Re: Meat, Morrissey and Mein Führer.
After Morrissey's claims last week regarding comparisons between eating meat and supporting Auschwitz, I investigated his claims to find that these views are not new; whilst he is often made to look the fool in the tabloids for his 'outspoken tirades', these views are very much grounded in profound thought. Take a read here:
http://thegreatdebatemyviewyourview.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/meat-morrissey-and-mein-fuhrer/
Nazis DEHUMANIZED Jews, gays, Gypsies, the handicapped, and other undesirables, under the UNSCIENTIFIC theories of Eugenics, reducing the status of these humans to the status of non-human animals. So, Auschwitz victims were regarded as being non-human animals--just like cattle. The modern meat industry treats animals as non-humans (as they are)--just like cattle. Thus, non-human animals are just like the non-humans of Auschwitz. This is the logic behind this proposition. It makes sense on paper. And coming from Jewish intellectuals and scholars, makes it look more legitimate. Who can argue with the victims of the Holocaust themselves, right?
Morrissey claiming animals are treated like victims of Auschwitz is not a new argument, nor one which he concocted. But I still say, even if it is logically sound, it is still insensitive coming from a non-Jew who is using the historical tragedy of a group of people for his own political purposes. It is emotional PROPAGANDA. And the Anti-Defamation League agrees.
Humans were treated like non-human animals. Animals are not treated like humans. Jews are humans, NOT non-human animals. Are animals being treated like Jews? It was wrong to treat Jews like animals, right? Is it also, then, wrong to treat animals like animals? This is essentially what Morrissey and Newkirk are saying.
It is wrong to treat animals like animals. We need to treat them like humans. So the question is, should we give animals the same consideration as humans? If we do, this would mean they could not be used for food, or resources such as milk and fur, labor of any kind, entertainment, or even be regarded as pets. Why? Because they cannot offer consent. And without consent, this would amount to involuntary exploitation and confinement. In other words, slavery. And slavery is illegal. Do you agree with that? If not, then you don't accept this argument. And neither does Morrissey, really, when you think about it. He is all talk and no action. Because the man consumes diary and owns pets.
His inconsistency and hypocrisy is apparent to all, and makes him look like a silly, insensitive man, exploiting the tragedy of a group of people for his own selfish ideology--an ideology which in practice, he doesn't even fully embrace himself.