Viewing blog entries in category: Random Cultural Things - Page 6

  • realitybites
    Smiths Fans

    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG][​IMG]
  • realitybites
    *Update wit screenshots mid-post.
    ** Update 4/28/2014 near bottom of post.

    Dear Pet Troll,
    Who are you?

    [​IMG]

    Let me ponder it while I listen to this classic.

    So then... Who are you?
    Who, who, who, who?

    Well, who are you?
    I really wanna know.
    Tell me, who are you?
    'Cause I really wanna know.


    *4/18/2014 ~ Pet Troll is Morrithey.

    [​IMG]

    Or read this post. One of his many user names...

    [​IMG]

    PT hates me because my ex posted his address in the chatroom back in 2005 after he had posted our details there, contacted my ex's employer, and sent hate mail to our family members. He hates David because David allows 'fat shaming' on Solo. He wants censorship for others but not for himself. Why am I not surprised?

    Pet Troll/Morrithey wanted me to think he was TBT, Viva, and Dave. Why did I not think it was Morrithey from the beginning? Because Occam's Razor. Think the obvious and simplest explanation first. Who didn't seem to like me on Solo? Who was smart enough to pull it off? Who had a motive? Who had I interacted with lately? What I forgot was that the person who had the biggest motive of all was the biggest troll in the history of Solo, who also is highly educated and intelligent and has a degree in IT. All the elements were right there.

    Cat and mouse game is up. He wanted it to be up, I think. He was posting clues in the site suggestions forum.

    Mystery Solved. He can continue to harass, stalk, and follow me around the forums. But now that I know who it is and even have a real life name to go with this person, he has lost his power. He really is my PET Troll now, literally.

    Well, one thing we know for certain is that Pet Troll is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay, of course. But he seems to have issues with 'gay shaming'. I wonder if he is in the closet about his sexual orientation IRL, like he is in the closet about his 'identity' here? Seems to be a man who likes to live in the shadows.

    **Update 4/28/30. Pet Troll has been conspicuously absent from the forums for five days—ever since I outed him on 4/23. This is after he was trolling me non-stop, every single day, for over eight months. He is running sacred. He knows that I have his real name (posted in between the user name Morrithey and Lesbian Liberation in the first screenshot ^^^ above.) I have his hate emails, libelous Amazon book review which can be traced back to him, and proof he tried to hack into my Gmail account on April 21. Google now documents these things and notifies the account holder providing traceable details. It is all documented. I am sure his employer would love to hear what this git has been doing on the clock. I also have an arrest report for him.

    Let's hope he is gone for good. It pays to have perseverance.
  • realitybites
    Morrissey Fans


    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
  • realitybites
    So much negativity. Some people can bring out the worst in me. Others can bring out the best. Women. They can be tough nuts to crack. Perhaps the stereotype of them being petty, catty, jealous, envious, and competitive with one another has some merit. As has been demonstrated here on Solo. Numerous times. I like women. I do. But I seem to become the target of their wrath, for some reason. Perhaps for those reasons previously mentioned. Whatever the case may be, I find this disheartening. But instead of focusing on this, here and now, I want to share a positive thing about female friendships. These are a rare and wonderful thing to be had, in my world. Something to be cherished, once found.

    I feel very fortunate in these last months to have met a wonderful woman online. It was by chance really. No planets lined up. No wishes came true. Just chance. It could have just as easily gone the other way. It started on Facebook. I asked a woman to be my friend. We share many of the same Moz friends, so why not, I thought? Then after she accepted my request, we chatted a bit. And we found out we were both posters at Solo. She used to post regularly in the past, when I was not active—but had stopped. And now, I was active. So we never interacted there. But then after our correspondence on Facebook, she decided to have another look on Solo. And made some posts. Wow, was she intelligent, and witty, and funny as hell, I decided. I liked her personality right away. She was assertive, yet gracious. Classy, yet down to earth.

