Morrissey: 'The Chinese Are A Subspecies'

[Stand Your Ground]

Morrissey has described the Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of the nation's track record of animal welfare.

The former Smiths singer, an advocate of animal rights and a vegetarian, made the comment to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-simon-armitage-interview), describing the population's attitude to animal rights as "horrific".

http://www.nme.com/news/morrissey/52855

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Its depressing to see such a talented lyricist and poet come out with such reactionary nonsense.

I'd say that its a naive comment though, based on a blind regard for animal welfare without looking at the economic conditions that leave animals in China so poorly treated.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Compleate bullshit.

People first,animals second.Which would you rather see-a human starving or a dog starving?

Neither are pretty but the superior lifeform always needs to come first.

[scarletghoul]

This coming from someone who blatantly gets their fashion tips from Kim
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2010/9/3/1283536688920/Morrissey-006.jpghttp://www.weirdasianews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/KimJongIl-Fashion-Icon.jpg
just saying

[Widerstand]

but the superior lifeform always needs to come first.

That's what Sarrazin said.

[Stand Your Ground]

Compleate bullshit.

People first,animals second.Which would you rather see-a human starving or a dog starving?

Neither are pretty but the superior lifeform always needs to come first.
That's just ridiculous. Neither should be starving. We are equal in our needs.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's just ridiculous. Neither should be starving. We are equal in our needs.

So if you could only save one, would you save the poor starving proletarian man or the dog?

Dogs are not part of the proletarian class. Maybe your logic would hold more if it's a dog and a starving bourgeois man, but the interests of the proletarian class, whether as individuals or as groups, always come before any other class or other species. In this sense yes we are selfish, and rightly so.

[Widerstand]

So if you could only save one, would you save the poor starving proletarian man or the dog?

Dogs are not part of the proletarian class. Maybe your logic would hold more if it's a dog and a starving bourgeois man, but the interests of the proletarian class, whether as individuals or as groups, always come before any other class or other species. In this sense yes we are selfish, and rightly so.

Proletarian chauvinism is one of the most perplexing phenomenons I've encountered on this forum.

[Bilan]

Proletarian chauvinism is one of the most perplexing phenomenons I've encountered on this forum.

Not to mention prolific.

[Jazzratt]

To be honest Morrisey has always been a total prick and a bit of a racist. This is the kind of shit I'd expect from him and, indeed from certain types of vegetarian; someone once said to me that butchers and abbatoir workers should recieve the death penalty.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with "proletarian chauvanism". I'd probably still save the person over the dog regardless of class, though.

[Chimurenga.]

I really love the man's music but sometimes he does say awful, childish things. For example, in an interview with Russell Brand, he compared the killing of animals to Nazi holocaust. I must say that I am suspicious that all of this comes from the NME. Morrissey and the NME haven't exactly been on the best of terms. Regardless, this is reactionary garbage that I would expect only from some right wing jackass (the racist comment, I mean).

[Widerstand]

I'm not really sure what's wrong with "proletarian chauvanism".

It's wrong when you derive such absurdities as "the life of a proletarian is worth more than any other form of live" from it:


the interests of the proletarian class, whether as individuals or as groups, always come before any other class or other species

[counterblast]

So if you could only save one, would you save the poor starving proletarian man or the dog?

Dogs are not part of the proletarian class. Maybe your logic would hold more if it's a dog and a starving bourgeois man, but the interests of the proletarian class, whether as individuals or as groups, always come before any other class or other species. In this sense yes we are selfish, and rightly so.


Hypotheticals rarely get us anywhere.

And comparing oppressions never get us anywhere.

So overall, I think this discussion is heading to a stalemate on both sides.


What is to be learned is that;

A) The animal rights movement is run by middle to upper class white people and often draws on sensationalized racism and classism to promote their agenda.
B) Most communist and anarchists are still too blinded by the commodification of everything or too stuck in 1910, to see anything or anyone except workers as victims of capitalist commodification.

[Queercommie Girl]

It's wrong when you derive such absurdities as "the life of a proletarian is worth more than any other form of live" from it:

Nothing wrong with a bit of "chauvinism" as you call it.

Without a healthy amount of selfishness, none of us can even survive for long.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Dogs are not part of the proletarian class.

They sort of are...


that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.


The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature


Maybe your logic would hold more if it's a dog and a starving bourgeois manStarving the bourgeoisie is not my preferred method of class vengeance, I'd rather watch them fight to the death for my amusement. :tt2:

[Stand Your Ground]

So if you could only save one, would you save the poor starving proletarian man or the dog?

Dogs are not part of the proletarian class. Maybe your logic would hold more if it's a dog and a starving bourgeois man, but the interests of the proletarian class, whether as individuals or as groups, always come before any other class or other species. In this sense yes we are selfish, and rightly so.
Two starving beings and one steak, save one and let the other die, or cut in it half and save both?

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Regarding Morrissey, his music is intelligent and catchy, but he's always been a racist bonehead. Let's look at his past words...


Bengali, Bengali / Oh, shelve your Western plans / And understand / That life is hard enough when you belong here


England for the English!


the higher the influx [of immigrants] into England the more the British identity disappears

Then there was his nationalist display at the Madstock '92 and his recent support for the Zionist project.

All and all this is why I prefer the Cure

[Widerstand]

Nothing wrong with a bit of "chauvinism" as you call it.

Without a healthy amount of selfishness, none of us can even survive for long.

No sorry, I fail to see how saying people should die because of their class falls under the "nothing wrong" category.

[Queercommie Girl]

No sorry, I fail to see how saying people should die because of their class falls under the "nothing wrong" category.

Why do you assume there is a kind of "universal human rights" that's completely class-independent?

Isn't class-independent ethical values something the bourgeois ruling class likes to promote, in order to dilute people's class consciousness?

[Widerstand]

Isn't class-independent ethical values something the bourgeois ruling class likes to promote, in order to dilute people's class consciousness?

They promote eating and drinking too. Do I stop eating and drinking now?

[Queercommie Girl]

They promote eating and drinking too. Do I stop eating and drinking now?

I don't agree there exists a class-independent universal human rights. If you do, then we are not in agreement, and nothing you say on this issue matters to me at all.

[gorillafuck]

People who think that killing animals is ethically equal to killing humans very often need to examine their first world existence. In most parts of the world eating meat is necessary.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Compleate bullshit.
Watch your fucking tongue and stop using such fucking foul language.:rolleyes:


People first,animals second.Which would you rather see-a human starving or a dog starving?

Neither. But if I was starving and I saw a starving animal when I finally got something to eat, I'd give it to the animal.



Neither are pretty but the superior lifeform always needs to come first.
Superiority is just another complex.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

People who think that killing animals is ethically equal to killing humans very often need to examine their first world existence. In most parts of the world eating meat is necessary.

I don't not eat meat by having more money or resources, I do it by dietary restriction. I keep wanting to be thinner at the waist.

[NGNM85]

It makes me cringe when he says things like this. I'd take a bullet for him, but on the subject of animal rights the man is completely deranged.

[gorillafuck]

It makes me cringe when he says things like this. I'd take a bullet for him, but on the subject of animal rights the man is completely deranged.
You would take a bullet for Morrissey?:confused:

[Jazzratt]

Neither. But if I was starving and I saw a starving animal when I finally got something to eat, I'd give it to the animal You're fucking mental.

[Chimurenga.]

Regarding Morrissey, his music is intelligent and catchy, but he's always been a racist bonehead. Let's look at his past words...

You quoted a line or two with obviously no understanding of the subject matter of those songs and this is how you concluded that Morrissey is a "racist bonehead"?

[Raúl Duke]

You're fucking mental.

Perhaps she's planning on eating the was-starving animal...who knows?

Also, this talk of being starved and having a starving animal or friend around while only having one meal is all hypothetical. What you would really do might be different than what you claim you will do. Also, it's focused on the moment; I mean in the long-term considerations have to be taken and one has to take adaptive measures towards make/gather/hunt food.

[Nolan]

That's just ridiculous. Neither should be starving. We are equal in our needs.

So feeding dogs is as important as feeding people?

This liberal feel-good bullshit irks me to no end.

[Nolan]

Neither. But if I was starving and I saw a starving animal when I finally got something to eat, I'd give it to the animal.

Are you alright upstairs?


Superiority is just another complex.

There's my answer then.

[M-26-7]

Not exactly shocking. There's an entire (long) section of his Wikipedia page called "Accusations of racism".

[Bilan]

Regarding Morrissey, his music is intelligent and catchy, but he's always been a racist bonehead. Let's look at his past words...







Then there was his nationalist display at the Madstock '92 and his recent support for the Zionist project.

All and all this is why I prefer the Cure

Moz has always been a bit of a backward prat, and if you read anything about him, it becomes quite clear that he also just loves to be controversial. I question the intentions of what he is saying only because he will likely come out in a few weeks saying that this is all bullshit and manipulative slander and bam! back in the headlines.

Even so, I still love the Smiths.

[Stand Your Ground]

So feeding dogs is as important as feeding people?

This liberal feel-good bullshit irks me to no end.
I didn't say we should go on hunting & gathering sessions for them, but if you see someone starving, dog or human, help if you can.

[NGNM85]

You would take a bullet for Morrissey?:confused:

He's one of the world's greatest lyricists. Songs like "Everyday is Like Sunday" or "Half a Person" are magnificent, beautiful works of art. I have hundreds of albums, but there's virtually no comparison. There aren't many artists who've affected me that deeply. He's absolutely brilliant.

[ComradeOm]

That's just ridiculous. Neither should be starving. We are equal in our needs.

...

Two starving beings and one steak, save one and let the other die, or cut in it half and save both?
What is it with RevLeft lately and the insistence that people are no better than animals?


You would take a bullet for Morrissey?I probably would if it weren't for the fact that he probably wouldn't appreciate. I like Morrissey's music but the man is a complete asshole

[Il Medico]

If I had to choose between me and a dog. I would choose me. If I had to choose to feed either a dog or another human being, I would choose the human. I absolutely love dogs (that fact really can't be overstated), but at the same time a human life is still more valuable to me. I guess that makes me a speciesist or whatever else is being thrown around in this thread. Meh.

[RedStarOverChina]

Didn't Sinophobia become legitimate and acceptable a long time ago?

[Roach]

Didn't Sinophobia become legitimate and acceptable a long time ago?
I think it's going to become worse in some years,not only because of the inter-imperialist competition between the west and China,but also because it's one of the less repressed and most subliminal form of racism.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

he also just loves to be controversial.

There are plenty of racists who fall back on that defense. In a context of extreme popularity enjoyed by nationalistic and xenophobic politics, I think it is totally irresponsibly to promote said nationalistic and xenophobic politics "to be controversial".

However I can say that I myself enjoy being controversial and have never had the urge to wrap my body in a Union Jack while standing in front of an enlarged image of a Nazi skinhead.

[Nihilist_Pig]

Why do you assume there is a kind of "universal human rights" that's completely class-independent?
There are no human rights. Life has no value or meaning of its own, only that which people ascribe to it. Thus, your statement that the life of the proletariat has any value over anyone/anything else's is meaningless. Unless you can prove that life itself has an objective purpose, which I seriously doubt you can.

Regarding Morrissey: never cared much for his music, I suppose he's just another pop star so no need to get emotional or anything.

[the last donut of the night]

It makes me cringe when he says things like this. I'd take a bullet for him, but on the subject of animal rights the man is completely deranged.

Uhm, we're not worried about his track record on animal rights. He just called the Chinese a subspecies...

[NGNM85]

There are plenty of racists who fall back on that defense. In a context of extreme popularity enjoyed by nationalistic and xenophobic politics, I think it is totally irresponsibly to promote said nationalistic and xenophobic politics "to be controversial".

However I can say that I myself enjoy being controversial and have never had the urge to wrap my body in a Union Jack while standing in front of an enlarged image of a Nazi skinhead.

Oh Jesus Christ, you're not going to bring that up again. Please, spare us the fake indignation over nonexistent bigotry. These charges are completely without substance, and the worst part is I think you know it.

[#FF0000]

Wait I thought it was sort of established that Morrisey was a bigot, even before this issue came up?

[Queercommie Girl]

So feeding dogs is as important as feeding people?

This liberal feel-good bullshit irks me to no end.

But surely not all men are equal. The idea of "class-independent universalistic human rights" is also a liberal idea.

I think I'd rather feed a proletarian dog than a bourgeois man.

(This is not intended as a joke, I'm making a serious statement)

[Queercommie Girl]

There are no human rights. Life has no value or meaning of its own, only that which people ascribe to it. Thus, your statement that the life of the proletariat has any value over anyone/anything else's is meaningless. Unless you can prove that life itself has an objective purpose, which I seriously doubt you can.

Regarding Morrissey: never cared much for his music, I suppose he's just another pop star so no need to get emotional or anything.

The very term "objective purpose" is an oxymoron. Purpose is fundamentally subjective in nature. But how can you say "subjective purpose" is somehow less worthy than "objective purpose"? Just because life has no objective meaning doesn't imply it has no intrinsic meaning. The intrinsic meaning of life is indeed subjective.

Unless you believe in a God, why would you even look for objective justifications for the purpose of life?

As the Chinese leftist author Lu Xun said, "in the world there are no roads, roads only emerge as many people walk over them".

However, this subjective purpose is also collectivist rather than just individualistic in nature, and that's where class interests come in.

In short, human rights are important because we are human.

[Widerstand]

But surely not all men are equal. The idea of "class-independent universalistic human rights" is also a liberal idea.

I think I'd rather feed a proletarian dog than a bourgeois man.

(This is not intended as a joke, I'm making a serious statement)

What the fuck is a proletarian dog?

[Queercommie Girl]

What the fuck is a proletarian dog?

A dog who lives in a proletarian environment, e.g. has a proletarian owner.

[Widerstand]

A dog who lives in a proletarian environment, e.g. has a proletarian owner.

Would this dog be worth more than a "bourgeois dog" according to you?

[Queercommie Girl]

Would this dog be worth more than a "bourgeois dog" according to you?

Well a lot of it is just common sense. It's not really such an abstract question.

Suppose you are a worker. You could either save your own dog, who has lived with you for many years and has got a deep bond with you despite not being human, or you could save your capitalist boss who just outsourced to India and consequently fired half of your work-mates.

Who would you save?

[Widerstand]

Well a lot of it is just common sense. It's not really such an abstract question.

