of moral development, not knowing that Kohlberg was one of the people who experienced one of those British camps.
How come that those who performed the tests on humans in the camps were flown or shipped to the USA to get a hold of the research findings and the experiments continued?
How come that people can get the death penalty in the USA nowadays based on what just one person said?
How come that those who survived the Holocaust were accused of "having allowed themselves to be led to concentration camps like sheep", a kind of disgust that could also be seen by numerous of your posts when you and your likes wrote about others beeing "sheep".
How come that you claim to have a sense of beauty and yet are a great fan of bands like Rammstein or somebody like Morrissey? I personally don't quite get how people can claim that they dislike the man but love his music. Do any of you actually ever listen to the lyrics? To me it would even make more sense if it were the other way around. Because as I pointed out earlier, I initially thought he was singing about others not about himself and his friends. I am not buying into the "social commentary" nonsense that they are trying to implant in other people's heads now. He was too violent in pushing down other people's throats that THIS was him.
And so on.

As I said, there are hardly any people more prejudiced than you and your buddies. You have an amazingly bad ability to iron out your cognitive dissonances. They must be there, because they are so obvious. It only takes one article by somebody on a national radio network and it is done already? You were brainwashed from early childhood in a far from good way. You numerously didn't reply to people who addressed you directly and asked you how you came to your assertions. A pattern that can be observed with others as well, especially of the questions come from people of other nationalities. And as I already mentioned, insults and prejudices over insults and prejudices all masked in superficial rhetorics.

You can discuss all that you want, most of what you and others write is without real content. There is logic to it, yes, but the logic is wrong when matched with reality.

 

[Anaesthesine]

You claimed in 2010 that Christians cannot sing, not think and not do scientific research.

You also constantly type the most outrageous insults and prejudices in sandwich form (say something good, outrageous, good). To use this pattern, does not make your insults and prejudices any less so.

I saw that somebody made the effort to write a longer article on Hitler and his religion into Wikipedia. I haven't read it all, but what I saw looks about right and the very same reseason, why I find the tought process of so many who visit this website simply outrageous. What did you learn from history? Nothing. Absolutly nothing. It is folks like you why the next disasters are just around the next corner. People who think that people are nothing more than robots with flesh whose computers are programmed. And of course the metal robots are already in the making. To a large extend the internet and the American and British supercomputers are nothing more than getting a hold of people's knowledget to use it elsewhere. It can also be called stealing of intellectual property - or the brain content of others.

People like you know how to use words like "compassion", but you don't really know what it means.

How come that the train lines to Auschwitz were never bombed?
How come that Germany was closely watched from the air and details of images analyzed and yet Americans and Brits claim that they didn't know about the concentration camps?
How come that people who were "freed" from concentration camps, found themselves in British camps with barbwire surrounding them shortly afterwards? When I heard a British soldiers's explanation "we were only following orders", I cringed, thought of Kohlberg's steps of moral development, not knowing that Kohlberg was one of the people who experienced one of those British camps.
How come that those who performed the tests on humans in the camps were flown or shipped to the USA to get a hold of the research findings and the experiments continued?
How come that people can get the death penalty in the USA nowadays based on what just one person said?
How come that those who survived the Holocaust were accused of "having allowed themselves to be led to concentration camps like sheep", a kind of disgust that could also be seen by numerous of your posts when you and your likes wrote about others beeing "sheep".
How come that you claim to have a sense of beauty and yet are a great fan of bands like Rammstein or somebody like Morrissey? I personally don't quite get how people can claim that they dislike the man but love his music. Do any of you actually ever listen to the lyrics? To me it would even make more sense if it were the other way around. Because as I pointed out earlier, I initially thought he was singing about others not about himself and his friends. I am not buying into the "social commentary" nonsense that they are trying to implant in other people's heads now. He was too violent in pushing down other people's throats that THIS was him.
And so on.

As I said, there are hardly any people more prejudiced than you and your buddies. You have an amazingly bad ability to iron out your cognitive dissonances. They must be there, because they are so obvious. It only takes one article by somebody on a national radio network and it is done already? You were brainwashed from early childhood in a far from good way. You numerously didn't reply to people who addressed you directly and asked you how you came to your assertions. A pattern that can be observed with others as well, especially of the questions come from people of other nationalities. And as I already mentioned, insults and prejudices over insults and prejudices all masked in superficial rhetorics.

You can discuss all that you want, most of what you and others write is without real content. There is logic to it, yes, but the logic is wrong when matched with reality.

Just mention the word "Jewish" and some folks go haywire. You really should hang out on a political website Anonymous, because that's the kind of weird, divisive nonsense that folks love to take and dish out all day long.

I spend more time in Catholic churches than most people I know (and I'm rather obsessive about the cult of the saints - always have been). Eddie Izzard is the one who said that Christians can't sing. I'm overly-fond of Christian music myself: the oratorio is one of my favorite musical forms - the grace of the holy spirit translated into sound.

As far as Christian thinking goes: faith is belief without corroborating evidence. That's all well and good in one's private life, but when it mixes with politics and science it's deadly. Believe what you want in your heart, but do not legislate your god.

As far as Christians and science: that is a long and fraught history. Faith is inherently irrational. In order to be an effective scientist one must always put observation, theory, analysis and evidence above faith. Anything else isn't science. Anyone who believes the Earth is only six thousand years old has a serious handicap if they wish to study astrophysics, and creationists cannot teach biology.

As for humans, flesh robots, supercomputers, British concentration camps, the American death penalty, Wikipedia and my imaginary "buddies": I leave those vivid musings to you. Enjoy.

Rammstein: operatically absurd, gloriously theatrical, smart, kick-ass, truly transgressive and hilarious. They are magnificent in a brutal way. My sense of beauty tells me they are great. I have both faith and evidence to back up my opinion.

Which brings me to Morrissey, and your rather simplistic assertion that you cannot love the art and dislike the artist. Of course you can. I don't think there needs to be much more said on that subject. Read any really thorough biography of a great artist in any field: it takes a highly imperfect soul to spin human complexity into art. As I've said way too many times on this site: Morrissey is the greatest singer I've ever heard. He is the master of ambiguity. He sprang fully-realized into the world with a singular voice, an endlessly complex persona, and a truly wicked sense of humor. Throw in killer charisma, a quick wit and sinful beauty, and you have the perfect pop star. I am now and will always be in awe of his achievements. I come here to keep up with the latest news because I still care about his career and his artistic output.

That said: he is in a very bad place. Fame is a poison, and Morrissey has drunk as deeply as any musical icon. He has also deeply internalized his experience, and he does not seem to have a private bulwark against the public adoration. The bitterness that has always lurked around the edges is more and more evident these days, and he doesn't seem to have any way to mitigate its effects. Good luck to him - may he find the strength he needs to do good work and lead a good life.

 

[realitybites]

As far as Christian thinking goes: faith is belief without corroborating evidence. That's all well and good in one's private life, but when it mixes with politics and science it's deadly. Believe what you want in your heart, but do not legislate your god.

Briliant!

As far as Christians and science: that is a long and fraught history. Faith is inherently irrational. In order to be an effective scientist one must always put observation, theory, analysis and evidence above faith. Anything else isn't science. Anyone who believes the Earth is only six thousand years old has a serious handicap if they wish to study astrophysics, and creationists cannot teach biology.

Which brings me to Morrissey, and your rather simplistic assertion that you cannot love the art and dislike the artist. Of course you can.