Morrissey Central "WHEN YOU ARE THE QUARRY" (January 6, 2023)

unnamed-11.png


by MORRISSEY

I am aware that the ludicrous 'Morrissey is Far Right' attributions have very recently wiggled back into minor vogue on all of the usual gossip sites. This rush is, I am assured, in view of Miley Cyrus wanting to be removed from 'I Am Veronica', and suddenly the very dated rehash of "This is because of Morrissey's political views" wobbles out - delighting those for whom I am a book that under no circumstances can they stop reading. My friends are fully aware of a certain aim to put me out of circulation, which has inexplicably become relentless even though the entire point of Cancel Culture is to never again acknowledge whomever has been cancelled. You cannot constantly vomit out the same regurgitated "he should not be listened to" dirge year after year, because YOU are displaying an obsession that you urge others to avoid. I had secretly hoped that the glorious benefit of being cancelled would be that I could never again receive a bad review, because even to give me yet another oh-so-predictable bad review confirms that I am not, after all, cancelled. But the Cancel Vultures write only in headlines; they do not answer questions; their darts aim only for the inspired elite of perceptive intelligence. The Vultures are usually chief exponents of the hate and harassment which they themselves define as justification for Cancellation of others. Cancel Vultures are unknowable blanks, and they only attack those of whom they are most jealous - because others don't count. They will not forgive you for being alive, but they will not square up to you face-to-face because they would be forced to look into your eyes … where the wordless truth resides. Worst of all, Cancel Vultures cannot ever apologize for being wrong. This would be worse than death. I have been invited onto U.S. and U.K television news outlets to discuss the situation with Miley and 'Bonfire of teenagers', but of course, there's no point. In truth, Miley has backed off for reasons unconnected to me, having had a major clash with a key figure in 'the circle'. I cannot give any details about the private fight because … it is private, after all.

Miley knew everything about me when she arrived to sing 'I Am Veronica' almost two years ago; she walked into the studio already singing the song. She volunteered. I did not ask her to get involved. Her professionalism was astounding, her vocals a joy to behold. Every minute that I spent with Miley was loving and funny. She asked if she could be in the 'Veronica' video. I was very honored. She told me that Morrissey songs are on 24-hour rotation in her house, and she had frequently been photographed in Morrissey t-shirts. Miley came into my world; I did not venture towards hers. I was eternally thankful, and even now, I remain so.

The campaign to destroy my career was originally led by four male individuals in Britain, each of whom have prominent positions on social media - and they have full unedited access to the Legacy Media. At some point, each one of them had hopes of a candle-lit friendship with me, and this did not happen. Their rage for attention then took a different turn. They want some form of Wikipedia mention as well as a future personal Index reference in 'Who Killed Morrissey?'. Yes, staggeringly, that is their goal.

Although the Left changed and deserted me many years ago, I am most certainly not Far Right, and I have not ever met anyone who claims to be Far Right. My politics are straightforward: I recognize realities. Some realities horrify me, and some do not, but I accept that I was not created so that others might gratify me and delight me with all that they think and do - what a turgid life that would be. I've been offended all of my life, and it has strengthened me, and I am glad. I wouldn't have the journey any other way. Only by hearing the opinions of others can we form truly rational views, and therefore we must never accept a beehive society that refuses to reflect a variety of views.

I am therefore sorry to report to some of you that I am absolutely not Far Right. If your wearisome echo disapproves of me not being Far Right, I wish you the hope that you deny yourself. Britain's 'Question Time' has thrown the red carpet my way six times asking me to appear on television to discuss the Left-Right divide, but I have always refused, and not least of all because I am sick to death of a debate that can never possibly resolve itself. I also refuse because I am apolitical, and if nothing else, I know my place.