Suppose you are a worker. You could either save your own dog, who has lived with you for many years and has got a deep bond with you despite not being human, or you could save your capitalist boss who just outsourced to India and consequently fired half of your work-mates.

Who would you save?

Why did you overcomplicate this question by bringing in personal relations ? Obviously I have a very strong tie to my dog, but I still think I'd save the human.

[NGNM85]

Wait I thought it was sort of established that Morrisey was a bigot, even before this issue came up?

These claims are absolute rubbish, there's no truth to them, whatsoever. Read "The Severed Alliance", then we'll talk.

[#FF0000]

These claims are absolute rubbish, there's no truth to them, whatsoever. Read "The Severed Alliance", then we'll talk.

I must be thinking of the guy from The Smiths, then.

[Bilan]

However I can say that I myself enjoy being controversial and have never had the urge to wrap my body in a Union Jack while standing in front of an enlarged image of a Nazi skinhead.

Psh. I don't know how you party.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Why did you overcomplicate this question by bringing in personal relations ? Obviously I have a very strong tie to my dog, but I still think I'd save the human.

Why? The dog in this instance has shown me more loyalty and decency than the human being in question.


Armed struggle does not apologize and does not invoke the hypocrisy of humanitarianism and the ideal of human life. Human life is a variable, a commodity in the world of entertainment that is sometimes torn to pieces by being exiled into the dungeons of prisons, in lonely dead-ends, in substance dependencies, and is sometimes defended as the 'ideal' that was lost by the guns of terrorists. But it is not just important that you live but also how you live. The real value is in the choices made by each individual in their life. That’s where we are all judged.

Shoot the bourgeoisie, steal his food, feed the worker and the dog.

[Omnia Sunt Communia]

Oh Jesus Christ, you're not going to bring that up again. Please, spare us the fake indignation over nonexistent bigotry. These charges are completely without substance, and the worst part is I think you know it.

I think you're just biased because you love the work of The Smiths. I love Bob Dylan's work, but doing commercials for Cadillac and Victoria's Secret and promotions with Starbucks is still unacceptable. I love Burzum's work, but killing a man for being a homosexual and attempting to gas an anarchist squat is still unacceptable. I love The Bad Brains' work, but ranting on stage about how AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals is still unacceptable. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera....

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think you're just biased because you love the work of The Smiths.Luckilly I've always hated Morrissy and now I can really be obnoxious and morally righteous about it*.:D

I wish he'd stop touring and take hostages at the Discovery Channel or something.




*Same goes for Elton John.

[Widerstand]

Luckilly I've always hated Morrissy and now I can really be obnoxious and morally righteous about it*.:D

I wish he'd stop touring and take hostages at the Discovery Channel or something.




*Same goes for Elton John.

If there is one stupid moralistic artist that must go, it's Bono. Then again, a "¡Que se vayan todos!" approach might not be too bad.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe Morrisey will eat Bono at a big cannibalistic feast in South Africa's Sun City.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I dont know anything about this musicican guy, but i will just repeat my mantra "being a vegetarian and animal friend has nothing to do with being oppend minded"
Its sick hoe somebody can de-humanize a whole (1,3 billion) population just because they dont try to hide that they are being ruff to theire un-processed food, shit! havnt we had this discussion before? Anyway this thread has given me a new concept; Proletarian chauvinism, that i frome now will strongly support.

[Widerstand]

Proletarian chauvinism, that i frome now will strongly support.

Clearly I am doomed to be the Ian MacKaye of the Proletarian Chauvinist movement :crying:

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Clearly I am doomed to be the Ian MacKaye of the Proletarian Chauvinist movement :crying:

Haha comrade dont be sorry for that...oh come to think about it maybe you should.:rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

If I had to choose between me and a dog. I would choose me. If I had to choose to feed either a dog or another human being, I would choose the human. I absolutely love dogs (that fact really can't be overstated), but at the same time a human life is still more valuable to me. I guess that makes me a speciesist or whatever else is being thrown around in this thread. Meh.

What if the choice was a starving dog or a starving person who you hated?

I wonder when Morrissey will be playing in Beijing?

[Weezer]

Vegetarians are a subspecies.

[Vanguard1917]

Just another Westerner hating China -- the most dynamic country in recent years ... hardly 'sub-species'.

[Invader Zim]

I don't give a shit what Mozza said, think, etc. The guy made The Queen is Dead, his loon opinions, on anything that isn't music, don't matter.

[Il Medico]

What if the choice was a starving dog or a starving person who you hated?

The person still. I may hate them but I'm not going to let them starve to death for a dog.


Also, I don't get why this is such of a surprise or what not. Moressiy isn't some leftist idol, he's just a singer. And like most singers, I am sure, he has some fucked up opinions. And just because hes a racist dickhead doesn't mean his music isn't fucking awesome.

[Pirate Utopian]

And like most singers, I am sure, he has some fucked up opinions. And just because hes a racist dickhead doesn't mean his music isn't fucking awesome.
It's just a coincidence.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

He's one of the world's greatest lyricists. Songs like "Everyday is Like Sunday" or "Half a Person" are magnificent, beautiful works of art. I have hundreds of albums, but there's virtually no comparison. There aren't many artists who've affected me that deeply. He's absolutely brilliant.


Everyday is like Sunday
Everyday is silent and grey


Trudging back over pebbles and sand
And a strange dust lands on your hands
(And on your face...)
(On your face ...)
(On your face ...)
(On your face

Highlights from Morrissey's brilliant lyricism.....

Nah, I got introduced to the Smith's a while back, since they seemed kinda sad, which I am, and kinda alternative and dissenting, which I am. However despite a ton of people telling me how much they're songs have affected them, I just can't get whats so appealing. Some nice tunes though.

[Invader Zim]

Nah, I got introduced to the Smith's a while back, since they seemed kinda sad, which I am, and kinda alternative and dissenting, which I am. However despite a ton of people telling me how much they're songs have affected them, I just can't get whats so appealing

If you don't get it, then your taste is shit. Sorry.

[Queercommie Girl]

Just another Westerner hating China -- the most dynamic country in recent years ... hardly 'sub-species'.

What do you mean by "dynamic"? I hope you don't support the Dengist doctrine of bringing big capitalists into the communist country.

[Slav92]

Surely it makes sense to save the provider?

A human can provide for a dog, but a dog cannot provide for a man, ergo, whilst we acknowledge in a perfect world both need to be kept alive, the human must take priority.

In the same theory, it is better to abort a baby that threatens the mothers life than carry the pregnancy through.

And I dont know if you're all joking in this thread, but a classless, equal society does include the former bourgeois and capitalists. Saying that a proletarian life is worth more than any other is essentially the current system turned on its head.

[Raúl Duke]

But surely not all men are equal. The idea of "class-independent universalistic human rights" is also a liberal idea.

I think I'd rather feed a proletarian dog than a bourgeois man.

(This is not intended as a joke, I'm making a serious statement)
Well a lot of it is just common sense. It's not really such an abstract question.Actually, I find it an abstract question.

For one, there's no such thing as a "proletarian dog" since dogs don't go do wage labor to my knowledge.

Also, class is an abstraction that happens to be "real" (as a social institution) due to the current framework we live in. One of communism's goals is to end the abstraction of class once and for all by eliminating any system that begets class.

So if we look beyond, a "proletarian man" and a "bourgeois man" are both equally functional humans (outside of their relation to the means of production, which we only engage in when working, they're equally both persons); it's capitalism that has allowed one to be over the other by creating these classes. Communism seeks to truly realize the egalitarian ideal that liberalism only claims to be for but isn't

However, your example:

Suppose you are a worker. You could either save your own dog, who has lived with you for many years and has got a deep bond with you despite not being human, or you could save your capitalist boss who just outsourced to India and consequently fired half of your work-mates.

Who would you save? is more an issue of class spite. Obviously, in the current context, sure I'll feed the dog and tell my boss to go fuck off and die.

[Queercommie Girl]

And I dont know if you're all joking in this thread, but a classless, equal society does include the former bourgeois and capitalists. Saying that a proletarian life is worth more than any other is essentially the current system turned on its head.

You are missing the point. A "former" capitalist who is not capitalist anymore is by definition not a capitalist by any means. No-one says people cannot change their class. Just like the fact that Mao allowed some ex-capitalists to join the CCP is fundamentally different from Deng allowing existing capitalists to join the CCP. I was only talking about existing capitalists.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, I find it an abstract question.

For one, there's no such thing as a "proletarian dog" since dogs don't go do wage labor to my knowledge.

Also, class is an abstraction that happens to be "real" (as a social institution) due to the current framework we live in. One of communism's goals is to end the abstraction of class once and for all by eliminating any system that begets class.

So if we look beyond, a "proletarian man" and a "bourgeois man" are both equally functional humans (outside of their relation to the means of production, which we only engage in when working, they're equally both persons); it's capitalism that has allowed one to be over the other by creating these classes. Communism seeks to truly realize the egalitarian ideal that liberalism only claims to be for but isn't

However, your example:
is more an issue of class spite. Obviously, in the current context, sure I'll feed the dog and tell my boss to go fuck off and die.

See my reply to Slav92 above.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If I had to pick between feeding a dog and feeding a person, I would let them both starve with me as I use the entire food supply as fuel for a fire that I use to keep warm.:thumbup:

[Vanguard1917]

What do you mean by "dynamic"?

In the sense that it's become the rising workshop of the world, while Western economies have seen their productive bases decline.

Which partly explains why China-bashing has become so fashionable in the West, and why fashionable Westerners like Morrisey have sought to buy into it.

[Queercommie Girl]

In the sense that it's become the rising workshop of the world, while Western economies have seen their productive bases decline.

Which partly explains why China-bashing has become so fashionable in the West, and why fashionable Westerners like Morrisey have sought to buy into it.

Do you still think China with its ruling CCP filled with big capitalists is still genuinely socialist today?

[bricolage]

In the sense that it's become the rising workshop of the world, while Western economies have seen their productive bases decline.

Which partly explains why China-bashing has become so fashionable in the West, and why fashionable Westerners like Morrisey have sought to buy into it.
Ummm, I'm pretty sure this has more to do with animal rights than China being the 'rising workshop of the world'.

[Jazzratt]

Ummm, I'm pretty sure this has more to do with animal rights than China being the 'rising workshop of the world'. To be honest I think what it's mostly to do with is the fact that Morrisey is a racist fuckwit. I'm surprised anyone's even bothered to argue that he isn't this time around. I mean, I'm sure he loves animals and is all for animal rights I'm just sure that even in the absence of this he'd probably end up saying something racist anyway. It's kind of expect from someone who makes comments like this:

If you walk through Knightsbridge on any bland day of the week you won’t hear an English accent. You’ll hear every accent under the sun apart from the British accent.

WUUURGH! FORRINS!

[Vanguard1917]

Do you still think China with its ruling CCP filled with big capitalists is still genuinely socialist today?

No. Neither China nor the CCP are socialist.

[bricolage]

To be honest I think what it's mostly to do with is the fact that Morrisey is a racist fuckwit. I'm surprised anyone's even bothered to argue that he isn't this time around. I mean, I'm sure he loves animals and is all for animal rights I'm just sure that even in the absence of this he'd probably end up saying something racist anyway. It's kind of expect from someone who makes comments like this:


WUUURGH! FORRINS!

Well yeah of course he is a racist fuckwit, I just find it pretty ridiculous to see this racism is motivated by China's rising productivity, as opposed to the treatment of animals in the country. Like you said he has a track record of this but I'd imagine he wouldn't have been coming out with such anti-Chinese statements if the animal bit wasn't thrown into the equation.

[Reznov]

Two starving beings and one steak, save one and let the other die, or cut in it half and save both?

What about when they get hungry again?

[Jack]

People who think that killing animals is ethically equal to killing humans very often need to examine their first world existence. In most parts of the world eating meat is necessary.

I agree that, in times of desparation, there is absolute justification in eating meat for survival, however, the idea that eating meat is "necessary" is bullshit.

Meat in most of the world is not a necessity, but a luxury. Most of the world's meat (specifically cattle) is produced in the third world and exported to the West. The raising of animals puts a massive drain on the ecosystem because not only do the masses of animals being raised negatively affect the enviroment, it requires ten pounds (or kilograms, if you must, the ratio is the same) of grain to produce one pound of beef, thus you have large amounts of land and grain going towards the raising of animals (most of which are exported) instead of the mass produced grains going towards feeding the people in the third world.

If meat wasn't consumed on such a large level, you would see a lowering in the price of grains (because there is more supply, since the meat market would be reduced), thus a greater availability of food to the world's poor.

[Luís Henrique]

And then people wonder why the left isn't able to make bonds with the masses.

If you and your dog are both starving, you kill your dog and eat it.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Regardless of whether you are a proletarian or a bourgeois.

**************

Frankly, I can't see how a stupidity like "animal rights" can be not racist. It is based upon the assumption that oppressed humans are similar to animals. So, more than a movement in favour of animal rights, it is a movement against human rights.

Luís Henrique

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Frankly, I can't see how a stupidity like "animal rights" can be not racist. It is based upon the assumption that oppressed humans are similar to animals. So, more than a movement in favour of animal rights, it is a movement against human rights.
I am blatantly a product of racial mixing and a vegetarian.

Though I've already made it clear that I'd pour gasoline on the steak and starve to death with the animal while keeping perfectly warm. I'd rather be warm than eat, especially meat, YUCK! I already hate eating enough, and meat is even grosser than other food.

[Iskalla]

I don't care about animals but the meat industry is a realistic genuine danger to planet. I'd sooner see the food and water that is given to animals that are later killed for fast food distributed to countries where famine and starvation is occuring on a mass scale. We can get by just fine without meat, it's not a necessity and nothing good comes of it in a modern context. I learnt early in my vegan days that expressing any kind of empathy or liking for another species would have me down as a sentimental, liberal hippie or lifestyler or whatever (and they do exist) but the meat industry still strikes me as beyond any defence.

Morrissey is in the minority, his views aren't all necessarily wrong, but there's consequences to voicing them against the majority who have that 'you'll-take-the-meat-from-my-cold-dead-hand' attitude.

[cska]

I don't care about animals but the meat industry is a realistic genuine danger to planet. I'd sooner see the food and water that is given to animals that are later killed for fast food distributed to countries where famine and starvation is occuring on a mass scale. We can get by just fine without meat, it's not a necessity and nothing good comes of it in a modern context. I learnt early in my vegan days that expressing any kind of empathy or liking for another species would have me down as a sentimental, liberal hippie or lifestyler or whatever (and they do exist) but the meat industry still strikes me as beyond any defence.