    Then she started the Friendship Thread which was about female friendships, primarily. Through our posts, we realized we had so much in common. Our experiences with women and men were quite similar. We realized that although we were two anomalies—unlike the other women on the forum—at least we were like each other. So we were not freaks, after all. This was kind of a bonding moment, I think. And so we started emailing one another. And became fast friends. I can honestly say this is one of the nicest, most positive, friendships I have had in a long time. I am looking forward to the journey. Not worried at all about where I am going, just enjoying it day by day.

    Trouble may love you. But I luvs you too!
  • realitybites
    Warning: This is going to get ugly.

    Was I left with any other choice?

    How long will this psychodrama continue? I hope it ends here. Why do I fear this is not the case? Because I am dealing with an angry woman—an angry woman who holds onto things: people, objects, and grudges. She is obsessed and angry. A lethal combination.

    See Part I.

    I am posting this here because hand in glove has a habit of deleting her blog posts. She has been a blogger for longer than I have. But she erased ten years of posts because they were embarrassing, pathetic rants about her ex boyfriend Chris, who she refused to let go of. I told you she hoards things. He is just one thing she hoards. She hoards celebrities as well. Forms obsessions and dedicates her body and soul to them. Loyalty is the highest virtue. Her motto, literally is, I'll always be true to you.

    Let me start off by saying that hand in glove IS on ignore now. I did not know that she could not post comments in my blog, while on ignore. I do now. I put her on ignore a while back—after I wrote that blog post about people who are on my ignore list. The list is not static. It is dynamic. I temporarily removed the ignore block from her, thinking I could not send her a PM if it were activated. I sent her a PM after her nasty blog post titled, Frankly Ms Shankly. I told her to Fuck Off, hoping it would end there. I kept her off of ignore though, giving her a chance to reply. She didn't. I wondered if it all would end there. It didn't. Instead she launched a vicious diatribe, making false accusations. I replied. And she has now responded to my reply. And I am replying once again to her response. Let's hope it ends here. This is ridiculous.

    I will now address some of her claims/comments.

    This is ridiculous because you and I have no history or friendship to salvage. I have known you casually through our blogs, but that is it.

    I used your name in my previous reply as you have used it in the forums in the past. You used my name. Fair is fair.

    OK, the purple font HAS GOT TO GO. What are we in middle school? Grow up. Seriously. If you could doodle hearts and arrows in your blog, I am almost certain they'd be there. So I am changing it back to black. Oh, do you really think your favorite color has ANYTHING to do with your personality? What if you are blind? What if my fave color is light blue, and that is not an option? Believing your fave color says anything about your temperament or personality is fallacious. As fallacious as astrology. Oh dear, you believe in astrology as well? This explains why you are capable of believing many things based on faith. This explains also why you seem to be so fond of CG. You are very similar in many ways. You both have a very nasty streak—like to hit below the belt. You are both never married, single, childless, and overweight. And you both post private messages on the forums or in your blogs. Very unethical, to say the least. Says a great deal about your character. You are not to be trusted. Also it harps back to that hoarding habit. Saving private messages? For what reason? Ammunition? Evidence? You don't LET ANYTHING GO.

    Friends are another thing you hoard. Like Solo friends, which you keep mentioning you have, from so many years ago. Guess what? Two of those old 'friends' of yours are actually my friends. I still interact with them regularly. One of them doesn't have anything nice to say about you at all. Thinks Chris was a figment of your imagination. He thought your whole blog was a joke—the rantings of a lunatic. But whatever. Glad you have friends here. No one EVER said you didn't.

    There was never a gang. I made this clear to you before. I am civil with most people. They turned on me because they don't want friends on Solo. That is NOT why they are here. My opinion is that, I was a means to an end. Viva in particular wanted CG banned. Once his efforts failed, I lost utility. They are loyal to no one. It says nothing about me. Plus, really, I have nothing in common with any of them—except maybe Skylarker. We both enjoy writing. That is about it, Leslie.