I do not care very much about myself - and I never have. But the crucial point about 'Music as Art' is evident in life-changing music that has always happened before anyone expected it. The very best examples are the Sex Pistols, David Bowie, the Ramones, the Velvet Underground, Alice Cooper, and even the Dolls and Iggy: no one saw these monoliths coming, therefore the people discovered them before the industry had time to halt the fun. Now, alas, music cannot happen unless it adheres to strict industry guidelines, and this falsely assures the listening public that things could not possibly be better than they currently are. The infantilised world is delighted to stream music, but if they were asked to walk 50 yards to a record shop to access those very songs … they wouldn't bother to. However, the connection between the music industry and Cancel Vultures is that they both agree that their main job is to stop singers and bands from saying anything important. Respecting equal freedom for those that you control … is not freedom. Music as Art has now been destroyed because it expands public opinion, and thus, with the current Top 100 downloads … no bubbles can ever rise. Songs once kept listeners occupied for years, but this has been replaced by suspiciously instant stardom for anyone obedient enough to agree that babies are naturally born through the left ear. Proper artists need not apply. Imagination must be paralyzed, and saying nothing whatsoever is the only pathway to all music awards. Look for yourself.

Following Britain's 9/11 abomination at the Manchester Arena, Miley was asked to take part in the Don't Look Back In Anger event, and she refused. I asked her why she had refused, and she said "I am not into all that."

I write these words mainly for (but not directly about) my audience - who are the best and most incredible audience that anyone could dream of, and perhaps many onlookers are jealous of this fact. I have not ever voted for a political party in my life, and I have not ever joined a political party, and I have not ever attended a political rally. On the political stage, I do not exist: you have never seen me there and you never shall. I therefore do not mind in the least if you join the Morrissey haters - there is always the likelihood that I'd feel exactly the same way about you. But if you join forces with the Cancel Vultures, your only aim is to numb time, and your eyes are dead.

5 January 2023

unnamed-8+copy+10.jpg




Member @Cornflakes reminded us that Miley Cyrus actually did attend the One Love Manchester event.
For clarity:
May 22, 2017 - Bombing.
May 25, 2017 - spontaneously sung after a minutes silence in the city.
May 27, 2017 - sung during the Courteeners et al gig @ Old Trafford Cricket Ground.
June 4, 2017 - One Love Manchester concert.
September 9, 2017 - We Are Manchester benefit.
All featured "Don't Look Back In Anger".
It should be noted the "We Are Manchester" event was predominantly Manchester bands and there is no online evidence to support Miley Cyrus was invited/involved with said.

p054xvmz.jpg


First Central image by Stephen Shames.
Second Central image by Esparza.
Regards,
FWD.


Media items:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It brought his most important issue to the fore, and I'm sure he didn't care about the people who took to Twitter to moan "Morrissey you utter twat," and to publicly declare they were rescinding their fandom and throwing their records and memorabilia in the garbage. He may not even want those fans in the first place.

But what you are suggesting is that Morrissey only said it because Anders Breivik was a far-right lunatic, and you think Morrissey actually endorses Breivik's ideology. Well, what about "the Chinese are a sub-species" remark? Are the Chinese far-right, too? Morrissey routinely says things on the subject of factory farming that shock the genteel, the unthinking, and the selfishly cruel. They can't think out of their own box.
Oh. You have appeared.

Still putting words into people's mouths I see.

I never said in my post anything that could possibly suggest I was saying Morrissey only said what he did because the murderer was right wing or that he endorsed his ideology.

Stick to the facts and the actual works written and you may understand I little better.

Everyone on here knows your views on meat eaters but my post has nothing to do with that or what you are saying.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It brought his most important issue to the fore, and I'm sure he didn't care about the people who took to Twitter to moan "Morrissey you utter twat," and to publicly declare they were rescinding their fandom and throwing their records and memorabilia in the garbage. He may not even want those fans in the first place.

But what you are suggesting is that Morrissey only said it because Anders Breivik was a far-right lunatic, and you think Morrissey actually endorses Breivik's ideology. Well, what about "the Chinese are a sub-species" remark? Are the Chinese far-right, too? Morrissey routinely says things on the subject of factory farming that shock the genteel, the unthinking, and the selfishly cruel. They can't think out of their own box.
and suggesting a child being sexually abused is not as bad as someone eating a bacon sandwich is not "selfishly cruel"?
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
Oh. You have appeared.

Still putting words into people's mouths I see.

I never said in my post anything that could possibly suggest I was saying Morrissey only said what he did because the murderer was right wing or that he endorsed his ideology.

Stick to the facts and the actual works written and you may understand I little better.

Everyone on here knows your views on meat eaters but my post has nothing to do with that or what you are saying.