Morrissey is in the minority, his views aren't all necessarily wrong, but there's consequences to voicing them against the majority who have that 'you'll-take-the-meat-from-my-cold-dead-hand' attitude.

I am an omnivore. However, I agree that the processed meat most of us eat is just terrible.

[Klaatu]

A question. Both are drowning: Do you save the child molester-killer, or the dog?

[Queercommie Girl]

A question. Both are drowning: Do you save the child molester-killer, or the dog?

Dog. I don't believe in unconditional universal human rights.

[Stand Your Ground]

What about when they get hungry again?
I didn't say make them dependent on you.

And that all depends on the conditions as well.

[LC89]

He had live in a cave too long. Two question for him: 1.) Who invented tofu?? 2.) Who invented soy-textures protein AKA the major vegan protein source? ANSWER: THE CHINESE!. Chinese and Indians had invented vegetarianism since ancient time. China and Indian still has the highest population and percentage of vegetarian in this planet.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

He had live in a cave too long. Two question for him: 1.) Who invented tofu?? 2.) Who invented soy-textures protein AKA the major vegan protein source? ANSWER: THE CHINESE!. Chinese and Indians had invented vegetarianism since ancient time. China and Indian still has the highest population and percentage of vegetarian in this planet.
Amongst the Mexica tribes, the common people were vegetarian except for fish and I can't eat fish because the smell gives me serious nausea.

[LC89]

Amongst the Mexica tribes, the common people were vegetarian except for fish and I can't eat fish because the smell gives me serious nausea.
I heard that the one of the plant protein crop are native to Mexico -- Amaranth grain. But the colonists ban it as it is part of the pagan ritual.

[EvilRedGuy]

Humans and working class struggle comes before animals.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I heard that the one of the plant protein crop are native to Mexico -- Amaranth grain. But the colonists ban it as it is part of the pagan ritual.
Europe can lick my nippeeeees. They need to not be so bantastic...

[Scary Monster]

I love The Smiths and Morrissey's music, but jeebus, what a pretentious prick this guy can be!

[Sentinel]

Suppose you are a worker. You could either save your own dog, who has lived with you for many years and has got a deep bond with you despite not being human, or you could save your capitalist boss who just outsourced to India and consequently fired half of your work-mates.

Who would you save?


I'd save the dog, but it doesn't mean that I give an animal more value than a human being.

I'd save the dog even if I didn't like it, if choosing to save it would mean I'd get rid of the boss.

:lol:


***

More directly on the topic: it's hardly the first time 'animal rights people' have made distasteful and deeply reactionary comments -- one just has to check one of our threads on PETA and ELF/ALF in Sciences and Environment to see what I mean. I'm not sure about Morrissey's affiliations, but hearing statements like this from him puts him into the same league with those biocentric, misanthropic loonies in my mind.

By elevating the value of animals they are lowering the value of human life on their moral spectrum. This explains why some of the most despicable genocidal criminals in history, such as for example Hermann Göring, have been staunch anti-vivisectionists and animal rights proponents. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany)

[Sexy Red]

There goes all his Chinese fans. And now all of his fans who hate racism. Of course, who would like a guy who only choose to be celibate because he couldn't get a woman to sleep with him?

[MellowViper]

Morrissey has described the Chinese people as a "subspecies" because of the nation's track record of animal welfare.

The former Smiths singer, an advocate of animal rights and a vegetarian, made the comment to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/03/morrissey-simon-armitage-interview), describing the population's attitude to animal rights as "horrific".

http://www.nme.com/news/morrissey/52855

He sounds like a dick. If he wants to win people to his side, calling people subhuman isn't a good tactic.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

There goes all his Chinese fans. And now all of his fans who hate racism. Of course, who would like a guy who only choose to be celibate because he couldn't get a woman to sleep with him?
I heard that he went celibate because he couldn't find a way to fuck his reflection.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why are rock stars/celebrities obsessed with animal rights?

[Rafiq]

I only agreed for Communism for Humanity, not for the whole Animal Kingdom

[Rafiq]

A question. Both are drowning: Do you save the child molester-killer, or the dog?

To be honest, if the question were to save A child Molester or a 30 year old Half Eaten Big mac, I would save the Cheeseburger.

[9]

Why are rock stars/celebrities obsessed with animal rights?

probably because they don't give a fuck about people.

[Sosa]

philosophical question: What makes the human species more valuable/superior than any other species?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

probably because they don't give a fuck about people.
You know its possible to give a fuck about all members of the animal kingdom including humans. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think the point of my post was to ask why celebrities are obsessed, not worried about animal rights?

I am against animal cruelty but these celebrities take it to a whole new level and almost elevate animal rights above human rights and champion that cause as if it's more of a dire need than the need to help humans.


philosophical question: What makes the human species more valuable/superior than any other species?


Is this a joke?


probably because they don't give a fuck about people.


True. I think that it does have to do with a disdain for the "average" joe. They view them as less than human when they eat dogs or other meats.

Morrisey was going on and on about how badly the animals were mistreated. I was with him until he said that it makes one almost view the Chinese as sub-human. This crossed the line.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

philosophical question: What makes the human species more valuable/superior than any other species?
I don't view them as superior. I personally don't wanna feel superior to anyone even other animals. Thats why I hate sports. I don't wanna win or dominate or feel more special than someone else. I feel we should all be equal treating each other with respect. If a fly didn't hurt me why should I hurt it? Why should I have the authority to take its life when it is not absolutely necessary? Slavery must end in all forms. Why exploit those without voice, when we could care and have sympathy for those suffering? No creature should have to suffer when it is avoidable. Cruelty inflicted upon those that can feel pain and are aware of their own suffering, when you know what that pain feels like, to enjoy the suffering of who you feel you dominate when you have to power to stop but don't, how is that not evil? How could anyone stand such torture, and say its just fine? How do these people view these animals anyway? As machines constructed to serve their masters? They have brains and nervous systems just like us. They have no say in the matter being forced against their own will to do something they don't want to do, expressing authority over them. As an anarchist I am against authority even over animals. What happens to them goes against their liberty, against their freedoms. We must remember that we are animals too, why don't we treat ourselves this way? In capitalism the capitalist exploits and has power over the worker when he has no choice in the matter. As leftists we care and want to free the worker, yet there are those that don't want to free the animal? Who goes through horrible conditions and suffering, should we care for those that suffer? Why not help animals and humans together? Beings no matter what species should be freed from their slavery, liberated from their positions as mere machines and brought back to meaningful peaceful lives and freedom of individuality and purpose. Yet that doesn't happen. These people should consider the phrase "Treat others as you would like them to treat you under similar". circumstances. A cow never tried to eat a human, it's not like humans are trying to get revenge. Hurting animals is avoidable just like hurting a human is avoidable. Lets us not hurt anyone if we can avoid doing so.

[Sosa]

Is this a joke?

No

[black magick hustla]

I don't view them as superior. I personally don't wanna feel superior to anyone even other animals. Thats why I hate sports. I don't wanna win or dominate or feel more special than someone else. I feel we should all be equal treating each other with respect. If a fly didn't hurt me why should I hurt it? Why should I have the authority to take its life when it is not absolutely necessary? Slavery must end in all forms. Why exploit those without voice, when we could care and have sympathy for those suffering? No creature should have to suffer when it is avoidable. Cruelty inflicted upon those that can feel pain and are aware of their own suffering, when you know what that pain feels like, to enjoy the suffering of who you feel you dominate when you have to power to stop but don't, how is that not evil? How could anyone stand such torture, and say its just fine? How do these people view these animals anyway? As machines constructed to serve their masters? They have brains and nervous systems just like us. They have no say in the matter being forced against their own will to do something they don't want to do, expressing authority over them. As an anarchist I am against authority even over animals. What happens to them goes against their liberty, against their freedoms. We must remember that we are animals too, why don't we treat ourselves this way? In capitalism the capitalist exploits and has power over the worker when he has no choice in the matter. As leftists we care and want to free the worker, yet there are those that don't want to free the animal? Who goes through horrible conditions and suffering, should we care for those that suffer? Why not help animals and humans together? Beings no matter what species should be freed from their slavery, liberated from their positions as mere machines and brought back to meaningful peaceful lives and freedom of individuality and purpose. Yet that doesn't happen. These people should consider the phrase "Treat others as you would like them to treat you under similar". circumstances. A cow never tried to eat a human, it's not like humans are trying to get revenge. Hurting animals is avoidable just like hurting a human is avoidable. Lets us not hurt anyone if we can avoid doing so.

a chicken and a human are not the same. i dont care about rational philosophical discourse about this (its an ethical proposition its not math). however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead

[bloodbeard]

Morrisey was going on and on about how badly the animals were mistreated. I was with him until he said that it makes one almost view the Chinese as sub-human. This crossed the line.


Morrisey is nothing but a logically-impaired racist prick. He doesn't want the poor animals being "mistreated" so he insults those who in his eyes mistreats the animals by...well, by....calling them less than human...in other words, animals??? :confused: Man, he should just stick to the music and STFU.

[Sosa]

a chicken and a human are not the same. i dont care about rational philosophical discourse about this (its an ethical proposition its not math). however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead

Then the question isn't for you then.

[Luís Henrique]

I would save the whole animal kingdom, of course.

How else would I eat meat?

Luís Henrique

[Sosa]

however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead

You would kill more people with the choice. How about the poor who depend on some sort of meat to live? And if you let the whole animal kingdom die, there goes 99% (if not all) of the vegetation. (no bees to pollinate). Good job on killing the whole human race mate!

[black magick hustla]

it was obviously a thought experiment. what i meant is that i dont give a fuck about animals

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

a chicken and a human are not the same. i dont care about rational philosophical discourse about this (its an ethical proposition its not math). however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead
While a chicken and a human are not the same they are similar in the sense that they can feel pain, have emotions and express intelligence just like we do. Just like two similar math equations shouldn't we treat them similarly? Also killing millions of lives in favor of one doesn't seem reasonable. Why settle for less when there can be more? Isn't two dollars worth more than one dollar?

[black magick hustla]

because no animal is worth even the nail dirt of that beautiful creature called man

[Sosa]

because no animal is worth even the nail dirt of that beautiful creature called man

isn't that a value judgment? Who determines this value and what is the criteria used to determine such value?

[bailey_187]

man=kingdom of ends
animals=kingdom of means

[Jazzratt]

I don't view them as superior. I personally don't wanna feel superior to anyone even other animals. Thats why I hate sports. I don't wanna win or dominate or feel more special than someone else. This is possibly the funniest reason to hat sports I have ever heard. I'm not entirely convinced you're flesh and blood but are instead an animate straw man.


I feel we should all be equal treating each other with respect. If a fly didn't hurt me why should I hurt it? Why should I have the authority to take its life when it is not absolutely necessary? I've spoken to animal rights advocates who are a bit kooky in the past (to be fair "kooky animal rights advocate" is something of a pleonasm) but none of those mad bastards ever fought for the rights of motherfucking flies. I'm honestly convinced now that you are taking the piss in an extraordinarily elaborate manner.

Honestly reading the rest of that post would force me to draw upon reserves of inhuman fortitude. Frankly it just boils down to the same boring canards that your lot roll out with tedious regularity. If the rest of it was as obvious a documentation of your descent into the unknown depths of madness as your first few lines then it might at least have been entertaining to read.

[Queercommie Girl]

philosophical question: What makes the human species more valuable/superior than any other species?

Short answer: because we are human.

Ethics is always subjective, never "universal".

Suppose the question is "why consider proletarian rights more important than capitalist rights?"

The answer would be "because we are proletarians". From a capitalist perspective, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-socialist and defending bourgeois rights. Socialism is not correct in the universal sense, it's only correct from a working class perspective.

There is nothing wrong with selfishness in this sense. Socialism is not complete selflessness, but the coherent constructive sum of multiple "selfishnesses".

[Property Is Robbery]

This is possibly the funniest reason to hat sports I have ever heard. I'm not entirely convinced you're flesh and blood but are instead an animate straw man.

I've spoken to animal rights advocates who are a bit kooky in the past (to be fair "kooky animal rights advocate" is something of a pleonasm) but none of those mad bastards ever fought for the rights of motherfucking flies. I'm honestly convinced now that you are taking the piss in an extraordinarily elaborate manner.

Honestly reading the rest of that post would force me to draw upon reserves of inhuman fortitude. Frankly it just boils down to the same boring canards that your lot roll out with tedious regularity. If the rest of it was as obvious a documentation of your descent into the unknown depths of madness as your first few lines then it might at least have been entertaining to read.

Nice to meet you then, because I don't kill flies either.

[People's War]

Sad really. You'd think someone who wrote such intelligent lyrics would possess more of a brain.

[bretty]

I'm not sure why we shouldn't bash China for legitimate reasons, China is without a doubt an abomination in terms of human rights abuse. It certainly shows how de-politicized his conception of the country is.

Also as a sidenote, I find the proletarian chauvinism odd as well.. It's become unnecessary rhetoric. Since there's been so many comments on the subject.. there's no reason to set up a false dichotomy, okay fine you can care about humans more.. it's incredibly doubtful you will ever be put in the situation of saving the endangered lion or the baby.. get over it.

-B

[bretty]

This is possibly the funniest reason to hat sports I have ever heard. I'm not entirely convinced you're flesh and blood but are instead an animate straw man.

I've spoken to animal rights advocates who are a bit kooky in the past (to be fair "kooky animal rights advocate" is something of a pleonasm) but none of those mad bastards ever fought for the rights of motherfucking flies. I'm honestly convinced now that you are taking the piss in an extraordinarily elaborate manner.

Honestly reading the rest of that post would force me to draw upon reserves of inhuman fortitude. Frankly it just boils down to the same boring canards that your lot roll out with tedious regularity. If the rest of it was as obvious a documentation of your descent into the unknown depths of madness as your first few lines then it might at least have been entertaining to read.

Be competitive in sports, cooperative in eliminating capitalism. It's simple?

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure why we shouldn't bash China for legitimate reasons, China is without a doubt an abomination in terms of human rights abuse. It certainly shows how de-politicized his conception of the country is.