    You are in denial, a liar, or have not been paying attention. Is calling someone fat after being stalked and harassed non-stop for months on end, really the worst thing that I could have said to her? Is it worse than her suggesting I am having an incestual relationship with my son? Did you miss that one? Or was it willful ignorance? Perhaps being childless yourself, you failed to grasp the cruelty of it? Perhaps being childless herself, was the reason such a comment could have been uttered? It was the sickest thing I have read on theses forums—ever. Morrissey could have AIDS. I could NEVER have this kind of relationship with my son. The former is speculation. The latter, defamation of character. So no, my comment was not worse. Especially when she claims she is proud of her looks and size. So apparently is was NOT even an insult to her. Or is she lying about that?

    But Morrissey calls people fat dozens of times in his book. How come Morrissey can call people fat and you take no offense? But if I do, I am stooping to an all time low, one which your best friend would never even stoop to? I guess she is better than Moz then? Might want to check your logic there. And btw, your anorectic friend may not call people fat. But believe me, she is thinking they are. I'll bet my right arm on it.

    I understand why, as an overweight woman, you took personal offense to my comment, however. I did not mean to hurt the feelings of every overweight person on the forum. I actually DO regret those comments. Now that David has placed a ban on her trolling me and Robby outside the Pigsty, she has not been stalking or harassing me. This ban led to severe frustration, so she acted out where she could—in the Pigsty—starting that hate thread to vent. That is what the Pigsty was set up for, apparently. And it has been working. I knew I could ignore her on my own. She needed Big Brother to step in and make her ignore me. The forum has been so much nicer without her hate being spewed all over the place. Her not baiting and stalking me means I am not having to defend myself at every turn or resort to insulting her just to get a shot in. No one, shy of you and a few trolls, think that thread in the Pigsty is admirable. She looks like a complete tool for starting it. You are a fool if you think it is justified. This speaks greatly about your character—another CG commonality. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest it is all due to ignorance—you have no idea what was going on in the forums, but I am not so sure.

    I've never commented on Hitch's weight, neither when he was well, nor after he took ill. NEVER. It does not offend me in the slightest that you think Hitchens was fat. What does offend me, however, is that you read his book and are still a practicing Catholic. Clearly you failed to comprehend exactly what you read. Oh wait, you said you had the book, you didn't say you actually read it. No time for that right? Too busy making other people feel good? And look good? Why not try nurturing yourself for once? Feed your mind. People who spend ten hours a day pampering others need to take time to pamper themselves. I could NEVER do what you do. Give, give, give. Emotional prostitution, imo. CG more intelligent? No. And why would you be capable of judging such a thing, anyway? That is like asking a high school dropout to sit as a judge in a bench trial. You are not endowed with the ability/qualifications to make such judgements. Let the intelligent folks among us decide these things.

    I don't think you are educated or intelligent. Sorry. You are average. You may not have time to post or get into debates with others here. No time for ongoing, thought-provoking discussions. Fine. Completely understandable. But if you are going to have a blog, you might as well give us your best. The content and style of your blog is subpar. It is not engaging, informative, interesting, inspiring, enlightening, or humorous. It is dull—like you. Half of the entries are videos celebrating one of your many idols—a death, a birthday, etc. Boring. Pedestrian. So no, I don't think there is much ability there at all.

    No, you NEVER SEE the latter. That is EXACTLY what I, and others, are doing. All that talk about his vegetarian hypocrisy and misogynistic lyrics and prose, IS about discussing these ideas in general. What does it mean when he says this or that? Why does he say these things? How does it make me feel? How do these things relate to society at large? You have no idea what the differences are between ad hominem (to the man) attacks and critiques of behaviors and ideas, do you? You have no real critical thinking skills. Another thing that points to your lack of education and reasoning ability.

    Oh, I thought you said you lacked time. (I said you lacked ability.) Hmm. Now you are saying you lack ambition. You'll sort it out one day, I am sure.

    I hope so. I will hold you to that.

    See Part I.
  • realitybites
    See Part II.

    Hand In Glove—Leslie—does the world revolve around you, my dear? Are all of my blog posts about you? Are ANY of them about you? Do you think you mean that much to me? You don't. And even though you seem to think I have been talking about you in my blog, I have not. All my posts, in fact, are about other people—people I DO interact with on the forums. You are invisible in the forums. You hardly post. You are a non-entity. You have no positive impact or negative one. That you believe you are affecting my thoughts and feelings, is humorous, to say the least.