Forgive me, but because you're an anon, I thought you might've been the user Fake C, who liked to insinuate that Morrissey's remarks on Breivik were made in part due to far-right sympathies. And anyway, he wasn't the only one.

But what was your point, then? You made your comment in response to someone who was merely eye-rolling, "you would think Morrissey was a mass murderer according to some people on here."
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
"one thing".

I am pretty sure I have never said the abuse of children is not as bad as eating meat.

I'm not actually aware of anyone in the public eye saying anything remotely similar.

I don't think anyone "should" say such things before or after lunch and is nothing like stretching for the intellect and to me is unforgivable.

:confused:

It's "unforgivable" to make provocative statements in the service of drawing attention to the plight of animals? It's "unforgivable" to try to get people to think about the abuse of animals by drawing parallels to the abuse of humans?
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
and suggesting a child being sexually abused is not as bad as someone eating a bacon sandwich is not "selfishly cruel"?

What's selfish about it? Morrissey is making these statements on behalf of others who can't; he himself certainly doesn't benefit. If anything, he has to endure the nasty shrieking of the outraged snowflakes who can't be forced to think outside of their comfort boxes for a single second. Christ, it's a wonder the human race ever got rid of institutionalized slavery.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Forgive me, but because you're an anon, I thought you might've been the user Fake C, who liked to insinuate that Morrissey's remarks on Breivik were made in part due to far-right sympathies. And anyway, he wasn't the only one.

But what was your point, then? You made your comment in response to someone who was merely eye-rolling, "you would think Morrissey was a mass murderer according to some people on here."
No had nothing to do with the murderer being far right and in this instance I am sure Morrissey would have said the same thing if the murderer was left wing attacking a bunch of kids.

My point was in relation to a series of posts connected with Morrissey's pedophilia posts and human mass murder post.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
:confused:

It's "unforgivable" to make provocative statements in the service of drawing attention to the plight of animals? It's "unforgivable" to try to get people to think about the abuse of animals by drawing parallels to the abuse of humans?
trying to belittle the crime of child abuse for any reason is unforgivable.

It isn't a competition as to what abuse is worse than other abuse.

You are also only focusing on the meat point whereas my original post on this subject had the quotes where Morrissey said the victims new what they were doing and played along with it.

Comparing animal cruelty in attempt to belittle child abuse is pure evil.

I wouldn't present a scenario to you , well maybe I will:

You get kidnapped by a criminal gang. They give you a choice:

1) Eat this bacon or cheese sandwich and you go free
or
2) Sexually abuse this child
or
3) do nothing and die

Which would you choose?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What's selfish about it? Morrissey is making these statements on behalf of others who can't; he himself certainly doesn't benefit. If anything, he has to endure the nasty shrieking of the outraged snowflakes who can't be forced to think outside of their comfort boxes for a single second. Christ, it's a wonder the human race ever got rid of institutionalized slavery.
And apologising for children being sexually abused to try to stand up for his own campaign/view is not selfish?

He could have presented his campaign without comparing to the sexual abuse of children do you not think?

You think people who were sickened by his comments on child abuse were snowflakes who can't think outside of the box? I would think an idiot who needs to be an apologist for pedophiles to try to get support for the views in HIS box is the one who is doing the nasty shriking.

And again you are only focusing on the meat angle. His pedophile angle wasn't just about meat eating, he said the victims were to blame essentially, his argument didn't start with anything in relation to meat eating. They were two different occasions.

The comparison was not called for and the statement that child victims knew what they were doing and played along with the abuse were repulsive and shows the state of his mind and I suspect that day he didn't support any voiceless animals but lost a lot of support for those voiceless animals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What's selfish about it? Morrissey is making these statements on behalf of others who can't; he himself certainly doesn't benefit. If anything, he has to endure the nasty shrieking of the outraged snowflakes who can't be forced to think outside of their comfort boxes for a single second. Christ, it's a wonder the human race ever got rid of institutionalized slavery.
And at the same time being cruel against other living beings, child abuse victims who also can’t speak up for themselves.

Playing off the abuse of one sector of living beings against another group of silent abuse victims is at best stupid and unintelligent has the opposite desired effect to animal welfare.

Very laudable.