Also as a sidenote, I find the proletarian chauvinism odd as well.. It's become unnecessary rhetoric. Since there's been so many comments on the subject.. there's no reason to set up a false dichotomy, okay fine you can care about humans more.. it's incredibly doubtful you will ever be put in the situation of saving the endangered lion or the baby.. get over it.

-B

There is a fundamental difference between bashing the Chinese state as it stands now and bashing the Chinese people, which is racist.

The Chinese people are those that are suffering the most under the Chinese regime.

He is not bashing the Chinese state, he is bashing the Chinese people, which is fucking racist and reactionary.

Should I also bash all white Americans as "stupid white trash" just because of the crimes done by Bush and Obama?!

[bretty]

That was my point? Which is why I mentioned human rights abuses.

[Queercommie Girl]

That was my point? Which is why I mentioned human rights abuses.

No but you seem to be defending Morrissey, who by calling the Chinese a subspecies, is not just attacking the Chinese state, but Chinese people in general.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Should I also bash all white Americans as "stupid white trash" just because of the crimes done by Bush and Obama?!
Sounds Fun!!!

[Jazzratt]

Nice to meet you then, because I don't kill flies either.:lol: Get. Help.

[bretty]

No but you seem to be defending Morrissey, who by calling the Chinese a subspecies, is not just attacking the Chinese state, but Chinese people in general.

No I'm certainly not defending him. I was responding to a post a few above mine. Next time I'll make it clear I was addressing the state and the private sector, not the people as a general group.

[Luís Henrique]

thought experiment

By the way, and admittedly offtopic, those "thought experiments" are very unthoughtful. "If you could chose between saving one human being or the whole animal kingdom"... in what situation (think of this as a "thought experiment", if you wish) would that disjunctive be even possible, not to say meaningful?

Here are some of the same significance:

Do your prefer potatoes or skateboarding?
Would you rather marry or buy a bycicle?
Should I vote Democrat, or drink hemlock?
Is it better to be a Stalinist, or to read the Kuran backwards?
Would you rather eat pork, or have hot sex with three gorillas and a giant octopus?

So, if you don't want to read the Kuran backwards, do you admit to being a Stalinist?

Luís Henrique

[9]

By the way, and admittedly offtopic, those "thought experiments" are very unthoughtful. "If you could chose between saving one human being or the whole animal kingdom"... in what situation (think of this as a "thought experiment", if you wish) would that disjunctive be even possible, not to say meaningful?

he was obviously being hyperbolic.

[Luís Henrique]

he was obviously being hyperbolic.

Hyperboles suck, parables rule.

Luís Henrique

[learningaboutheleft123]

how would he like to do long hours for bugger all money !

[pastradamus]

Morrissey is completely boring. Even hearing his name makes me want to fall asleep. If I could give less of a shit about what he thinks I would.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

By the way, and admittedly offtopic, those "thought experiments" are very unthoughtful. "If you could chose between saving one human being or the whole animal kingdom"... in what situation (think of this as a "thought experiment", if you wish) would that disjunctive be even possible, not to say meaningful?

Here are some of the same significance:

Do your prefer potatoes or skateboarding?
Would you rather marry or buy a bycicle?
Should I vote Democrat, or drink hemlock?
Is it better to be a Stalinist, or to read the Kuran backwards?
Would you rather eat pork, or have hot sex with three gorillas and a giant octopus?

So, if you don't want to read the Kuran backwards, do you admit to being a Stalinist?

Luís Henrique
Jajaja!

Ay dios mio! Three gorillas and an octopus? The price I'll have to pay for my vegetarian diet.

[Obzervi]

Even though what he said is repugnant, its a shame to see revlefters defending the meat industry. Millions of animals are tortured on a daily basis and people act like it doesn't matter. The idea that humans need meat is bullshit, in fact it takes far more calories to produce the meat than the meat provides. Humans are herbivores and can attain protein from other sources. Not to mention the meat industry is destroying the planet. In my idea the first thing to go post-revolution is meat. Once people stop eating it they will realize how purified their souls are.

[Obzervi]

A question. Both are drowning: Do you save the child molester-killer, or the dog?
The idea that human lives are innately superior to animals lives is supremacist and on the same scale as racism. All living creatures have a right to a good life.

[Obzervi]

a chicken and a human are not the same. i dont care about rational philosophical discourse about this (its an ethical proposition its not math). however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead
Its ironic that some have called animals rights people such as myself "nazis", when this logic of one group of living creatures being superior was the main tenet of nazi ideology.

[Obzervi]

There is a fundamental difference between bashing the Chinese state as it stands now and bashing the Chinese people, which is racist.

The Chinese people are those that are suffering the most under the Chinese regime.

He is not bashing the Chinese state, he is bashing the Chinese people, which is fucking racist and reactionary.

Should I also bash all white Americans as "stupid white trash" just because of the crimes done by Bush and Obama?!

So you're logic is that its impossible for an oppressed group to oppress? OK then I guess since white women are oppressed in the form of sexism its impossible for them to be racist and homophobic, gotcha.

[WeAreReborn]

This is possibly the funniest reason to hat sports I have ever heard. I'm not entirely convinced you're flesh and blood but are instead an animate straw man.

I've spoken to animal rights advocates who are a bit kooky in the past (to be fair "kooky animal rights advocate" is something of a pleonasm) but none of those mad bastards ever fought for the rights of motherfucking flies. I'm honestly convinced now that you are taking the piss in an extraordinarily elaborate manner.

Honestly reading the rest of that post would force me to draw upon reserves of inhuman fortitude. Frankly it just boils down to the same boring canards that your lot roll out with tedious regularity. If the rest of it was as obvious a documentation of your descent into the unknown depths of madness as your first few lines then it might at least have been entertaining to read.

:lol: Get. Help.

All your argument is that he is crazy because he cares about animals? Not to mention your straight up rudeness and unnecessary personal attacks. I know you may like to put up a tough guy facade but you would think you would try to debate with some civility, I know it may be foolish since you are a mod but w/e. Anyways, he is just not apathetic and he is caring. There is nothing wrong with looking at an animal and deciding this is a living form that can feel pain and needs and deserves to be treated with respect. I don't see the idiocy or the need to "get help" from such a conclusion. I would expect much more sympathy from someone of the left.

[9]

this logic of one group of living creatures being superior was the main tenet of nazi ideology.

yeah, well see the thing about Roma and Jews (i.e. what the Nazis deemed 'Untermenschen') is that they actually are human beings, rather than non-human animals.

[Jazzratt]

The idea that human lives are innately superior to animals lives is supremacist and on the same scale as racism. I'm really not sure whether this is offensive or just fucking stupid. I'll chalk it up to your being an absolute moron and move on.


All your argument is that he is crazy because he cares about animals? I wasn't arguing. I was dismissing his statements because they were totally fucking nuts.

Not to mention your straight up rudeness and unnecessary personal attacks. I know you may like to put up a tough guy facade but you would think you would try to debate with some civility, I know it may be foolish since you are a mod but w/e. It's nothing to do with being a tough guy. I just have a low tolerance for idiocy, if you make fucking stupid statements I don't think it's fair for you to be expected to be treated as anything but a feeble minded loon.

Anyways, he is just not apathetic and he is caring. He cares about flies. There's being caring because you're a nice person and there's being indiscriminately caring about absolutely goddamn everything because you were dropped on your head as a kid. He falls into the latter camp.

There is nothing wrong with looking at an animal and deciding this is a living form that can feel pain and needs and deserves to be treated with respect. I don't see the idiocy or the need to "get help" from such a conclusion. I would expect much more sympathy from someone of the left. No I suspect you don't see. I don't mind people having those opinions in theory but when the logical conclusion is obviously the kind of bollocks that Morrisey has come out with (as is the topic of the thread) or condemnation of people who hurt flies then fuck that. If they want to not eat bacon or squash flies or whatever the fuck, that's their business but there's no need to make it mine.

One thing I've always liked about the left is that large sections of it are the kind of people not given to handing out sympathy to just any old nutjob. Total fucking weirdos like the "don't harm flies" brigade can look for their sympathy elsewhere. Personally I think they need to read a sodding book or jump under a bus.

[Widerstand]

Should I also bash all white Americans as "stupid white trash" just because of the crimes done by Bush and Obama?!

KILL WHITEY!


The idea that human lives are innately superior to animals lives is supremacist and on the same scale as racism. All living creatures have a right to a good life.


Its ironic that some have called animals rights people such as myself "nazis", when this logic of one group of living creatures being superior was the main tenet of nazi ideology.

You're doing a great job at making all Animal Liberationists look like complete nutjobs.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm really not sure whether this is offensive or just fucking stupid. I'll chalk it up to your being an absolute moron and move on.

I wasn't arguing. I was dismissing his statements because they were totally fucking nuts.
It's nothing to do with being a tough guy. I just have a low tolerance for idiocy, if you make fucking stupid statements I don't think it's fair for you to be expected to be treated as anything but a feeble minded loon.
He cares about flies. There's being caring because you're a nice person and there's being indiscriminately caring about absolutely goddamn everything because you were dropped on your head as a kid. He falls into the latter camp.
No I suspect you don't see. I don't mind people having those opinions in theory but when the logical conclusion is obviously the kind of bollocks that Morrisey has come out with (as is the topic of the thread) or condemnation of people who hurt flies then fuck that. If they want to not eat bacon or squash flies or whatever the fuck, that's their business but there's no need to make it mine.

One thing I've always liked about the left is that large sections of it are the kind of people not given to handing out sympathy to just any old nutjob. Total fucking weirdos like the "don't harm flies" brigade can look for their sympathy elsewhere. Personally I think they need to read a sodding book or jump under a bus.

Believe it or not, there are some of us who aren't killing flies because we have more worthwhile things to do (like staring at walls and doing lots of drugs) not because we really care enough about flies but because we don't care enough.

[Jazzratt]

Believe it or not, there are some of us who aren't killing flies because we have more worthwhile things to do (like staring at walls and doing lots of drugs) not because we really care enough about flies but because we don't care enough. Yes but people who do that aren't proscribing the behaviour for other people, which is what I object to. I couldn't give a toss what people do or do not do to flies (or pigs or whatever) themselves as long as they extend me the same courtesy. It's absolutely no skin off my nose unless someone starts having a go at me for not behaving as they do.

[Cane Nero]

Compleate bullshit.

Which would you rather see-a human starving or a dog starving?


If I had some food, would share with both equally.

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I mention flies once and you act like this? I personally won't kill flies but I won't go out and protest about them. Flies aren't that important to me. You make me seem like a lunatic. I'm not going to dedicate my life to rescuing flies or anything by any means necessary. I'm not that extreme. I just won't personally kill them.

[Cane Nero]

Yes but people who do that aren't proscribing the behaviour for other people, which is what I object to. I couldn't give a toss what people do or do not do to flies (or pigs or whatever) themselves as long as they extend me the same courtesy. It's absolutely no skin off my nose unless someone starts having a go at me for not behaving as they do.
Nobody here wants you to protest for the "animal rights", and I'm not part of any organization of that type.
I only know that animals want to live their lives just like us. I personally do not like to hurt an animal for no reason.

[Jazzratt]

I mention flies once and you act like this? I personally won't kill flies but I won't go out and protest about them. Flies aren't that important to me. You make me seem like a lunatic. I'm not going to dedicate my life to rescuing flies or anything by any means necessary. I'm not that extreme. I just won't personally kill them. I rather got the impression you were a loony from your opening statement about how you hate sports because you don't want to win. After that I assumed you were a grade A mental, but if that's not the case and you are quite happy to leave me to my doings then I've no problem with you (although I still think you're a bit silly).

[JustMovement]

I am appalled that some people here are claiming that there is an equivalence between animals and humans. What sets us apart? Well for one WE are human. Also, the ability to reason,self-awareness, memory, empathy, complex emotions and the ability to abstract. Incidentally that is what let s us care about animals in the first place, a worthy cause if it isnt taken to extremes.
As far as saving the capitalist and the dog- I don t believe for a second, not for a second, anyone here, confronted with the situation would let another person starve. And it has nothing to do with universal human rights or anything. The fact is starving to death is one of the most, slow, painful, hideous ways to die. Imagine the person, eyes bulging, clawing at your feet. Your sympathy for the person would get the better of you. Not that there is not a time and a place for killing, for example if it serves a revolutionary purpose, or in defence of the country. If not its just random murder.

[Noinu]

I am appalled that some people here are claiming that there is an equivalence between animals and humans. What sets us apart? Well for one WE are human. Also, the ability to reason,self-awareness, memory, empathy, complex emotions and the ability to abstract. Incidentally that is what let s us care about animals in the first place, a worthy cause if it isnt taken to extremes.
As far as saving the capitalist and the dog- I don t believe for a second, not for a second, anyone here, confronted with the situation would let another person starve. And it has nothing to do with universal human rights or anything. The fact is starving to death is one of the most, slow, painful, hideous ways to die. Imagine the person, eyes bulging, clawing at your feet. Your sympathy for the person would get the better of you. Not that there is not a time and a place for killing, for example if it serves a revolutionary purpose, or in defence of the country. If not its just random murder.

1. I seriously think my dog has more empathy than oh so many humans.

2. Starving is equally hideous for a dog. Eyes bulging, skin drying, hair falling off.

[Cane Nero]

I am appalled that some people here are claiming that there is an equivalence between animals and humans. What sets us apart? Well for one WE are human. Also, the ability to reason,self-awareness, memory, empathy, complex emotions and the ability to abstract. Incidentally that is what let s us care about animals in the first place, a worthy cause if it isnt taken to extremes.
As far as saving the capitalist and the dog- I don t believe for a second, not for a second, anyone here, confronted with the situation would let another person starve. And it has nothing to do with universal human rights or anything. The fact is starving to death is one of the most, slow, painful, hideous ways to die. Imagine the person, eyes bulging, clawing at your feet. Your sympathy for the person would get the better of you. Not that there is not a time and a place for killing, for example if it serves a revolutionary purpose, or in defence of the country. If not its just random murder.
Yeah but the dog dont lie, manipulate or explore you.