    That I am having to address you here, in my blog, is absurd. You have written three blog entries in the last month which attack me. You don't allow comments in your blog. So, I must reply here, now. Yes I read your blog posts. Ignore? Are you on ignore? Where did you get that impression? Oh, I know, you assumed, erroneously, that I was referring to you. Here is where your little paranoid trip began...

    What you failed to realize is that I have been battling other, larger forces on the forums. I have several people on ignore. That is what I was talking about. Why you thought I meant you, is beyond me.

    You think I put you on ignore for not answering a PM about reporting MA? Wrong. First off, the last PM I sent you was after your mom went in for her surgery. I asked how she was. You never replied. This was long after the PM about MA.

    Regarding the PM about MA: When Misguided Angel started posting here, you informed me she had sent you some odd PMs—asking if you were Morrissey. This was back in October, I believe. Then she started sending others similar messages. And was posting strange, convoluted, and cryptic things on the forums. People were confused. She seemed like she was a troll or mentally ill. I reported—asked—David if she could be a troll. He said she did not seem to be one of the usual suspects. Then I started a thread—to let the posters know what she had been up to behind the scenes. Then it stopped. Miraculously she started posting like a normal person and has been doing so ever since. ???

    So then, a whole month later—mid November, I sent you a PM about your mother. And that was the last time I initiated contact with you. I figured you wanted nothing to do with me. I respected that. I figured you did not like the content of my posts on the forums, as you have pointed out several times.

    So anyhow, after my blog post which talked about ignoring posters, and my thoughts in general about Solo, you then wrote this...

    Then I posted this... about people on the forums. The 'personality of a potato' was in reference to Reelaround, who bitches about me, but never contributes content of her own. She has the personality of a potato, imo. You assumed again, erroneously, that I was talking about you. (My two Someecards posts were not about you at all. Though the passive aggressive one could be, if I am to be honest.) And thus wrote...

    this
    I was a little shocked when I saw that. But what could I do? I could have said it was not about you in the comments section of your blog post. But you don't allow comments. Why is that, anyway? A control thing? Well of course it is.

    Anyhow, then, out of the blue, you wrote this two days ago. It was obvious it was about me. And you have now admitted it was.


    So, because I could not comment in your blog, and you do not respond to PMs, I could not address it through the usual channels. And I really did not want to write about it in my blog. (I don't like writing about this petty crap in it right now. I value each of my blog posts and like the way they fit together as a whole. I don't want it contaminated with ridiculous catty things.) I was left with no means of communicating with you. Or clearing up your faulty presumptions. Then I saw Misguided Angel's blog post...

    It was written right after you posted yours. Seemingly, her post was about what you wrote. It looked that way to me, anyhow. So I posted my general thoughts about what you wrote and also about what has been happening in the forums... with cryptic song posting (not by you) and general insults by certain posters and a hate thread started in my name. You see, I too have bigger fish to fry. This is what I wrote...

    This time the potato comment was about you. I knew you thought my prior post was, so I took advantage of that. Well, you assumed the whole post was about you and instead of settling it in private, you decide to write a grand diatribe against me...

    And this should bring anyone up to speed and help explain what the heck you are on about and why. And so now I am replying to your, A Reply. I was going to ignore it all. But then I thought it best to clear up the misconceptions, faulty assumptions. And I hope I have done that here. I don't wish to add fuel to your fire. Nor do I wish to insult you or assassinate your character.

    You know how I feel about the free expression of ideas. You know that davidt also feels the same. You are free to use your voice to counterbalance things out. If you don't like the content, tone, etc. of my posts, you are free to make your own arguments or to refute mine with intelligent retorts. This place allows free expression for everyone, including you.