Having not eaten meat most of my life and also spent a lot of time promoting charity events to raise money for animal welfare charities I and others who tirelessly have worked to help animals all cringe and put our heads in our hands when people like you and him come out with this shit.

This stance that being controversial and making comparisons of things like sexual abuse and mass murder and war to the meat industry in some delusional attempt to shock and “get people thinking outside of their boxes” is just nonsense and completely self absorbed.

Not a single animal has been saved through this tactic. All it serves is controversy and attention seeking for those stupid people who think it helps the cause in any way whatsoever.

The day these posts are made everyone in the animal welfare charity arena sighs with despair. These kind of statements do more harm to animal welfare campaigns than any other direct media attack they get from any meat industry reps.

If you or he want to save animals then you are doing it in a way that will not save a single animal.

It’s a disgrace.
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
And at the same time being cruel against other living beings, child abuse victims who also can’t speak up for themselves.

Playing off the abuse of one sector of living beings against another group of silent abuse victims is at best stupid and unintelligent has the opposite desired effect to animal welfare.

Very laudable.

Having not eaten meat most of my life and also spent a lot of time promoting charity events to raise money for animal welfare charities I and others who tirelessly have worked to help animals all cringe and put our heads in our hands when people like you and him come out with this shit.

There's no need to make this a pissing contest. I am fifty years old, and have been vegetarian for the last twenty-nine. Nearly every monetary donation I've ever made has been to an animal welfare charity. Morrissey has been vegetarian for longer than I've been alive, and like you, he has "worked tirelessly" for the cause. What you are neglecting is that different charities prefer different tactics. There are plenty of vegetarians who cringe at PETA's tactics. That's fair enough if you want to do that, but there's no reason to get all sassy and pompous about it.

This stance that being controversial and making comparisons of things like sexual abuse and mass murder and war to the meat industry in some delusional attempt to shock and “get people thinking outside of their boxes” is just nonsense and completely self absorbed.

Morrissey got far more exposure for those statements than he would have if he just took out an ad or paid for a billboard. Of course many were shocked. And most of them reacted: predictably. What else should we expect? Most people are stuck & incorrigible in their beliefs. But these things are always on a bell curve, so there had to have been some people who were curious why Morrissey had said what he did, and what his logic was behind it. I wonder how many of them thought it through. Morrissey doesn't want to preach to the choir. He wants to reach people, however few there are who are willing to put down their prejudices & scrutinize their own beliefs.

Not a single animal has been saved through this tactic. All it serves is controversy and attention seeking for those stupid people who think it helps the cause in any way whatsoever.

That simply isn't true. Morrissey's statements comparing animal cruelty to human cruelty are no different than his early lyric, "heifer whines could be human cries." That's the song that planted the seed for my own conversion. And I can't possibly be alone in this. You are wrong to declare that no one's eyes can be opened by contemplating how similar animals are to us (and we are animals ourselves, after all) in their experience of pain & suffering. It's one of the most fundamental ways of approaching the argument.
 
Last edited:

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
trying to belittle the crime of child abuse for any reason is unforgivable.

It isn't a competition as to what abuse is worse than other abuse.

You are also only focusing on the meat point whereas my original post on this subject had the quotes where Morrissey said the victims new what they were doing and played along with it.

Comparing animal cruelty in attempt to belittle child abuse is pure evil.

I wouldn't present a scenario to you , well maybe I will:

You get kidnapped by a criminal gang. They give you a choice:

1) Eat this bacon or cheese sandwich and you go free
or
2) Sexually abuse this child
or
3) do nothing and die

Which would you choose?

The obvious choice is no. 1, because those animals are already raped, tortured, & dead, and I didn't subsidize that (my kidnappers did), while the child is still alive and unmolested. The more appropriate question would be, you are forced to choose between: 1. raping a heifer with a rod, 2. raping a child with a dildo, or 3. doing neither & being killed.

If you were to give Morrissey an ounce of charity, you would allow him to be understood as talking about the rape and torture behind the meal. Anyone who was even remotely interested in taking him seriously would give him that allowance. It doesn't "belittle" anyone for him to make the comparison. His whole point is that he is horrified by pedophilia, as we all should be, and that there are things just as horrific that many people turn a blind eye towards.
 
Last edited:

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
And apologising for children being sexually abused to try to stand up for his own campaign/view is not selfish?

He could have presented his campaign without comparing to the sexual abuse of children do you not think?

You think people who were sickened by his comments on child abuse were snowflakes who can't think outside of the box? I would think an idiot who needs to be an apologist for pedophiles to try to get support for the views in HIS box is the one who is doing the nasty shriking.

And again you are only focusing on the meat angle. His pedophile angle wasn't just about meat eating, he said the victims were to blame essentially, his argument didn't start with anything in relation to meat eating. They were two different occasions.

The comparison was not called for and the statement that child victims knew what they were doing and played along with the abuse were repulsive and shows the state of his mind and I suspect that day he didn't support any voiceless animals but lost a lot of support for those voiceless animals.

You're conflating two different things. You seem to be talking about his comments on the Kevin Spacey case in the same breath as his comment equating meat with pedophilia. The allegation against Spacey in the Anthony Rapp case was (as I understand it) for "unwanted dry-humping," whereas in his other comment, Morrissey was talking about "rape, violence, [and] murder." You're making an equivalence he never intended. If Morrissey had excused John Wayne Gacy, then I admit you'd have something. But he didn't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You're conflating two different things. You seem to be talking about his comments on the Kevin Spacey case in the same breath as his comment equating meat with pedophilia. The allegation against Spacey in the Anthony Rapp case was (as I understand it) for "unwanted dry-humping," whereas in his other comment, Morrissey was talking about "rape, violence, [and] murder." You're making an equivalence he never intended. If Morrissey had excused John Wayne Gacy, then I admit you'd have something. But he didn't.
Absolute nonsense

For interest I have been a non meat eater for longer than you and Morrissey.

If you had had the intelligence to have actually read my original post regarding the paedophilia points instead of just jumping in on the meat point as you always do then you would know i exactly made a different case regarding the Weinstein and Spacey points to the meat eating comparison. I even told you you were mixing up two different occasions and you chose to ignore except in your latest diatribe.

My whole point regarding these posts is pedophilia and it actually started with his comments and quotes where he stated the victims knew what they were doing and played along with it and then felt uncomfortable and whinged about it.

I then proceeded to point out the evil in those statements. It makes no difference whether a child victim knew what was happening or even wanted it to happen. The issue is that the responsible adult in the room was the pedophile and his responsibility was not to sexually abuse a child even if the child asked for it. It is depraved, sick and immoral and for Morrissey to have belittled the victims in that way was also depraved. As a victim of abuse that was the day I ended my admiration for that man and nothing you can say will ever present any kind of argument that will justify those comments so don’t bother.

As for the separate comments comparing a meat eater and to a pedophile well that I have already explained. His comments will have generated attention but not the attention you suggest. Do you really think for one f**king minute that a mother at home with 2 kids is going to hear those comments and say “oh yes we must stop eating meat”.

The majority of meat eaters in the uk are working class families who for the most part will hear a vegan man stating that they are like pedophiles for eating meat and yes be shocked but it will absolutely turn them away from ever even thinking about stopping eating meat. They don’t want people calling them murderers or child abusers, they want people to educate them not shock them.

Most if not all vegans at some point ate meat.

And most would not have appreciated being called the same as a child sex abuser when they did and it would unlikely have made
them think about eating meat. For me it would definitely have had the opposite effect and I would likely have considered him a complete nutjob.

I know several animal welfare groups who were messaging about his comments at the time dreading the next time he opens his
mouth because everytime he has done in such a way they get inundated with email abuse from people who have children at home horrified by his comments. It doesn’t help the cause at all.

And I would include PETA in that list too.
I am pretty sure no one at peta was happy with the suffering of animals being in a competition with the suffering of sexually abused children.

You and he are sick and you always come on here and make controversial posts related to extreme veganism tactics including once saying if told to you wouldn’t have a problem pressing the button to gas meat eaters.

You are a vile person and your twisted objective is to always jump in when you get any inkling regarding a vegan angle to take control of the whole subject to push your twisted view of animal welfare.

Animal welfare requires empathy. Empathy is not a feeling only restricted to one segment of suffering but to any suffering by any living being.