This video is in portuguese but you can understand anyway.
I t shows a dog staying at the side of his murdered friend until the body being take away.

youtube
watch?v=vOhLT2HY2b4

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I rather got the impression you were a loony from your opening statement about how you hate sports because you don't want to win. After that I assumed you were a grade A mental, but if that's not the case and you are quite happy to leave me to my doings then I've no problem with you (although I still think you're a bit silly).
Okay, well I wasn't too clear in what I meant. What I meant was one of the reasons sports doesn't appeal to me(there are more reasons that are unrelated) is that one of the point of sports is you're trying to feel better than the other guy by winning. While feeling good is nice, it means the others person doesn't feel that well as he lost. By being a winner you're making someone else a loser. I wish everybody could be winners together that way everybody is equally happy. When I play the few sports that I sort of like I play for the joy of playing without keeping score or by following some of the rules so it has a more free and careless enjoyable feeling to it and not a competitive one person against the other with nothing on their minds but winning. To me if I'm going to play sports I want to play it for the joy of playing it.

Now that I think about it it seemed totally unrelated to the original post in the first place. I shouldn't have typed that.

[WeAreReborn]

I am appalled that some people here are claiming that there is an equivalence between animals and humans. What sets us apart? Well for one WE are human. Also, the ability to reason,self-awareness, memory, empathy, complex emotions and the ability to abstract. Incidentally that is what let s us care about animals in the first place, a worthy cause if it isnt taken to extremes.
As far as saving the capitalist and the dog- I don t believe for a second, not for a second, anyone here, confronted with the situation would let another person starve. And it has nothing to do with universal human rights or anything. The fact is starving to death is one of the most, slow, painful, hideous ways to die. Imagine the person, eyes bulging, clawing at your feet. Your sympathy for the person would get the better of you. Not that there is not a time and a place for killing, for example if it serves a revolutionary purpose, or in defence of the country. If not its just random murder.
You are right, I am for animal rights but I do favor humans over animals. With that said, we have the ability and capability to easily keep both animals and humans alive without slaughter of either so just disregard that fact and kill animals? That is all it comes down to. If humans were starving and that is what it came down to then kill all the animals required but we are beyond that stage in history. And to continue the unnecessary slaughter of animals in industrialized countries is just that slaughter..

[9]

You are right, I am for animal rights but I do favor humans over animals. With that said, we have the ability and capability to easily keep both animals and humans alive without slaughter of either so just disregard that fact and kill animals? That is all it comes down to. If humans were starving and that is what it came down to then kill all the animals required but we are beyond that stage in history.

uh... actually tons of people are starving.

[Widerstand]

uh... actually tons of people are starving.

Uh actually tons of food is thrown away or fed to animals. On average an animal consumes 10 times the energy it produces (though often far more).

[Property Is Robbery]

I really love the man's music but sometimes he does say awful, childish things. For example, in an interview with Russell Brand, he compared the killing of animals to Nazi holocaust. I must say that I am suspicious that all of this comes from the NME. Morrissey and the NME haven't exactly been on the best of terms. Regardless, this is reactionary garbage that I would expect only from some right wing jackass (the racist comment, I mean).
Now while there are differences, modern day factory farming is very comparable to the torture and suffering of holocaust victims, now most of you don't give a fuck, but the fact is animals do have brains and central nervous systems which allow them a certain degree of emotions (depending on the animal) and obviously the ability to register pain. The animals are crammed into tiny places, starved often times, malnourished when fed, pumped with hormones, beaten and when it's time for them to be slaughtered the last 20 minutes of their lives are filled with the sight, smell and sound of their family and fellow species being horrifically slaughtered.

I know this won't mean anything to all of you apathetic pricks who would rather save a pig like Donald Trump than an innocent animal. And while Morrissey is obviously wrong for directing that comment to a whole group you should try to see where he's coming from.

If you're going to condemn him that's fine but AT LEAST WATCH THE FIRST VIDEO I POSTED

SNxw-tEn2SE
M71Ds0h8qak

[Property Is Robbery]

a chicken and a human are not the same. i dont care about rational philosophical discourse about this (its an ethical proposition its not math). however if i had to choose whether a single man dies or the whole animal kingdom dies, i would choose in a heartbeat the whole animal kingdom dies instead
Well then you're a fucking fool who obviously doesn't know anything about biology because if every animal on this planet died the human race would follow very soon.


He cares about flies. There's being caring because you're a nice person and there's being indiscriminately caring about absolutely goddamn everything because you were dropped on your head as a kid. He falls into the latter camp.You're obviously a real douche who can't formulate solid rejections so you resort to name calling, and why do you care what he does, he's not telling you to not kill flies, so why do you respond so maliciously?


I am appalled that some people here are claiming that there is an equivalence between animals and humans. What sets us apart? Well for one WE are human. Also, the ability to reason,self-awareness, memory, empathy, complex emotions and the ability to abstract.
Empathy is something many of you clearly lack for anything but your own species. Who cares about superiority, it's about compassion which is something soooo many of you lack or can wrap your little egoist brains around.

[WeAreReborn]

uh... actually tons of people are starving.
Yeah, but that isn't for a lack of resources like widerstand pointed out. It seems even after a revolution and whatever society you envision comes about animals would still be in as much suffering as before. I don't see why we can't progress human and animal rights at the same time. They compliment each other well and the animal rights don't call for large sacrifices at all...

[Property Is Robbery]

Yeah, but that isn't for a lack of resources like widerstand pointed out. It seems even after a revolution and whatever society you envision comes about animals would still be in as much suffering as before. I don't see why we can't progress human and animal rights at the same time. They compliment each other well and the animal rights don't call for large sacrifices at all...
Seriously and if animals weren't kept for food there would be way more land for food, plus 90% of all grains grown in America go to feeding animals that don't even get properly nourished from it, imagine if that went to humans. Plus 50% of the water is wasted in factory farming as well, we could feed and quench the thirst of the world without even overthrowing Capitalism if we just liberated the animals.

[Jack]

The idea that human lives are innately superior to animals lives is supremacist and on the same scale as racism

No, no it's not, stop saying stupid shit. There is a giant difference between a house cat and a human being, you can't even try to say there's the same or a similar amount of difference between two people of different races. In fact, that statement is more discriminatory than eating a hamburger.

Stop making us vegans look stupid.

[bailey_187]

Racism came about in order to justify barbaric acts (e.g. slavery) to other people on the basis they wernt really/fully human. But we know people of all colour are still humans. We know dogs are not humans.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Now while there are differences, modern day factory farming is very comparable to the torture and suffering of holocaust victims, now most of you don't give a fuck, but the fact is animals do have brains and central nervous systems which allow them a certain degree of emotions (depending on the animal) and obviously the ability to register pain. The animals are crammed into tiny places, starved often times, malnourished when fed, pumped with hormones, beaten and when it's time for them to be slaughtered the last 20 minutes of their lives are filled with the sight, smell and sound of their family and fellow species being horrifically slaughtered.

I know this won't mean anything to all of you apathetic pricks who would rather save a pig like Donald Trump than an innocent animal. And while Morrissey is obviously wrong for directing that comment to a whole group you should try to see where he's coming from.

If you're going to condemn him that's fine but AT LEAST WATCH THE FIRST VIDEO I POSTED

SNxw-tEn2SE
M71Ds0h8qak


Always when there is talk about animals in China, its never regarding the fact that it is a very poor country, meaning; why should they care about a stupid dog when they are starving? And second, its always dogs! never the eels, the insects or the frogs, which showes A.) The hypocracy of the animal-rights movement, by valuing different animals and often in the way where good looking/cute animals are valued higher. B.) The western chauvinism and to not putting in themselves in the situation of people in China.

[Robocommie]

Uh actually tons of food is thrown away or fed to animals. On average an animal consumes 10 times the energy it produces (though often far more).

Yeah, and you know what sucked? Back in the Middle Ages when European society was mostly fed on grains and vegetables, the health effects weren't that great. Humans process animals for food. That's just how it is. We've eaten meat for millions of years, we'll probably eat it for millions more if we're lucky enough to survive that long.

[Robocommie]

Always when there is talk about animals in China, its never regarding the fact that it is a very poor country, meaning; why should they care about a stupid dog when they are starving? And second, its always dogs! never the eels, the insects or the frogs, which showes A.) The hypocracy of the animal-rights movement, by valuing different animals and often in the way where good looking/cute animals are valued higher. B.) The western chauvinism and to not putting in themselves in the situation of people in China.

It's okay to torture and eat the ugly ones.

[Robocommie]

Seriously and if animals weren't kept for food there would be way more land for food, plus 90% of all grains grown in America go to feeding animals that don't even get properly nourished from it, imagine if that went to humans. Plus 50% of the water is wasted in factory farming as well, we could feed and quench the thirst of the world without even overthrowing Capitalism if we just liberated the animals.

I'd like you to back up that statement about 90% of all grains grown in America go to animal feed, because corn is used in a massive number of ways.

You know what I don't get about you animal liberationists? You cite the massive amount of grain that goes to feeding livestock and how we'd save so much if we got rid of the meat industry. Well what the hell do you suppose is going to happen to all that livestock if we stop feeding them? You think allowing millions of cattle, swine and poultry to starve to death is more humane than slaughtering them?

And do you really believe you can convince society to stop raising animals for meat under capitalism? Do you really think you can secure the allocation of food resources more equitably without overthrowing capitalism? Don't you realize the real source of starvation under capitalism isn't the raising and slaughter of livestock, but rather the capitalist method of distribution? Don't you realize that the use (or rather misuse) of arable land is one of the gravest crimes of the capitalist class?

[RedStarOverChina]

SNxw-tEn2SE
M71Ds0h8qak
Hmmm...Dog meat. Oughtta try it one of these days.

Yes, call me a "sub-species" or whatnot. But you won't make me or anyone else feel guilty about eating meat. Few people here are dumb enough not to realize that slaughter houses tend to be dirty and spill a lot of blood.

Still, that's not really a moral dilema for me, I don't really care about animals---They eat and get eaten all the time, and this won't end unless all living organisms are dead.


But I hope the next time you murder a carrot for your own greed, you'll think of this video.
gUcR-_uqcmk

[WeAreReborn]

Always when there is talk about animals in China, its never regarding the fact that it is a very poor country, meaning; why should they care about a stupid dog when they are starving? And second, its always dogs! never the eels, the insects or the frogs, which showes A.) The hypocracy of the animal-rights movement, by valuing different animals and often in the way where good looking/cute animals are valued higher. B.) The western chauvinism and to not putting in themselves in the situation of people in China.
The fact of the matter is that you can eat animals and to do so kill them will being humane. Though I am against the eating of animals in countries that can avoid to do so, China may not be one of them. That does not excuse the brutality and hate directed at them however, and thinking otherwise is a pathetic excuse. That is not hypocrisy. It is specifically intended to do so because the non Animal-rights people are much more effected if something "cute" dies or gets tortured. It is well practiced propaganda, I thought it was sort of obvious...

[WeAreReborn]

Yeah, and you know what sucked? Back in the Middle Ages when European society was mostly fed on grains and vegetables, the health effects weren't that great. Humans process animals for food. That's just how it is. We've eaten meat for millions of years, we'll probably eat it for millions more if we're lucky enough to survive that long.
In the Middle ages humans weren't educated on what a healthy diet is, or it is not like they could obtain it even if they knew. Know it is different, at least in every first-second world nation. People can look up what is healthy without meat and eat accordingly. Times change and using the Middle Ages as an example is a pretty bad one.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The fact of the matter is that you can eat animals and to do so kill them will being humane. Though I am against the eating of animals in countries that can avoid to do so, China may not be one of them. That does not excuse the brutality and hate directed at them however, and thinking otherwise is a pathetic excuse. That is not hypocrisy. It is specifically intended to do so because the non Animal-rights people are much more effected if something "cute" dies or gets tortured. It is well practiced propaganda, I thought it was sort of obvious...

Well i will go on with "the pathetic excuse" of killing and eating animals, but then i belong to the "Non Animal-rights people". :D

Still i never hear the defence, frome animal-rights groups, for insects. They use so much effort to explaine about all animals being equal and to think different is as bad as racism and sexism, but they wont defend flys or ants frome being crushed by irritated homo sapiens.

[the last donut of the night]

The idea that human lives are innately superior to animals lives is supremacist and on the same scale as racism. All living creatures have a right to a good life.

http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg

[L.A.P.]

This is not only something you would hear form a moronic vegan but from a culturally insensitive racist fuck. In India and being half indian they look at Americans as if we're cannibals when we eat cheeseburgers and Americans look at the Chinese the same way when they eat a dog, which I don't even think happens that much anymore but I'm not sure. Who are people to think that their culture and what they choose to not eat is correct and absolute.

[L.A.P.]

Well i will go on with "the pathetic excuse" of killing and eating animals, but then i belong to the "Non Animal-rights people". :D

Still i never hear the defence, frome animal-rights groups, for insects. They use so much effort to explaine about all animals being equal and to think different is as bad as racism and sexism, but they wont defend flys or ants frome being crushed by irritated homo sapiens.

I think people who treat plants so badly and just rip them out of their roots and then do horrible things such as cutting them alive should be put to death.:rolleyes:Those fucking evil vegans being chauvinistic about how living things with the ability to think are above living things that can't.

[Stand Your Ground]

Jeezus crust this thread is still going?

To the animal rights people in here, I am with you, but don't bother arguing, for some very sad reasons some people will never understand non-humans freedom.

I think it's time for this to be trashed.

[Robocommie]

In the Middle ages humans weren't educated on what a healthy diet is, or it is not like they could obtain it even if they knew. Know it is different, at least in every first-second world nation. People can look up what is healthy without meat and eat accordingly. Times change and using the Middle Ages as an example is a pretty bad one.

Hah, I think it's funny you assume a majority of people today actually understand nutritional science, and that healthy eating is simply about making better choices divorced from economic issues. "Times change" is a statement without any real value. Conditions aren't different simply because they happened a long time ago, they are different because of changing material conditions. Cereals were predominant in the Middle Ages precisely because of the expanded production of grains.

Industrialized meat production actually made it possible for working class people to afford meat regularly. Before, that simply wasn't the case. I should note that when I say cerealization began in the Middle Ages, that is not to say that it ended in the Renaissance or anything like that.

The fact is, simply saying that feeding livestock is an inefficient use of grain is nonsense, particularly for animal rights activists, because what else would you have done? They only exist because we bred them for our own purposes. It's not like you can release beef cattle back into the wilderness or something, and somehow I can't imagine you folks would be eager to see a massive cull implemented.

[RedStarOverChina]

To the animal rights people in here, I am with you, but don't bother arguing, for some very sad reasons some people will never understand non-humans freedom.

I suppose I never will learn, since no one has ever explained to me exactly what those "freedoms" and "rights" actually are.