    If you don't think Morrissey writes some lyrics and passages that can be considered misogynistic, then you don't. It is not your job or duty to control the content of these forums. People will always have opinions that you do not agree with—no matter where you go. You want to live in a bubble that is all sweet and Moz-positive? Where there is no criticism? No dissent? Where group-think rules supreme? This is not realistic or even healthy. The real world does not function this way. Why would you expect discussions on an Internet forum to?

    You clearly have some control issues. You feel powerless over what others think and write. We are ALL powerless over others. You have two choices. Accept this fact and only worry about yourself and do not read posts by those whose views differ from your own—stay inside a carefully constructed filter bubble. Or, read the posts and challenge them. Write intelligent, witty retorts.

    You could be a challenging voice. But you choose not to for various reasons i.e. lack of time, ambition, ability. All three? Probably. It is not my fault if you don't offer your opinions/views. I am passionate about ideas and enjoy sharing them with others. And I have every right to be here—as much as you do. You don't get to decide who is worthy of being here and who isn't. Or who is a 'real' fan, and who isn't.

    I'd appreciate you put me on ignore and not read my posts in the forums if they upset you. Only you can control what you read. I will continue to be myself and say what I think, regardless of your opinion of me.

    You are free to address my post in the comments section. I DO allow comments. Most blogs do. It allows for discussion—a dialogue—to take place, not just a one-way street—monologue.

    See Part II.
  • realitybites
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  • realitybites
    To commemorate my ten year anniversary of being a blogger at Solo, I have put together a book, in PDF format, of my favorite polemical writings from the last ten years. I have titled it...

    Consider This...​


    [​IMG]

    Download PDF Here.
  • realitybites
    Ten years
    Almost 600 blog entries
    8,685 posts
    Friends
    Loves
    Husband
    Ex husband
    Trolls
    Debates
    Loss
    Book
    Names:
    Carnist
    Speciesist
    Narcissist
    Fake
    Themes:
    Cats
    Atheism
    Love
    Sexuality
    Authenticity
    Envy
    Trust
    Betrayal
    Free speech
    Private messages
    Cryptic posts
    Anonymous posting
    Listening to thread
    Sharing
    Psychopaths
    Morrissey
    Sycophants
  • realitybites
    A disembodied mind could be an immortal mind.

    I want to have my mind uploaded before dementia sets in. Then all that data to be downloaded into a computer. I would be happy to be without a body. Would actually prefer for my mind to be disembodied. I could live inside a computer. People could download an App if they want to access me, interact with me. I could have an online blog/website where I continue to post my thoughts and whatnot. I could have instant access to all the information on the Net. Could download it instantly into my hard drive—me. Wow. I am getting excited just thinking about the possibilities.

    Alleviating pain.

    One benefit to being disembodied, would be the absence of physical pain. And, I'd argue, psychic pain as well. Because, how much suffering that occurs in the mind, is necessitated by having a body? Doesn't depression start as an organic process inside the brain? What about schizophrenia? Aren't these diseases of the physical brain structure itself? Surely it is not due to faulty thinking by a mind with free will. Brain misfirings limit free will, causing irrational thinking, delusions, anxiety, and depression. A brain without organic matter, such as one that acts like a program inside a computer, would be free of these misfirings. Psychic suffering could be rendered non-existent as well. Even grief would no longer have to exist, because loss would not have to manifest. If my loved ones' minds were immortal as well, then no relationship would have to end—unless by choice. Suffering could become a thing of the past. Even animals would be relieved of suffering. They would not be used by humans—for anything. Would animals then become irrelevant to human life? Would we still want them around? Maybe for aesthetic reasons alone? Who would take care of the earth if we all lived in computers? And who would take care of us? Would a group of mortal humans need to stick around to keep us running smoothly—in tip top shape? Maybe we'd all start out as embodied caretakers of other minds. Then we'd become disembodied—immortalized once we reach a certain age. Perhaps some of us would produce caretakers—our caretakers—before we become disembodied. Overpopulation would not be an issue, as life as a computer program would not require much space or resources—no food, water, transportation, clothing, or personal shelter needed.

    What about pleasure? Would we have to give that up?