Anyone who says it is justified to state that a meat eater is worse than a child abuser has one main fault and that is a complete lack of empathy on behalf of victims of child abuse.

It is sick and disgusting and I have no interest in communicating with you again.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The obvious choice is no. 1, because those animals are already raped, tortured, & dead, and I didn't subsidize that (my kidnappers did), while the child is still alive and unmolested. The more appropriate question would be, you are forced to choose between: 1. raping a heifer with a rod, 2. raping a child with a dildo, or 3. doing neither & being killed.

If you were to give more Morrissey an ounce of charity, you would allow him to be understood as talking about the rape and torture behind the meal. Anyone who was even remotely interested in taking him seriously would give him that allowance. It doesn't "belittle" anyone for him to make the comparison. His whole point is that he is horrified by pedophilia, as we all should be, and that there are things just as horrific that many people turn a blind eye towards.
You have changed the choice options.

To a meat eater the animal is already dead.
He didn’t say the meat industry was worse that a child abuser.
He said a meat eater was worse than a pedophile. So in this scenario I assume he would choose option 2.
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
Absolute nonsense

For interest I have been a non meat eater for longer than you and Morrissey.

More pissing-contest braggadocio. Does someone have to be a vegan for 80 years before they can have an opinion different from yours without you calling it nonsense?

Nothing you can say will ever present any kind of argument that will justify those comments so don’t bother.

Fine; I won't.

Most if not all vegans at some point ate meat.

Correct. And vegans are lucky if they're 5% of the population. It's not like people don't know what veganism is; it's that most people are stiff-necked, and incapable of seeing past their own prejudices. But there are plenty of testimonies from people in the small minority who do bother to give a f*ck, who are grateful that Morrissey played a large part in making them vegetarian or vegan, and in popularizing the philosophy. This "sick and immoral" man (according to you) has probably had a more significant impact than you or your milquetoast charity have. I suspect some envy must be fueling your vitriol here.

I know several animal welfare groups who were messaging about his comments at the time dreading the next time he opens his
mouth because everytime he has done in such a way they get inundated with email abuse from people who have children at home horrified by his comments. It doesn’t help the cause at all.

And I would include PETA in that list too.
I am pretty sure no one at peta was happy with the suffering of animals being in a competition with the suffering of sexually abused children.

You're wrong on that one. PETA saw his words for what you can't. PETA | Morrissey: Meat-Eating Is No Different From Pedophilia. "Morrissey has once again given the masses food for thought with his latest provocative proclamation. [ ... ] Not surprisingly, Morrissey’s comments have generated worldwide attention and have prompted people to consider the painful parallels between the abuse of humans and the abuse of animals."

You and he are sick and you always come on here and make controversial posts related to extreme veganism tactics including once saying if told to you wouldn’t have a problem pressing the button to gas meat eaters.

This is maybe the third time you've twisted my words on that. "Please don't misquote. I didn't say I would 'happily' gas them; I said I would do it if a vegan-fascist administration required it of me. If there is collateral damage in an effort to spare the animals, then I would accept that as a matter course."

I have no interest in communicating with you again.

Then why did you type an essay at me in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
You have changed the choice options.

To a meat eater the animal is already dead.
He didn’t say the meat industry was worse that a child abuser.

The meat industry exists for the meat eater. It doesn't torture, rape, and kill for its own pleasure in those things; it does so for the purchaser's pleasure. If you have been "working tirelessly" in the animal rights trenches for as long as you claim, then surely you know the economics of all this. The pig is killed because the demand for slaughtered pigs is made by the person buying meat. Of course the animal is already dead when the meat is bought. Most people don't know how to slaughter & butcher a hog.

He said a meat eater was worse than a pedophile. So in this scenario I assume he would choose option 2.

He didn't say "worse than," he said "no difference." He made an equivalence. He was saying we have an obligation to condemn all cruelty and suffering.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The meat industry exists for the meat eater. It doesn't torture, rape, and kill for its own pleasure in those things; it does so for the purchaser's pleasure. If you have been "working tirelessly" in the animal rights trenches for as long as you claim, then surely you know the economics of all this. The pig is killed because the demand for slaughtered pigs is made by the person buying meat. Of course the animal is already dead when the meat is bought. Most people don't know how to slaughter & butcher a hog.