What are their supposedly "God given rights"? Should all of them have the right to live unmolested by humans and other animals? The freedom to eat anything and anyone? Right to a shelter? Education?


It's sad seeing a thread about racism against ethnic Chinese turn into an "animal rights" debate, with veiled justifications for Morrissey's disgusting comments.

[Robocommie]

To the animal rights people in here, I am with you, but don't bother arguing, for some very sad reasons some people will never understand non-humans freedom.

You know the difference between you and these oppressed non-humans? You are actually capable of abstractly contemplating the concept of "freedom" in a way beyond it's most immediate practical concerns.

Predation is a fact of biological existence. For millions of years prior to the birth of humanity animals have killed one another to eat. They still do, like Red Star Over China said. That's the natural order of things. It makes no sense whatsoever to weep over the "oppression" of swine, for example, when swine will (and occasionally do) eat human flesh when they get the chance.

[Robocommie]

It's sad seeing a thread about racism against ethnic Chinese turn into an "animal rights" debate, with veiled justifications for Morrissey's disgusting comments.

Unlike the Chinese, animals are people too!

[Stand Your Ground]

I suppose I never will learn, since no one has ever explained to me exactly what those "freedoms" and "rights" actually are.

What are their supposedly "God given rights"? Should all of them have the right to live unmolested by humans and other animals? The freedom to eat anything and anyone? Right to a shelter? Education?


It's sad seeing a thread about racism against ethnic Chinese turn into an "animal rights" debate, with veiled justifications for Morrissey's disgusting comments.
Learning is a two way street, you choose not to learn because you like eating animals. The AR people in this thread as well as any other AR thread on here, have been trying to explain it all along. As I have stated many times before on here, I am not against eating meat, as animals eat each other all the time, I am against capitalism and it's 'use' of animals for profit. The pain they are forced to endure so someone can eat them. If you want to eat an animal, go ahead, but you could at least have the decency to make it as painless as possible. To live unmolested, yes. Freedom to eat as they please, I guess so, as we do, but that doesn't mean if a bear is trying to eat me I'll just sit there and take it. Right to shelter, well I believe it's a natural instinct to have shelter, as far as I know all animals create their own in their own ways. Education, well, I don't think they need to learn the stuff that humans do, they don't choose to make their lives more complicated, as humans do.

It is sad to see that, Morrissey's comments were inappropriate. Anyone seeing justification is an ass.

[WeAreReborn]

Hah, I think it's funny you assume a majority of people today actually understand nutritional science, and that healthy eating is simply about making better choices divorced from economic issues. "Times change" is a statement without any real value. Conditions aren't different simply because they happened a long time ago, they are different because of changing material conditions. Cereals were predominant in the Middle Ages precisely because of the expanded production of grains.

Industrialized meat production actually made it possible for working class people to afford meat regularly. Before, that simply wasn't the case. I should note that when I say cerealization began in the Middle Ages, that is not to say that it ended in the Renaissance or anything like that.

The fact is, simply saying that feeding livestock is an inefficient use of grain is nonsense, particularly for animal rights activists, because what else would you have done? They only exist because we bred them for our own purposes. It's not like you can release beef cattle back into the wilderness or something, and somehow I can't imagine you folks would be eager to see a massive cull implemented.
http://farmingfriends.com/what-do-beef-cattle-eat/
"A mature cow can eat up to 50kg of food a day."
50kg=110 pounds of food a day. That is much more food then a human can consume. So if animals are worse less then a person why are we wasting so much resources on them? Well, no we wouldn't kill them once the revolution comes or w/e. I suggest keeping all the alive animals and yes use them for meat as food at first would be somewhat difficult to get the crops set up etc. Once that is down is you have no more "beef cattle" though I personally feel cattle should be helped to go back to what they once were, I am not sure of the Scientific implications needed. But I think meat is an inhumane cesspool that is nothing but pure waste.

[Noinu]

http://farmingfriends.com/what-do-beef-cattle-eat/
"A mature cow can eat up to 50kg of food a day."
50kg=110 pounds of food a day. That is much more food then a human can consume. So if animals are worse less then a person why are we wasting so much resources on them? Well, no we wouldn't kill them once the revolution comes or w/e. I suggest keeping all the alive animals and yes use them for meat as food at first would be somewhat difficult to get the crops set up etc. Once that is down is you have no more "beef cattle" though I personally feel cattle should be helped to go back to what they once were, I am not sure of the Scientific implications needed. But I think meat is an inhumane cesspool that is nothing but pure waste.

Not to try and sound mean or anything, but wtf? Back to what they once were? They didn't exist! To make them go back would simply mean to kill them.
Or otherwise, genetically change them into whatever hybrid between a moose and a bison they were, seriously doesn't sound like a very good idea.

[WeAreReborn]

I suppose I never will learn, since no one has ever explained to me exactly what those "freedoms" and "rights" actually are.

What are their supposedly "God given rights"? Should all of them have the right to live unmolested by humans and other animals? The freedom to eat anything and anyone? Right to a shelter? Education?


It's sad seeing a thread about racism against ethnic Chinese turn into an "animal rights" debate, with veiled justifications for Morrissey's disgusting comments.
No one has "God given rights", but everyone has rights. The right to live, all of us can agree, is a right. I think when animals do NOT need to be killed, as they don't, we are violating that right. Though this argument is totally useless as apathy is a hard barrier to break..
And to everyone using vegetable "cruelty" as a joke, well first off it is redundant as other people in the same thread have used it but also it is stupid as they cannot feel pain or think.

[WeAreReborn]

Not to try and sound mean or anything, but wtf? Back to what they once were? They didn't exist! To make them go back would simply mean to kill them.
Or otherwise, genetically change them into whatever hybrid between a moose and a bison they were, seriously doesn't sound like a very good idea.
Cattle used to be much different just like dogs or cats. We changed them do be tame and domesticated, it is just a thought because exterminating a whole species is definitely not what I want. But releasing them would be suicide on their part so I see it as the only alternative, but I am open for new ideas if you have one...

[Robocommie]

Not to try and sound mean or anything, but wtf? Back to what they once were? They didn't exist!

Kinda, modern beef cattle are descended from the aurochs, which has been extinct for a few centuries now. The last one died in Poland in the 17th century.

But it's nonsensical, this idea of trying to return cattle to the wild. It'd be like trying to turn dogs back into wolves.

[Noinu]

Cattle used to be much different just like dogs or cats. We changed them do be tame and domesticated, it is just a thought because exterminating a whole species is definitely not what I want. But releasing them would be suicide on their part so I see it as the only alternative, but I am open for new ideas if you have one...

Well actually the tame cat is less changed than dogs and definitely less than cattle. But of course you're right, humans tamed them, domesticated, but after years and years of breeding, genetic alterations must be vast. I just personally cannot see any plausible way of reversing that process. Not to mention we don't have the genetic code of the animal that existed before, and thus have no way of going back to that.

And I never said I had a plan, personally I have nothing against keeping a cow and killing it for meat and leather and whatnot. I do have a problem however on how cattle is treated in the larger (ahem huge) farms. The killing part bothers me much less than the keeping cows in blood, filth and dead cows. And the sheer amount of antibiotics is just wrong, nothing good ever comes from giving too much antibiotics.
But yeah, the killing, really not that bothered.

[Noinu]

Kinda, modern beef cattle are descended from the aurochs, which has been extinct for a few centuries now. The last one died in Poland in the 17th century.

But it's nonsensical, this idea of trying to return cattle to the wild. It'd be like trying to turn dogs back into wolves.

I agree, it's completely nonsensical. Even if it was technically possible of reversing that sort of genetic process, one would never be able to go back to the exact thing before merely because one doesn't have the right genetic code to refer to.
Safe to say it's impossible.

And thanks about the aurochs, btw, I was just about to google the matter and now I only have to google that :) rather interesting actually, they still lived in the 17th century? Man did they survive long.

[WeAreReborn]

Kinda, modern beef cattle are descended from the aurochs, which has been extinct for a few centuries now. The last one died in Poland in the 17th century.

But it's nonsensical, this idea of trying to return cattle to the wild. It'd be like trying to turn dogs back into wolves.
But the whole part of the human species is that we can change what our ecosystem. That is why humans are separate from the rest of the animal population, which possibly a few small exceptions. With that said, we do not have to in any way eat meat. And with the average adult cow eating 110 pounds of food a day, we shouldn't.

[WeAreReborn]

I agree, it's completely nonsensical. Even if it was technically possible of reversing that sort of genetic process, one would never be able to go back to the exact thing before merely because one doesn't have the right genetic code to refer to.
Safe to say it's impossible.

And thanks about the aurochs, btw, I was just about to google the matter and now I only have to google that :) rather interesting actually, they still lived in the 17th century? Man did they survive long.
Like I said it was just a thought. Nevertheless, you could prepare them for the wild and observe them to make sure the species survive.

[Noinu]

But the whole part of the human species is that we can change what our ecosystem. That is why humans are separate from the rest of the animal population, which possibly a few small exceptions. With that said, we do not have to in any way eat meat. And with the average adult cow eating 110 pounds of food a day, we shouldn't.

Again, not to try and sound mean...
Even though one can find the same sort of proteins in other food and not just meat, the human digestive system metabolises these items easier from meat, thus less food has to be used.
And anthropologically speaking, the human brain didn't begin to grow before humans learnt how to eat cooked meat (not meat alone, but cooked meat, since raw meat has various diseases). The human adult doesn't really get any help from this, but children seriously benefit from cooked meat.
I mean, how many kids would ever eat the amount of beans they need to get the same amount of proteins as they would from a small serving of minced meat?

[Noinu]

Like I said it was just a thought. Nevertheless, you could prepare them for the wild and observe them to make sure the species survive.

It has been extremely difficult for humans to introduce actual wild animals into the wild, how one would be able to go about bringing a species in the wild that has never in all it's existance been wild, is seriously beyond me.

[WeAreReborn]

Again, not to try and sound mean...
Even though one can find the same sort of proteins in other food and not just meat, the human digestive system metabolises these items easier from meat, thus less food has to be used.
And anthropologically speaking, the human brain didn't begin to grow before humans learnt how to eat cooked meat (not meat alone, but cooked meat, since raw meat has various diseases). The human adult doesn't really get any help from this, but children seriously benefit from cooked meat.
I mean, how many kids would ever eat the amount of beans they need to get the same amount of proteins as they would from a small serving of minced meat?
You don't have to give them say beans, but you could give them tvp or soy protein or seitan or even peanuts like give them peanut butter as an example just to name a few.

[Robocommie]

http://farmingfriends.com/what-do-beef-cattle-eat/
"A mature cow can eat up to 50kg of food a day."
50kg=110 pounds of food a day. That is much more food then a human can consume. So if animals are worse less then a person why are we wasting so much resources on them?

Because we want to eat them? I thought that was self-evident. Maybe that seems irrational to you, but you're apparently not big on eating meat. That's not true for everyone, and you can't expect everyone to want to become a vegetarian.

Frankly, all this bullshit is lifestylism. It's about as silly as anarcho-primitivism.

[WeAreReborn]

Because we want to eat them? I thought that was self-evident. Maybe that seems irrational to you, but you're apparently not big on eating meat. That's not true for everyone, and you can't expect everyone to want to become a vegetarian.

Frankly, all this bullshit is lifestylism. It's about as silly as anarcho-primitivism.
It is irrational because you can have substitutions that can taste much better and are more efficient. It is illogical to cling onto the fact that I want meat no matter what! Even though it is a massive, inhumane waste. And there is a clear difference between not wanting to waste resources and not wanting to torture animals then wanting to eradicate the majority of the human population.

[Noinu]

You don't have to give them say beans, but you could give them tvp or soy protein or seitan or even peanuts like give them peanut butter as an example just to name a few.

With my family's *cough*feminine*cough* cancer background, I would seriously avoid giving my child that amount of phytoestrogen. Soy protein for one is rich in it and it can easily highten the risk of getting estrogenbased cancers, like some breast cancers, ovarian cancers etc.

I am not saying it would be bad for all.

[Sosa]

I have cut down on my meat consumption, not because of any moral conflict but because of the way these farms treat animals (which is disgusting), and the ecological impact.

[WeAreReborn]

With my family's *cough*feminine*cough* cancer background, I would seriously avoid giving my child that amount of phytoestrogen. Soy protein for one is rich in it and it can easily highten the risk of getting estrogenbased cancers, like some breast cancers, ovarian cancers etc.

I am not saying it would be bad for all.
That is an exception and if a community, after said revolution, happens they might decide for whatever reason to have some animals for themselves. I still think it is somewhat wrong but all I am saying is people shouldn't be so ignorant or irrational when it comes to meat. So if a situation arises where an individual thinks that it would be most beneficial for their health to eat meat, and it is founded on a logical reason, then I do not oppose it.

[Noinu]

It is irrational because you can have substitutions that can taste much better and are more efficient. It is illogical to cling onto the fact that I want meat no matter what! Even though it is a massive, inhumane waste. And there is a clear difference between not wanting to waste resources and not wanting to torture animals then wanting to eradicate the majority of the human population.

Actually I've eaten meat substitutes, and for someone who really enjoys a nice steak once in a while, I have to say, they're crap.
They taste funny and the texture is awful. Just about as bad as ready made meatballs...ugh.

A family of six live on a farm far away from everything. They own one cow. It's an ordinary countryside cow, not specific to dairy or meat production. It eats the grass from the field and drinks the water from the spring.
Not extra hay, no weirdo grains needed, just the grass from the field.
That cow gets a bit old, doesn't produce any milk anymore, the family slaughters the cow and eats the meat. Uses the leather for other items, the bones too.
How on earth would this constitute as waste?
Cows do not need corn. Cows shouldn't eat corn. The reason cows are fed so many medicines is because they can't digest corn. Corn just happens to be cheap.
Give the cows a big field of grass and you're all set. You can't farm that land with grains anyway, so why not give it to a dozen cows.

[Property Is Robbery]

Always when there is talk about animals in China, its never regarding the fact that it is a very poor country, meaning; why should they care about a stupid dog when they are starving? And second, its always dogs! never the eels, the insects or the frogs, which showes A.) The hypocracy of the animal-rights movement, by valuing different animals and often in the way where good looking/cute animals are valued higher. B.) The western chauvinism and to not putting in themselves in the situation of people in China.
People in the animal rights movements don't prefer one animal over another.. Some of the people who post those videos however do only care about dogs because they are peoples pets here, yet they still eat meat and use animal products. You shouldn't make generalizations if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and Chinese people have survived for tens of thousands of years without brutally slaughtering animals..

