Morrissey Central: "New PETA Ad" (23 September, 2019)

0-1_xwjqcu.jpg


https://www.morrisseycentral.com/messagesfrommorrissey/new-peta-ad

Regards,
FWD.
 

DreamingofStew

Active Member
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.

If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.

I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.

The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.

For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.

There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.

Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.

I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
 
T

The Irish Hare

Guest
I have ex-battery hens identical to her except the ends of their beaks were cut off to prevent pecking each other from stress. Ironically they sold their eggs for higher money as organic , even though they were caged, just fed organic food. They had practically no feathers when I got them and their skin was red and inflamed from sitting in the ammonia from their own excrement. I had to spray them with antiseptic to soothe the pain.
I also had to coat their legs in soothocream to kill the mites that caused the skin to peel off.
It was very moving to see their reaction to walking in grass for the first time and to see their personalities come alive. Now 4 years later,they run like raptors to rush the front door every time it's open as they love to raid the cats bowl for food. They are very sociable and like to hang out wherever I am outside and I regard them with as much fondness as I do my cats or dogs.
Fantastic photo.
It's very effective and shows the beauty of both participants.
The most humble of animals need all the help they can get.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.

If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.

I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.

The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.

For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.

There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.

Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.

I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.

You are talking about flaws and humans as rational animals. If you are going to eat other animals at least have the moral decency of looking at them in the eyes and killing them with your bare hands like the rest of the animals do. If you don't do that you are a participant of organized genocide.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
How little you know when you base everything on feeling not realising you are prey as well and just meat to some. Go hug that tiger and lion when they've not been fed into lethargic yawning and see what happens.
We're all animals and there is a food chain and humans are on top of it for a reason. Yoour cats kill birds for fun and rats and mice too. They play with it and prolong the suffering and enjoy the torture.
Open the door and see if your cats stay or leave forever, you don't imprison pets do you?
Not as easy as it seems but to understand that you need real food and a brain that functions cause surprise surprise the heart is not a brain.
I tried your experiment and my cat ran away. But then I opened a can of food and it came back.
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
You are talking about flaws and humans as rational animals. If you are going to eat other animals at least have the moral decency of looking at them in the eyes and killing them with your bare hands like the rest of the animals do. If you don't do that you are a participant of organized genocide.
You’re use of the term genocide is a subversion and so problematic. If you insist on it, human genocide would become readily justifiable on the basis that you would inevitably be exterminating perpetrators of genocide. In essence, I’m saying this might sound good to you but you haven’t thought it through.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.

If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.

I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.

The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.

For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.

There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.

Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.

I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
So if I'm vegan I'm actually starving carnivorous animals because there is talk of a law that won't happen until we're all underwater from the rising sea anyway? You're saying that to save the animals I have to eat the animals?
I think you're right that this is a point that has never been made before!
 

DreamingofStew

Active Member
So if I'm vegan I'm actually starving carnivorous animals because there is talk of a law that won't happen until we're all underwater from the rising sea anyway? You're saying that to save the animals I have to eat the animals?
I think you're right that this is a point that has never been made before!

No, as I said, I appreciate people trying to live their principles. It looks to me like you're paraphrasing in order to make it sound like I wrote something I didn't so that you can dismiss it without thought.

I didn't say it was a point that hadn't been made before, either. Plenty of people have made this or a similar point, but I never see it adequately addressed, as I said. (And maybe I never will if all responses are as weak as yours.)

As I also said, these issues are not simple.

I realise it's deeply unfashionable to talk about the underlying logic of certain principles, but eventually that logic begins to play out in real life. Your mention of meat not being illegal until we're all under the water is mere evasion. We don't know what will happen or when, but sea-level rise is not predicted, anyway, to submerge everything. The article is a clear sign of a future possibility - one worth discussing, especially with reference to the underlying logic involved.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There's an obvious flaw with this, which is the flaw in veganism in general. Let me just say, I'm not being snarky. I admire that people have principles, but there's a contradiction here that I have never seen adequately addressed. It's true that we're all animals. What we're supposed to take from this is that all animals should be treated the same. But some animals are carnivores. If, as some people would like (see, for example: https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...-mansfield-qc-labour-conference-a9115656.html) meat is made illegal, then that would mean not being able to feed any species that are carnivores. Since "we're all animals", this is genocide.