He didn't say "worse than," he said "no difference." He made an equivalence. He was saying we have an obligation to condemn all cruelty and suffering.
Not f***king interested in anything you have to say. You talk sh*t. No mention of the Weinstein or Spacey comments. Just some usual dull diatribe about veganism. The Weinstein comments where he said the child victim played along with the abuse in defence of the pedo leads to the meat eater comparison. Anyone who thinks a pedo victim has any blame with regards to their abuse doesn’t see pedophilia as “cruelty and suffering”.

You add your opinion to his statements and say “this is what he meant” when he has never said that. You are interpreting what he didn’t say.

“I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia”.

I see a massive difference.


The British singer Morrissey defended both Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein in an interview this weekend, claiming their alleged victims knew “exactly” what was going on — and chose to “play along.”

“Afterward, they feel embarrassed, or they do not like it,” Morrissey said while speaking to the German news outlet Der Spiegel.

“And then they turn it around and say: I was attacked, I was surprised, I was dragged into the room.”

You attack people for being woke and being snowflakes in relation to being offended by these comments but in reality large numbers of people consider vegans as woke and yoga snowflakes and the opposite to be meat eaters. You use imagery that just fails to achieve converts amongst the very people you compare to child abusers.

Macho Militant veganism is the worst thing for people trying to help people to understand animal welfare and move to a more sustainable diet.

Anyone who condones the kind of pedophilia apologist statements like the above I would quite like to put them all on an island with a pride of lions and leave the rest of us to progress to a better animal friendly future. Was that woke enough for you?
 

Aubrey McFate

Burn down the disco
Not f***king interested in anything you have to say. You talk sh*t. No mention of the Weinstein or Spacey comments. Just some usual dull diatribe about veganism. The Weinstein comments where he said the child victim played along with the abuse in defence of the pedo leads to the meat eater comparison. Anyone who thinks a pedo victim has any blame with regards to their abuse doesn’t see pedophilia as “cruelty and suffering”.

You add your opinion to his statements and say “this is what he meant” when he has never said that. You are interpreting what he didn’t say.

“I see no difference between eating animals and paedophilia”.

I see a massive difference.


The British singer Morrissey defended both Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein in an interview this weekend, claiming their alleged victims knew “exactly” what was going on — and chose to “play along.”

“Afterward, they feel embarrassed, or they do not like it,” Morrissey said while speaking to the German news outlet Der Spiegel.

“And then they turn it around and say: I was attacked, I was surprised, I was dragged into the room.”

You attack people for being woke and being snowflakes in relation to being offended by these comments but in reality large numbers of people consider vegans as woke and yoga snowflakes and the opposite to be meat eaters. You use imagery that just fails to achieve converts amongst the very people you compare to child abusers.

Macho Militant veganism is the worst thing for people trying to help people to understand animal welfare and move to a more sustainable diet.

Anyone who condones the kind of pedophilia apologist statements like the above I would quite like to put them all on an island with a pride of lions and leave the rest of us to progress to a better animal friendly future. Was that woke enough for you?

You say you have "no interest in communicating with [me] again," and then you compose another angry diatribe. You tell me "nothing you can say will ever present any kind of argument that will justify those comments so don’t bother," and then when I don't bother, you ask me why I didn't follow up on that topic. You're impossible.

Where have I added my own opinion to Morrissey's comments? I'm not watering them down, or cherry-picking the nice bits, or lavishing them with eisegesis in order to preserve a hagiography (as a certain loony does on here). I'm defending the words he unambiguously and plainly said. I have no need to embellish them; I agree with them as they are.

You can wish to put me on an island to be devoured by lions. It doesn't bother me. Should you care for any clarity, though, I'm not a "macho militant vegan." I think maleness is a part of the problem. Statistically, women are more likely to be persuaded of animal rights arguments then men. And there's a whole "real men eat red meat" movement out there in the manosphere. Machismo is an enemy. Nor am I militant; I'm resigned to the impotency of animal rights philosophy. I'm not against ankle-biting, though. Alas, it's all we can do, and all we will ever do (which is where I disagree with Morrissey. He's somewhat more optimistic). I expect climate change will do the trick, though. "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Top Bottom