[Robocommie]

It is irrational because you can have substitutions that can taste much better and are more efficient. It is illogical to cling onto the fact that I want meat no matter what! Even though it is a massive, inhumane waste. And there is a clear difference between not wanting to waste resources and not wanting to torture animals then wanting to eradicate the majority of the human population.

I don't have time for this nonsense.

[Noinu]

That is an exception and if a community, after said revolution, happens they might decide for whatever reason to have some animals for themselves. I still think it is somewhat wrong but all I am saying is people shouldn't be so ignorant or irrational when it comes to meat. So if a situation arises where an individual thinks that it would be most beneficial for their health to eat meat, and it is founded on a logical reason, then I do not oppose it.

Then why oppose it now, in the first place? There are logical, scientific reasons for it. They'll be the same ones then as they are now. What'd be the difference? I really don't get it.

Not to mention the fact that there are places on this planet where growing wheat for example is nearly impossible. Having two goats, isn't. They can be much more beneficial to some than any amount of seeds could. If the earth just isn't good enough to be grown crops in, there's not a lot one can do, except own an animal that doesn't need those things. Goats are very efficient and give excellent milk for both cheeses and beverages.

[Robocommie]

You shouldn't make generalizations if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and Chinese people have survived for tens of thousands of years without brutally slaughtering animals..

And how exactly have they slaughtered animals in ways that are not brutal? I suppose they used to have Confucian court musicians play lovely zither music until the animal would be lulled into a peaceful coma-like sleep and then just die?

[WeAreReborn]

I don't have time for this nonsense.
Same could be said about your apathy.

[Noinu]

And how exactly have they slaughtered animals in ways that are not brutal? I suppose they used to have Confucian court musicians play lovely zither music until the animal would be lulled into a peaceful coma-like sleep and then just die?


Ah I think that one just made my day XDDDD

[Property Is Robbery]

Kinda, modern beef cattle are descended from the aurochs, which has been extinct for a few centuries now. The last one died in Poland in the 17th century.

But it's nonsensical, this idea of trying to return cattle to the wild. It'd be like trying to turn dogs back into wolves.
No one is claiming that it's possible. What people who advocate animal rights usually believe is that every domesticated animals should be moved to sanctuaries to happily live the rest of their lives, they will be prevented from breeding and eventually die off. Of course this will never happen because many humans are too ignorant or greedy but that's the idea.

[WeAreReborn]

Actually I've eaten meat substitutes, and for someone who really enjoys a nice steak once in a while, I have to say, they're crap.
They taste funny and the texture is awful. Just about as bad as ready made meatballs...ugh.

A family of six live on a farm far away from everything. They own one cow. It's an ordinary countryside cow, not specific to dairy or meat production. It eats the grass from the field and drinks the water from the spring.
Not extra hay, no weirdo grains needed, just the grass from the field.
That cow gets a bit old, doesn't produce any milk anymore, the family slaughters the cow and eats the meat. Uses the leather for other items, the bones too.
How on earth would this constitute as waste?
Cows do not need corn. Cows shouldn't eat corn. The reason cows are fed so many medicines is because they can't digest corn. Corn just happens to be cheap.
Give the cows a big field of grass and you're all set. You can't farm that land with grains anyway, so why not give it to a dozen cows.
I wouldn't oppose that, but that is an isolated incident. For example, what would they eat for a source of protein before the cow dies?
Plus you must have eaten some nasty substitution. I occasionally, make mock BLT sandwiches or have some mock hamburgers and I can't tell a difference.

[Property Is Robbery]

And how exactly have they slaughtered animals in ways that are not brutal? I suppose they used to have Confucian court musicians play lovely zither music until the animal would be lulled into a peaceful coma-like sleep and then just die?
They held the animal down and stabbed it in its neck. They didn't torcher it like you see in those videos

[Noinu]

No one is claiming that it's possible. What people who advocate animal rights usually believe is that every domesticated animals should be moved to sanctuaries to happily live the rest of their lives, they will be prevented from breeding and eventually die off. Of course this will never happen because many humans are too ignorant or greedy but that's the idea.

How is that not waste of good resources? I mean, you still have to feed them till the day they die and in that time you're losing both meat and grains.
And eating animals is barely ignorance or greed. It started out as an extremely good solution for people to find necessary meals and it gave humans the brain capacity we have now.

[Robocommie]

Same could be said about your apathy.

Realism, is what I would see it as. After all, I am not apathetic. I am in favor of sustainable agriculture. I'm just not terribly interested in ridiculous hippie lifestylism.

[WeAreReborn]

And how exactly have they slaughtered animals in ways that are not brutal? I suppose they used to have Confucian court musicians play lovely zither music until the animal would be lulled into a peaceful coma-like sleep and then just die?
How about not having them picked up by a machine and then slowly killed? Or having to feast off of corn and literally feces or a fellow cow. They are caused to be in constant pain and a lot die prematurely. That is brutal and can be avoided, but yeah we can go with your not well thought out sarcastic comment.

[Noinu]

I wouldn't oppose that, but that is an isolated incident. For example, what would they eat for a source of protein before the cow dies?
Plus you must have eaten some nasty substitution. I occasionally, make mock BLT sandwiches or have some mock hamburgers and I can't tell a difference.

Easy, cheese and butter. All come from a cow. Butter for example is an amazing source of both fats and proteins during winter months, since it's so easy to keep good. And sour milk, sour milk was very popular in Finland two hundred years ago when most people lived the way I described in the post before.

And I don't like hamburgers with real meat, I'm barely going to like them with mock meat.

[WeAreReborn]

Realism, is what I would see it as. After all, I am not apathetic. I am in favor of sustainable agriculture. I'm just not terribly interested in ridiculous hippie lifestylism.
Hippie lifestyle? Then you clearly have not read what I have been saying which is why this whole thread and hell any forum is futile. I have been proposing a more educated diet. If in certain occasions it is more beneficial to eat meat then go for it as long as it is humane. But often times those occasions aren't the majority so it is a waste and then becomes apathy to continue to eat meat despite health, resource and moral benefits.

[Robocommie]

No one is claiming that it's possible. What people who advocate animal rights usually believe is that every domesticated animals should be moved to sanctuaries to happily live the rest of their lives, they will be prevented from breeding and eventually die off. Of course this will never happen because many humans are too ignorant or greedy but that's the idea.

I think it's downright offensive that you think not wanting to turn the billions of domesticated food animals on Earth into pets in ridiculous "sanctuaries" is an example of human ignorance and greed. I think it's rather telling you guys live out in California, instead of out here in fly-over country where we actually grow most of the damn food you eat, including a lot of pork.



That is brutal and can be avoided, but yeah we can go with your not well thought out sarcastic comment.I'm hurt, I put a fair deal of thought into my sarcastic comment.

[WeAreReborn]

Easy, cheese and butter. All come from a cow. Butter for example is an amazing source of both fats and proteins during winter months, since it's so easy to keep good. And sour milk, sour milk was very popular in Finland two hundred years ago when most people lived the way I described in the post before.

And I don't like hamburgers with real meat, I'm barely going to like them with mock meat.
That much dairy is extremely unhealthy and would greatly increase your risk of cancer. And well I just named two examples, I don't know your personal tastes. :p

[Property Is Robbery]

Again, not to try and sound mean...
Even though one can find the same sort of proteins in other food and not just meat, the human digestive system metabolises these items easier from meat, thus less food has to be used.
And anthropologically speaking, the human brain didn't begin to grow before humans learnt how to eat cooked meat (not meat alone, but cooked meat, since raw meat has various diseases). The human adult doesn't really get any help from this, but children seriously benefit from cooked meat.
I mean, how many kids would ever eat the amount of beans they need to get the same amount of proteins as they would from a small serving of minced meat?
That's a very misinformed statement, there are many ways to easily get the amount of protein one does from meat, in fact the body works so hard to break down meat that the protein is virtually wasted, plus if the human body doesn't consume 50% of its food in the form of raw fruits and vegetables than white blood cells actually start to attack the stomach.

[Noinu]

How about not having them picked up by a machine and then slowly killed? Or having to feast off of corn and literally feces or a fellow cow. They are caused to be in constant pain and a lot die prematurely. That is brutal and can be avoided, but yeah we can go with your not well thought out sarcastic comment.

Treatment of animals is horrible, we all understand that and oppose it. However, just the killing of an animal is barely the issue in that case.
If you have an animal, it's had a lovely life in a wonderful field with it's fellow mates, then wtf is so wrong with eating the sod after it's dead?

I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I die. I'm dead, I don't need me anymore.

[WeAreReborn]

I'm hurt, I put a fair deal of thought into my sarcastic comment.
:lol: I meant the implications behind it not the actual statement. So you can keep the points for sarcasm!

[WeAreReborn]

Treatment of animals is horrible, we all understand that and oppose it. However, just the killing of an animal is barely the issue in that case.
If you have an animal, it's had a lovely life in a wonderful field with it's fellow mates, then wtf is so wrong with eating the sod after it's dead?

I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I die. I'm dead, I don't need me anymore.
So if someone killed you then ate you it would be fine? Eating a dead animal isn't the problem, killing the animal for the meat is. Plus the problem with cows eating cows is it is purely unnatural and unhealthy.

[Property Is Robbery]

I think it's downright offensive that you think not wanting to turn the billions of domesticated food animals on Earth into pets in ridiculous "sanctuaries" is an example of human ignorance and greed. I think it's rather telling you guys live out on the West Coast, instead of out here in fly-over country where we actually grow all the damn food you eat, including a lot of pork.



You grow none of the food I eat fool, and you don't know me at all. How is that offensive? You're the PRIME example of human IGNORANCE and GREED. You don't know what is healthy to put into your own body which is fine if you want to poison yourself, but that's leading to the needless torture of hundreds of animals just for your appetite which makes your greedy, now I don't know where you live but in America there is factory farming and if you can say that that is not torture than you're a blind fool.

[Noinu]

That's a very misinformed statement, there are many ways to easily get the amount of protein one does from meat, in fact the body works so hard to break down meat that the protein is virtually wasted, plus if the human body doesn't consume 50% of its food in the form of raw fruits and vegetables than white blood cells actually start to attack the stomach.

Humans are mixed eaters, like pigs, not carnivores or herbivores. I am not saying humans could survive eating only meat.

But, it is not a misinformed statement. Humans did not have the sort of technology available before now to even begin to come to this state of development without actual meat.
And as I said in a previous post to your brother, the human digestive system digests the proteins from meat much more efficiently than from any other source of those proteins. Check up on your medical research if you don't believe me. Yes, there are substitutes, and again they are not healthy for everyone. Meat however, is less often unhealthy to humans.
(And if you don't want to go and find the post where I make this argument I'll make it again: Soy products have huge amounts of phytoestrogen in them and that amount of estrogen can easily cause the growth of different estrogen based cancers in those individuals who are genetically in risk for them. Meat however, does not cause this horrible side effect)

[Noinu]

That much dairy is extremely unhealthy and would greatly increase your risk of cancer. And well I just named two examples, I don't know your personal tastes. :p

Dairy products give much less risk to get those cancers than the amount of phytoestrogen in soy products.

[Property Is Robbery]

Treatment of animals is horrible, we all understand that and oppose it. However, just the killing of an animal is barely the issue in that case.
If you have an animal, it's had a lovely life in a wonderful field with it's fellow mates, then wtf is so wrong with eating the sod after it's dead?

I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I die. I'm dead, I don't need me anymore.
True but would you like to be bred for food, ripped away from your mother after your born, pumped with hormones so you mature quicker, get impregnated constantly as soon as you're old enough, so your can have machines hooked up to your nipples while you're in a cramped stall you can't even turn around in? Plus no one eats cows after they die naturally.

[Stand Your Ground]

You know the difference between you and these oppressed non-humans? You are actually capable of abstractly contemplating the concept of "freedom" in a way beyond it's most immediate practical concerns.

Predation is a fact of biological existence. For millions of years prior to the birth of humanity animals have killed one another to eat. They still do, like Red Star Over China said. That's the natural order of things. It makes no sense whatsoever to weep over the "oppression" of swine, for example, when swine will (and occasionally do) eat human flesh when they get the chance.
I'm sure if they could tell you (assuming you would even listen) their ideas of freedom they would.

Already stated I'm not against eating meat.

So you have a problem with pigs eating humans? Why is this? You would eat them so why can't they eat you? Because it's wrong? To who?

[Noinu]

So if someone killed you then ate you it would be fine? Eating a dead animal isn't the problem, killing the animal for the meat is. Plus the problem with cows eating cows is it is purely unnatural and unhealthy.

Basically, yes. If someone shot me down on the street and ate me, there's not a lot that I could be bothered with, seeing as I'm dead.

[Property Is Robbery]

Dairy products give much less risk to get those cancers than the amount of phytoestrogen in soy products.
Soy definitely isn't always the healthiest thing, but i don't see how it could be worse than dairy for humans, when people first started drinking dairy everyone was lactose intolerant because lactose isn't meant to be consumed by humans as it is a carcinogen, the unhealthy fats, and tough to break down proteins don't add to your health either.

[Noinu]

True but would you like to be bred for food, ripped away from your mother after your born, pumped with hormones so you mature quicker, get impregnated constantly as soon as you're old enough, so your can have machines hooked up to your nipples while you're in a cramped stall you can't even turn around in? Plus no one eats cows after they die naturally.

You guys seem to be extremely bad listeners.
I've said time and time again that I find the treatment of animals horrible, the sheer amount of unneeded medicines pumped into them is just wrong.
I have never said I find factory farming on the scale it is done nowadays to be good in any way.
I am however saying, this has nothing to do with the premise of eating meat.

And btw, the machines that are hooked to their nipples are extremely good for them. The amount of breasinflammations in cows dropped significantly after hand milking became uncommon. Those pumps are actually keeping the milking process alright for the cows. They used to be in agony before.

And that people don't eat cows after they die naturally is only a problem of the system, not the premise of eating meat. I personally would have no issue in eating a cow that died of old age.

[Property Is Robbery]

Humans are mixed eaters, like pigs, not carnivores or herbivores. I am not saying humans could survive eating only meat.