If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law.

I think we don't actually know how this debate is going to play out. Just as with immigration and gender issues - no, much more so, I would say - we don't know what we're getting into. When we 'get what we want' (or what the vegans want, in this case), we'll find there are all sorts of complications we didn't anticipate.

The debate absolutely should take place, since there's no doubt that animals are currently horribly mistreated, but I don't think there's a simple answer here. People love their simple answers and their slogans ("we're all animals", etc.), but life is complicated.

For what it's worth, I think that there is much to be gained from looking at the classical model of the chain of being which posits three kinds of soul:

https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

These are, the nutritive soul, which vegetable matter has, the sensitive or animal soul, which animals have, and the rational soul, which humans have. Animals also have the nutritive soul and humans also have the animal and nutritive souls.

There are interesting implications of this way of looking at things. For a start, vegetables, too, have soul, so vegans don't get off scot free (not sure how to spell that) there, if they are concerned about taking life. Secondly, there is a distinction between rational animals and other kinds of animal.

Now, this is not to say that we don't need, therefore, to consider the welfare of other animals (all life, on this view, is ensouled) - it means that we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned, and that very fact should give us a clue that not all animals are the same and this should figure in our reasoning.

I do think that this century might see the line between rational animals (humans) and sensitive animals becoming blurrier (sensitive animals being perhaps more rational than we supposed), but I doubt very much that we are going to see an erasure of that line, as blurry as it gets.
"If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law."
Well, who said we should do that? There are two meanings of equality. If you say all men are equal, one can say: "No some men are stronger than others, some men are smarter, some men are shorter, etc." We can say that for the statement "All animals are equal" the same protest can be applied. Equal doesn't mean we all should be held to the same standards. People have their limitations, and so do animals. We should accommodate for their natural limitations, not treat them like human beings.
Why should the fact that other animals are perhaps incapable of rational thought and morality be an excuse to behave like they do? As you said, "we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned", which is why we're the only animals that have a moral obligation to treat other animals well. Other animals don't have a choice.

Meat is only murder if it's unnecessary. Meat is necessary for obligate carnivores, as they'd die without it. Take a lion and a gazelle. If the lion catches the gazelle, the gazelle suffers, but if the lion doesn't catch the gazelle, the gazelle suffers. Therefore, according to the utilitarian principle of secular morality, the lion is justified in taking the gazelle's life, as in doing so, the lion is preventing an equal or greater amount of suffering from occurring. Meat is not necessary for us, as human beings can thrive on a vegan diet. Plants, however, are necessary for our survival. (As of now, the scientific consensus is that plants are not sentient. Unless that changes, I don't believe they should have any moral consideration, but, for the sake of argument, I'll bite.) You must understand that over half of the crops being produced are fed to livestock animals. So, if you want the best for plants as well as animals, the best option is veganism. Of course vegans still cause suffering. Along with plant deaths, there are many inadvertent crop deaths- small animals like rodents to larger animals like deer who want a nibble of corn. Vegans certainly aren't perfect, but the goal is to reduce suffering.
 

NealCassidy

FREE SPEECH
All living beings are destined for death and suffering.

If there was a 100% painless way to kill in the abattoir, and the end of cramped or cruel conditions, would that end the argument?
 

rifke

team bougatsa
they should've flattened the hair on his right side of his head and put it behind his ear. it ruins it.
 
Thanks to Joaquin for continuin' to take a stand against Bird murder.
It ain't no coincidence that the finest artists of the day, like Joaquin and Moz, are Friends Of The Feather.
 