    Would we then be unable to feel pleasure? Would pleasure even be missed in the absence of pain? How does a brain without a body feel pleasure? Do I feel pleasure when I learn new information because endorphins are released in my brain—bathing it in serotonin and dopamine? Or is something else going on? Why am I excited, happy, and high when a quest for information materializes? Are endorphins being released, making the payoff feel good? Knowledge seems intrinsically valuable—to the mind. I don't seem to need a reward for learning something new? The reward is learning itself, right? Or is it? Is this just an illusion?Are some brains rewarded by feel-good endorphins which cause pleasurable sensations in the brain—making them feel that they are craving knowledge? Are information junkies really endorphin junkies? Would an inorganic brain without endorphins still be motivated to learn? Or is it a system of punishment and reward? Could a brain be made to crave information without an organic reward? Is having information and knowledge what makes a mind so wonderful? Or is it the drive for knowledge, that is the real beauty of it? Are the ends (knowledge) irrelevant? And the means (drive), where the wonder, magic, and value reside? What is a beautiful mind, anyhow? Its ability and desire to learn, or the information it contains? Or both? I say both.

    What motivates us?

    Why are some people so driven to learn, while others are not? An example might be a skilled athlete who is driven to master his athleticism—push his abilities to their limits, extremes—but has little interest in reading, writing, or discussing ideas. Perhaps only an intellectual could entertain the notion of, and desire for, their mind to be housed in a computer for all eternity—to be disembodied—where it could learn at rapid speed and acquire an endless supply of information and knowledge. Is this something that is utterly undesirable to an athlete, whose body itself is the vehicle—the means to the end— to pleasure? What if there were no pleasure endorphins at all? Would a mind want to think? A body want to move? Maybe technology would render pleasure possible in a disembodied mind—even one which was 100% inorganic. Electrical impulses, perhaps?

    What about you?

    Are you an intellectual? Do you place thinking at a premium? Ever refer to yourself as an information junkie? Would you rather learn than eat, make love, or take a walk? Do you want to live inside a computer too? Email me. I think we could be great friends.

    Companion piece: A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste

    From 2005: Mind Transferring

    Mind Uploading

    Ray Kurzweil — Immortality by 2045
  • realitybites
    If in the future, we have the ability to save minds from disease and decay, should we make them immortal by housing them in new bodies every three decades? Or should we let them die to make room for new minds? What if overpopulation were not an issue? Or if we could house the minds in computers? Should we keep minds alive forever? I say yes, we should.

    Don't you think it is more tragic for a fully developed personality to die rather than for a new 'potential one' not to be born? Let the people who already live continue to exist. And keep new ones from being born. Sterilization (voluntary) would solve that problem. All future births could be sterile. Parenthood—having children—would become something to read about rather than experience firsthand. Or we could inhabit and populate other planets. Perhaps by the time we could become 'immortal', the technology that would make living on Mars will also have been developed.

    Why let the already developed personalities live on instead of replacing them with new ones? Because the mind gets better over time. If it is possible to keep the brain healthy and free of disease, then the benefits of a mind that is full of knowledge and experience is of great worth for both historical and practical reasons, and would only become more valuable over time.

    It seems like a huge loss for someone's mind, which spends its whole life getting better, to have to decay and die. Why shouldn't the journey continue, forever? People look at the past through nostalgic lenses, stating, oh I wish I lived in the 20s, or 50s. In the future, we could live through hundreds of decades. Think what this experience and information would afford us. The utility of a super intelligent mind can't be overstated. Think if Einstein were still alive. Or other brilliant philosophical, scientific, or literary minds such as Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, or Beethoven. What technologies and discoveries and wisdom could they impart if they were still churning out creative works and brilliant ideas today? A mind is a terrible thing to waste. The body is just a vehicle to house the mind. It is replaceable. The mind is unique, irreplaceable. Give me a new body. Or house my brain's data in a computer. Just let my mind live on forever.

    Do we need new blood to have fresh ideas? Do old minds become rusty? Or are these just stereotypes—assumptions not based on evidence? How do we know that these geniuses wouldn't still actively be producing output for hundreds or thousands of years? It would be worth finding out. But not all of us are geniuses, right? Does that mean our minds are not just as valuable? Not really. Most minds are worth saving.

    What about heaven? Wouldn't an afterlife offer a form of immortality for my mind? Yes. But heaven is an illusion—a product of wishful thinking. If it can't be proven to exist, it most likely doesn't. I'm putting my money in science—the natural world. The supernatural world is for dreamers. I am a realist.

    Companion piece: A Disembodied Mind

    From 2005: Mind Transferring

    Mind Uploading

    Ray Kurzweil — Immortality by 2045
  • realitybites
    Morrissey states: "If you believe in the abattoir then you would support Auschwitz. There's no difference. People who would disagree with this statement have probably never been inside an abattoir."

    [​IMG] < [​IMG]



    Are his comments insensitive, even crass? Well, yes.

    The Nazis DEHUMANIZED Jews, gays, Gypsies, the handicapped, and other undesirables, under the UNSCIENTIFIC theories of Eugenics, reducing the status of these humans to the status of non-human animals. So, Auschwitz victims were regarded as being non-human animals—just like cattle. The modern meat industry treats animals as non-humans—as they are—just like cattle. Thus, non-human animals are just like the non-humans of Auschwitz. This is the logic behind Morrissey's proposition. It makes sense on paper. And coming from Jewish intellectuals and scholars who survived the Holocaust, makes it look more legitimate. Who can argue with the victims of the Holocaust themselves, right?

    Morrissey claiming animals are treated like the victims of Auschwitz is not a new argument, nor one which he concocted. But, even if it is logically sound, it is still insensitive coming from a non-Jew who is using the historical tragedy of a group of people for his own political purposes. It is emotional PROPAGANDA. And the Anti-Defamation League agrees.

    Humans were treated like non-human animals. Animals are not treated like humans. Jews are humans, NOT non-human animals. Are animals being treated like Jews? It was wrong to treat Jews like animals, right? Is it also, then, wrong to treat animals like animals? This is essentially what Morrissey and Newkirk are saying. It is wrong to treat animals like animals. We need to treat them like humans. So the question is, should we give animals the same consideration as humans? If we do, this would mean they could not be used for food, or resources such as milk and fur, labor of any kind, entertainment, or even be regarded as pets. Why? Because they cannot offer consent. And without consent, this would amount to involuntary exploitation and confinement. In other words, slavery. And slavery is illegal. Do you agree with that? If not, then you don't accept this argument. And neither does Morrissey, really, when you think about it. He is all talk and no action. Because the man consumes diary and owns pets.

    His inconsistency and hypocrisy is apparent to all, and makes him look like a silly, insensitive man, exploiting the tragedy of a group of people for his own selfish ideology—an ideology which in practice, he doesn't even fully embrace himself.
  • realitybites
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  • realitybites
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
  • realitybites
    This will be an ongoing entry, to be updated regularly with new podcasts and audio files. My faves are noted with a ♥. Podcasts hosted by Alan Saunders noted by *. (All digital art/images are by me.)

    The Existentialists:

    [​IMG]


    Albert Camus (reluctant philosopher/reluctant existentialist):
    Considered himself to be an absurdist rather than an existentialist, because unlike the other existentialists, he wasn't concerned with metaphysics, existence. Never believed himself a philosopher, but rather, a writer, as he was not interested in reason. Though arguably his essays and novels are philosophical and ask philosophical questions.

    What are We to Make of Albert? ♥ *

    Albert Camus and The Absurd ♥ *

    The Outsider ♥ *


    Søren Kierkegaard (father of existentialism):

    Kierkegaard 200 *

    Fear and Freedom *

    Kierkegaard in 90 Minutes



    Friedrich Nietzsche:

    Nietzsche and the Will to Power ♥ *


    Nietzsche in 90 Minutes


    Jean-Paul Sartre:

    Sartre in 90 Minutes ♥



    The Enlightenment Philosophers:

    [​IMG]


    David Hume:

    The Life of David Hume ♥ *

    Hume and God ♥ *

    Hume in 90 Minutes


    Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)
    :

    Voltaire’s Novel “Candide”


    Thomas Hobbes:

    The Life of Mr Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury *


    John Stuart Mill:

    John Stuart Mill's On Liberty: 150th anniversary *


    Baruch Spinoza:

    Spinoza in 90 Minutes


    Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

    Rousseau in 90 Minutes


    Other:

    The State of the Enlightenment (with Sam Harris)Enlightened Eccentrics in the Age of Reason ♥ *

    Thomas Paine - Christopher Hitchens Lecture (Full) ♥

    Christopher Hitchens on Thomas Jefferson: Enlightenment, Nation Building, and Slavery (2005) ♥



    The Idealists:

    [​IMG]


    Immanuel Kant:

    Kant in 90 Minutes


    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

    Hegel in 90 Minutes


    Arthur Schopenhauer:

    Schopenhauer in 90 Minutes


    George Berkeley:

    The Strange Birth of Idealism *



    The Analytic Philosophers:

    [​IMG]


    Ludwig Wittgenstein:

    Wittgenstein in 90 Minutes ♥


    Bertrand Russell:

    Why I Am Not a Christian ♥ ♥



    The Greeks:

    [​IMG]


    Plato's Symposium (Origin of the notion of Platonic love.)

    Socrates: Man and Myth


    Unforgettable Speeches: the Apology of Socrates *



    Moral Philosophy:

    [​IMG]


    Utilitarianism:

    Utilitarianism ♥ * (with Peter Singer)

    Other:

    What is Morality? ♥ *

    Morality and Restraint ♥ *

    Can Science Shape Human Values? And Should It? ♥

    The Moral Judgment of Psychopaths ♥ *

    Martha Nussbaum - Part 1 - The Social Contract ♥ *

    Martha Nussbaum Part 2: Thinking about Animals ♥ *

    Eric Schwitzgebel on the Ethical Behaviour of Ethics Professors ♥

    The Trials and Tribulations of Private Bradley Manning




    The New Atheists:

    [​IMG]


    Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry - Blasphemy [2006]


    Peter Singer - Ethics Without Religion ♥

    Author Challenges Faith of a 'Christian Nation' (Sam Harris)

    Atheist Brigade Takes Arguments to the Tolerant



    Marxism:

    [​IMG]


    What Would Karl Marx Think? *

    Marx in 90 Minutes



    Epistemology:

    [​IMG]


    What Do We Know and How Do We Know We Know It? *



    Metaphysics:

    [​IMG]


    Let's Get Metaphysical *

    Objective Truth *

    Metaphysics and Epistemology


    Other:

    [​IMG]


    Sayyid Qutb and Islamist Ideology *

    The History of Philosophy in Less Than an Hour


    Pragmatism - A Very American Philosophy *

    Thinking About the Lives of the Great Thinkers *

    A Philosophical History of Russia *



    [​IMG]


    A Romp Through the History of Philosophy From the Pre-Socratics to the Present Day

    How To Be A Fashionable Philosopher ♥ *

    Literature, Law and Ethics - The Case of Billy Budd *

    How Many Logics? *


    Christopher Hitchens: Philosophy and Drink


    [​IMG]


    Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilisation: 50th anniversary *

    Derrida - The Father of Deconstruction *


    A Tribute to Claude Levi-Strauss *

    AC Grayling: A Very Public Philosopher *


    Kafka and Philosophy *


    [​IMG]


    The Person Test *

    Patricia Churchland on Self-control

    It's All About Me, a Forum on the Philosophy of Self ♥ *

    It's All About Me, the Philosophy of Self Part 2: The Quiz ♥ *


    Love Potion ♥

    The Hipster Philosopher

    But is it Art?


    Is That Really You?



    Useful Links:

    Freedomain Radio Podcasts

    The Partially Examined Life

    Philosophy: Free Courses Online

    Open Culture: The Best Free Cultural & Educational Media on the Web

    The Philosopher's Zone