But, it is not a misinformed statement. Humans did not have the sort of technology available before now to even begin to come to this state of development without actual meat.
And as I said in a previous post to your brother, the human digestive system digests the proteins from meat much more efficiently than from any other source of those proteins. Check up on your medical research if you don't believe me. Yes, there are substitutes, and again they are not healthy for everyone. Meat however, is less often unhealthy to humans.
(And if you don't want to go and find the post where I make this argument I'll make it again: Soy products have huge amounts of phytoestrogen in them and that amount of estrogen can easily cause the growth of different estrogen based cancers in those individuals who are genetically in risk for them. Meat however, does not cause this horrible side effect)
Meat greatly adds to the risk of cancer in other ways first of all, but if you believe in evolution how could you think humans are meant to eat meat? We have weak stomachs naturally until conditioned otherwise, plus we don't have claws or talons or the ability to run fast enough to catch most animals, also are teeth are very obviously not suited for meat what so ever when compared to any other meat eating animal. Now you can argue that human's did come up with weapons to kill animals, but they also came up with tools for farming.

[WeAreReborn]

Basically, yes. If someone shot me down on the street and ate me, there's not a lot that I could be bothered with, seeing as I'm dead.
I mean the principle behind it is murder. Not the consumption. Obviously you are not dead so you don't mind but same could be said of any murder/genocide. The point is the principle and useless acts of eradicating life.

[Property Is Robbery]

You guys seem to be extremely bad listeners.
I've said time and time again that I find the treatment of animals horrible, the sheer amount of unneeded medicines pumped into them is just wrong.
I have never said I find factory farming on the scale it is done nowadays to be good in any way.
I am however saying, this has nothing to do with the premise of eating meat.

And btw, the machines that are hooked to their nipples are extremely good for them. The amount of breasinflammations in cows dropped significantly after hand milking became uncommon. Those pumps are actually keeping the milking process alright for the cows. They used to be in agony before.

And that people don't eat cows after they die naturally is only a problem of the system, not the premise of eating meat. I personally would have no issue in eating a cow that died of old age.But a cow that died from old age wouldn't be palatable, and I'm sorry to inform you that we live in the 21st century and factory farming has everything to do with meat consumption nowadays, at least in America, the two can't be separated. Maybe it's good compared to hand pumping but I can tell you that I'm sure it doesn't fell good either way.

[Noinu]

Soy definitely isn't always the healthiest thing, but i don't see how it could be worse than dairy for humans, when people first started drinking dairy everyone was lactose intolerant because lactose isn't meant to be consumed by humans as it is a carcinogen, the unhealthy fats, and tough to break down proteins don't add to your health either.

Almost everything on this planet is a carcinogen, the problem is more of what amounts are needed for those to take any effect.
Lactose intolerance is nowadays however not a big problem. First of all, only in some parts of the world there are many lactose intolerants and in some almost no (including Finland). And lactose intolerance has nothing to do with dairy having carcinogenic properties. Lactose enzyme is not digested in some people, not because dairy products have carcinogens, but because these people do not have the necessary gene to chop that enzyme. Huuuuuge difference.
There are no unhealthy fats, all fat is good for people, just as long as it's in moderate contities. You've been reading way too much of that bs 'no salt, no fats' literature.
The proteins in soy are not easier to break down, not to mention some people having soy allergies (which btw are much more common than milk allergies).

[Noinu]

But a cow that died from old age wouldn't be palatable, and I'm sorry to inform you that we live in the 21st century and factory farming has everything to do with meat consumption nowadays, at least in America, the two can't be separated. Maybe it's good compared to hand pumping but I can tell you that I'm sure it doesn't fell good either way.

Jesus, that post just gives me sooo much to go on, thanks.

Sure an old cow wouldn't be all that nice to eat, but it'd still a. taste good and b. have the same proteins in the same form.

Just because meat production in this century means factory farming doesn't mean one shouldn't change that. It's like saying because people live in this system of economy there's no point in trying to have a revolution since 21st century and capitalism just go together. Good one.

[Property Is Robbery]

Almost everything on this planet is a carcinogen, the problem is more of what amounts are needed for those to take any effect.
Lactose intolerance is nowadays however not a big problem. First of all, only in some parts of the world there are many lactose intolerants and in some almost no (including Finland). And lactose intolerance has nothing to do with dairy having carcinogenic properties. Lactose enzyme is not digested in some people, not because dairy products have carcinogens, but because these people do not have the necessary gene to chop that enzyme. Huuuuuge difference.
There are no unhealthy fats, all fat is good for people, just as long as it's in moderate contities. You've been reading way too much of that bs 'no salt, no fats' literature.
The proteins in soy are not easier to break down, not to mention some people having soy allergies (which btw are much more common than milk allergies). That's dumb of course there are bad and good fats, fats that are highly saturated and trans fat are obviously not good, where as omega 3 6 & 9 fats are very healthy, everyone needs fat and salt to live so I don't know where that assumption is coming from, lactose intolerance effects 1/3 of the population, carcinogens are completely avoidable because most things don't have them, and finally why do you keep assuming vegans eat a shitload of soy? this is simply not true, at least in my case, it is not always the healthiest thing but the only type of cancer it can cause are those related to estrogen like breast cancer.

[Noinu]

Meat greatly adds to the risk of cancer in other ways first of all, but if you believe in evolution how could you think humans are meant to eat meat? We have weak stomachs naturally until conditioned otherwise, plus we don't have claws or talons or the ability to run fast enough to catch most animals, also are teeth are very obviously not suited for meat what so ever when compared to any other meat eating animal. Now you can argue that human's did come up with weapons to kill animals, but they also came up with tools for farming.

Meat does not greatly add to the risk of cancer like various other products. Human being evolved into the state we are in BECAUSE they started eating cooked meat, not the other way around.
Humans do not need any claws and talons or the ability to run fast, since we've got brains to kill them in other ways. Human teeth are extremely well suited for eating mixed meat, not just meat or grains. Human teeth as just as useless in trying to eat for example wheat. We first have to process it down so that we can eat it. Just going to a field and munching away is definitely not good for your teeth.
Of course humans came up with tools for farming as well, since when can you not read the stance of MIXED FOOD.
The human digestive system changed suitable for meat, because humans started eating meat. Yes, humans however, would not have continued in arduous hunting if they didn't notice benefits from it.

[Noinu]

That's dumb of course there are bad and good fats, fats that are highly saturated and trans fat are obviously not good, where as omega 3 6 & 9 fats are very healthy, everyone needs fat and salt to live so I don't know where that assumption is coming from, lactose intolerance effects 1/3 of the population, carcinogens are completely avoidable because most things don't have them, and finally why do you keep assuming vegans eat a shitload of soy? this is simply not true, at least in my case, it is not always the healthiest thing but the only type of cancer it can cause are those related to estrogen like breast cancer.

Old facts, my boy, old facts.

And boy are you guys dim. Seriously dim.
Good luck.

[Property Is Robbery]

Jesus, that post just gives me sooo much to go on, thanks.

Sure an old cow wouldn't be all that nice to eat, but it'd still a. taste good and b. have the same proteins in the same form.

Just because meat production in this century means factory farming doesn't mean one shouldn't change that. It's like saying because people live in this system of economy there's no point in trying to have a revolution since 21st century and capitalism just go together. Good one.
No of course people should change that I never said they shouldn't but I don't see why if people want to eat meat so bad why they can't just go kill it themselves. And no it wouldn't taste good because it would've lived a whole life of walking around and tensing the muscle making the meat extremely tough and chewy, that's why they chain veil down so they don't walk around and loose tenderness.

[Property Is Robbery]

Old facts, my boy, old facts.

And boy are you guys dim. Seriously dim.
Good luck.
Where are your sources? you can't dismiss 5 arguments as old facts

[Queercommie Girl]

So you're logic is that its impossible for an oppressed group to oppress? OK then I guess since white women are oppressed in the form of sexism its impossible for them to be racist and homophobic, gotcha.

The Chinese people does not oppress anyone as a group.

White people do not oppress anyone as a group.

The capitalist ruling class, on the other hand, does oppress workers as a group.

So you can say "all capitalists are bad" or "all ruling class members are bad", but you can't say "all Chinese people are bad" or "all white people are bad".

There are individual Chinese people and white people who are racist or whatever, but that is fundamentally not the same as blaming the entire group of Chinese or white people.

Which is essentially the point of this whole thread, which an idiot like you has apparently missed completely. This fucking racist retard Morrissey is labelling the Chinese ethnicity as a whole as a subspecies over not even an alleged human rights problem, but an animal rights problem. It is in fact racist in itself to simply assume that Chinese people as a whole treat animals worse than other races do. What proof do you have for this, apart from racist stereotypes?

[Property Is Robbery]

Meat does not greatly add to the risk of cancer like various other products. Human being evolved into the state we are in BECAUSE they started eating cooked meat, not the other way around.
Humans do not need any claws and talons or the ability to run fast, since we've got brains to kill them in other ways. Human teeth are extremely well suited for eating mixed meat, not just meat or grains. Human teeth as just as useless in trying to eat for example wheat. We first have to process it down so that we can eat it. Just going to a field and munching away is definitely not good for your teeth.
Of course humans came up with tools for farming as well, since when can you not read the stance of MIXED FOOD.
The human digestive system changed suitable for meat, because humans started eating meat. Yes, humans however, would not have continued in arduous hunting if they didn't notice benefits from it.
I eat a loot of mixed food, food most people have never heard of. And no shit humans can't just eat wheat, but many people argue that wheat isn't healthy either, also you can just go pick fruits and vegetables and eat them.

[The Guy]

I remember back in senior/high school they taught us that the Chinese gene was a sub-human species. Human, yes, but another type of human. Just thought it'd be worth the mention what the British education system approves.

[Property Is Robbery]

I remember back in senior/high school they taught us that the Chinese gene was a sub-human species. Human, yes, but another type of human. Just thought it'd be worth the mention what the British education system approves.
That's fucking horrible, may i ask when you were in high school or is that too intrusive? :p

[RedStarOverChina]

Learning is a two way street, you choose not to learn because you like eating animals. The AR people in this thread as well as any other AR thread on here, have been trying to explain it all along. As I have stated many times before on here, I am not against eating meat, as animals eat each other all the time, I am against capitalism and it's 'use' of animals for profit. The pain they are forced to endure so someone can eat them. If you want to eat an animal, go ahead, but you could at least have the decency to make it as painless as possible. To live unmolested, yes. Freedom to eat as they please, I guess so, as we do, but that doesn't mean if a bear is trying to eat me I'll just sit there and take it. Right to shelter, well I believe it's a natural instinct to have shelter, as far as I know all animals create their own in their own ways. Education, well, I don't think they need to learn the stuff that humans do, they don't choose to make their lives more complicated, as humans do.

As much as I appreciate your long response, I still do not see a definition for the supposed rights and freedoms of the animals.


The right to live, all of us can agree, is a right. I think when animals do NOT need to be killed, as they don't, we are violating that right. Though this argument is totally useless as apathy is a hard barrier to break.. No, I don't think we ALL agree that all animals have a right to live. Most predatory animals certainly do not.

So if the animals have a right to live, does that mean predatory animals (dog, cats, etc) violate the basic rights of other animals? Are there going to be literally a kangaroo court that specifically deals with these criminal, carnivorous animals when they kill another animal? Who would be responsible for protecting the "right" of weaker animals from predation, if not the kangaroos?

Or are you going to teach lions to start eating Toufu?

If not, why can carnivorous animals eat meat, and not me? After all, humans and animals are equal---at least according to some of you.


I think we should all stop pretending that this is an animal rights issue. It's not.

We don't care if the animals die---neither do the animal rights activists, because animals die in wilderness of sickness and predation all the time; it doesn't bother us.

What the animal rights activists care about is human morality, not animal life itself. The purpose here is to make us humans with inferior moral values (i.e., meat eaters, fur wearers, the Chinese, etc.) feel bad about ourselves.


and Chinese people have survived for tens of thousands of years without brutally slaughtering animals..What the...Which China are you talking about?

The one I'm familiar with has been the single biggest producer and consumer of pork and poultry since time immemorial.

I beg of you, think before you speak.

[Widerstand]

Yeah, and you know what sucked? Back in the Middle Ages when European society was mostly fed on grains and vegetables, the health effects weren't that great. Humans process animals for food. That's just how it is. We've eaten meat for millions of years, we'll probably eat it for millions more if we're lucky enough to survive that long.

Find me a source that proves we need to eat meat.

Because that's just not true. There's no single nutrient in meat we can't get through vegetables.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I remember back in senior/high school they taught us that the Chinese gene was a sub-human species. Human, yes, but another type of human. Just thought it'd be worth the mention what the British education system approves.

Thats awful. Did you grow up in 1930's Berlin or something?

Also, Im 100% certain the last letter of your post should be a 'd', not an 's'.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Also, it is true that we dont need meat anymore. People eat meat now because they like it and thats that. Dont hide behind "we've done it for millions of years" platitudes, just admit it - You love feeding up on the flesh of sentient beings, bred for the express purpose of being slaughtered in their millions 'cuz its tasty and we're fat and thats that.

I think if I we're forced to hunt or forage for my own food I would eat meat, but I dont like the hypocrisy that surrounds meat eating in western society.

I do eat fish, though.... but fish are absolute bellends and have been asking for it if you ask me.

[RedStarOverChina]

Thats awful. Did you grow up in 1930's Berlin or something?

Also, Im 100% certain the last letter of your post should be a 'd', not an 's'.
Well, until recently a good portion of Chinese anthropologists thought that modern Chinese are more related to the homo erectus pekinensis than homo sapiens, which is the rest of mankind.

I'm not sure if anybody still believes in that nowadays

[Robocommie]

You're the PRIME example of human IGNORANCE and GREED.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4140970603_e70dd1121d_z.jpg

Curses, I've been discovered!

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Well, until recently a good portion of Chinese anthropologists thought that modern Chinese are more related to the homo erectus pekinensis than homo sapiens, which is the rest of mankind.

I'm not sure if anybody still believes in that nowadays

I think I saw something about that on a BBC doc last year. Apparently there are still some in China that go for it.

[9]

Find me a source that proves we need to eat meat.

Because that's just not true. There's no single nutrient in meat we can't get through vegetables.

there's heme iron in meat. the body absorbs a substantially larger percent of the total iron content from heme iron (i think its something like 40%), in contrast to something like 1-7% of the iron in non-heme sources (i.e. non-meat). try bleeding heavily every month and then see how easy it is to get the necessary amount of iron from strictly non-heme sources.