DreamingofStew

Active Member
"If, as I said, we follow the implication that all animals should be treated alike, then we should also be taking animals to court for anything they do that infringes human law."
Well, who said we should do that? There are two meanings of equality. If you say all men are equal, one can say: "No some men are stronger than others, some men are smarter, some men are shorter, etc." We can say that for the statement "All animals are equal" the same protest can be applied. Equal doesn't mean we all should be held to the same standards. People have their limitations, and so do animals. We should accommodate for their natural limitations, not treat them like human beings.
Why should the fact that other animals are perhaps incapable of rational thought and morality be an excuse to behave like they do? As you said, "we are the only animal that is tortured with a choice where such things are concerned", which is why we're the only animals that have a moral obligation to treat other animals well. Other animals don't have a choice.

Meat is only murder if it's unnecessary. Meat is necessary for obligate carnivores, as they'd die without it. Take a lion and a gazelle. If the lion catches the gazelle, the gazelle suffers, but if the lion doesn't catch the gazelle, the gazelle suffers. Therefore, according to the utilitarian principle of secular morality, the lion is justified in taking the gazelle's life, as in doing so, the lion is preventing an equal or greater amount of suffering from occurring. Meat is not necessary for us, as human beings can thrive on a vegan diet. Plants, however, are necessary for our survival. (As of now, the scientific consensus is that plants are not sentient. Unless that changes, I don't believe they should have any moral consideration, but, for the sake of argument, I'll bite.) You must understand that over half of the crops being produced are fed to livestock animals. So, if you want the best for plants as well as animals, the best option is veganism. Of course vegans still cause suffering. Along with plant deaths, there are many inadvertent crop deaths- small animals like rodents to larger animals like deer who want a nibble of corn. Vegans certainly aren't perfect, but the goal is to reduce suffering.

I appreciate your answering in good faith. There's nothing in your reply that, let's say, rattles me - in other words, that I feel a strong need to disagree with. I think what you're talking about is precisely why veganism is important and constitutes the more sober and serious case for it.

I don't subscribe to utilitarianism, but I understand why some find it a useful moral guide.

I think one point of difference between us is going to be on the question of plant-life. Our (humans') circle of concern has been widening and I think we're going to get to the point where we question vegetable consumption, too. I think, at this point, the philosophy on which veganism is based will have to be re-assessed. What that means is that it will need to find a firmer footing than utilitarianism. There might, indeed, be one. This whole process is, I am sure, necessary for the growth of human morals anyway.
 

E Scott

Well-Known Member
Joaquin has been a lifelong vegan and has supported PETA for decades. It's a cool photo but though I have no problem believing that Joaquin intentions are good, PETA is a celebrity Cult who have killed many healthy animals in past.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Joaquin has been a lifelong vegan and has supported PETA for decades. It's a cool photo but though I have no problem believing that Joaquin intentions are good, PETA is a celebrity Cult who have killed many healthy animals in past.
His mother was vegan too and gave him a hare lip cause of it. Veganism is the way to degeneration.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Put a picture of yourself up fella. I bet you are one ugly f***.
The guy had an op on his lip, who gives a shit he's still a looker, still a good actor and still quite bright.

Unlike imcel you, a f***tard who blames lefty types for everything.
The type who still have a 4th graders view of man, you are out of time fella
Put a pic of yourself up fella. You scum bag
Of course I am ugly. But no matter what he does his hare lip will ruin it whereas I am a perfect specimen of an aryan male.
Use your registered account the next time.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
f*** PETA! They cull more animals than they save. ...and while we’re at it - f*** VEGANS! ...the loudest, weakest, most malnourished tribalist pussy-ass douche-bags on the planet.

They’ll eat a shit-load of “Beyond Meat” though. Smells like meat, textured like meat, processed like plastic ...and WAY worse for you than eating meat. f***ing vegan bacon? Cheese? Why not call it what it is? Nobody in the real world is having ANY of your bullshit, kids.

Here’s a tip, for the omnivores out there... Don’t eat a vegan as your source of protein. Vegans taste like shit because their f***ing diet is comprised of side-dishes.

Here’s a tip for the vegans out there...
Shut the f*** up. You’re not not even fit for my gravy.

Have a nice day! :)
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom