Nick Griffin offers his comments on the recent media-storm

A fan, it seems.

https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/419797399247532032


P.

Oh dear. Oh very deary me.
The Griffin monster obviously finds Moz's other pronouncments acceptable.
This is not good news for the Moz fandom.

 

[Famous when dead]

Cooking with Nick anyone?
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/08/nick-...e-oliver-in-bnp-tv-cookery-programme-4254210/
This takes the vegan biscuit!
What an odd year it's shaping up to be.
Regards,
FWD

 

[The Self-publicist]

I love it when meat-eaters whine about 'militant' vegetarians 'telling them how to live', completely ignorant of how the dominant, accepted culture of eating animals means that vegetarians get the same damn thing every day, whether through advertising, restaurant menus full of nothing but flesh, and direct mockery and taunting from meat eaters ('go on, don't you want a bacon sandwich?!' etc etc etc)..

It's hypocritical in her case, too. Read her screeds against the religious, and how she'll never stop fighting them, bla bla bla?

And what was the point of that "vegan challenge," after all? Just attention?

 

[realitybites]

The way you strain to invalidate any opinion that discomfits you is ridiculous. (My favorite example: itsverycold once played a prank on someone, THEREFORE his criticisms of you are invalid.) Plenty of people thought Hitchens was a buffoon, and still do.



Charlie Rose is a zombie who hasn't a clue who half of his guests are. And you only trust "neutral journalistic platforms"? Then you can't trust anything Hitchens ever published, the bulk of it having appeared in The Nation. Why can't you see these arguments coming? One learns nothing from arguing with you except, perhaps, patience.

I don't know which video you've embedded, but I saw the original interviews of Hitchens defending Irving when they aired. It was already known who Irving was and what he stood for: Holocaust denial. Hitchens was trying very hard to be a pop culture Chomsky at the time, and he wanted to manufacture his own version of "the Faurisson affair," about which you'll know nothing, but Google your little heart out and skip back here to summarize for us. (It'll blow Peter B's mind.) Hitchens additionally wanted to tweak Israel's defenders.

You're a follower. Much like the man you're following.

If you didn't even watch that video then... well. It was one of the earlier interviews I believe, 96'? Charlie Rose a zombie? I guess you prefer ego-driven hot-headed pundits who talk over one another, to a gentle conversation with invited guests? Charlie Rose is THE man. Quiet, gracious, intelligent, and a great interviewer.

You claim I don't want to discuss issues--with you. Want to know why? Because you always take it below the belt. You put me on the defense--all the time. This is not a great way to have a conversation. Perhaps Charlie Rose could teach you a thing or two. Why can't you watch videos or read PDFs on your computer? You attack me, ask for evidence. I provide it. You can't view it. So you resort to ad hominem insults? Typical you, typical you.

Your hatred for all things me is so evident in every post you make. Look, so you HATE Hitchens. Many HATED him. Everything about him. There are at least two websites on the Net devoted to exposing and dissing Hitchens. Knock yourself out.

Am I supposed to be an apologist for Hitchens? When exactly did I sign up for that job?

Hitchens NEVER defended Irving's views. Never. He defended his right to express them. And Hitchens defended his right to read these controversial opinions. He pointed out that the publisher agreed to publish the book, and then backed out due to pressure from the Anti-Defamation League. Why do you have a problem with what Hitchens did? You are taking advantage of this website to express your opinion--anonymously. Because fortunately for you, the administrator--like Hitchens--is a huge supporter of freedom of expression and is a foe of totalitarianism and paternalism.

How do you justify your liberty while wishing others not to have it?

Can we make a deal? You stop with the personal attacks, and we can continue to have an discussion? Or, if you continue to resort to attacking me and my character, I will ignore your future posts. You decide.

 

[realitybites]

I love it when meat-eaters whine about 'militant' vegetarians 'telling them how to live', completely ignorant of how the dominant, accepted culture of eating animals means that vegetarians get the same damn thing every day, whether through advertising, restaurant menus full of nothing but flesh, and direct mockery and taunting from meat eaters ('go on, don't you want a bacon sandwich?!' etc etc etc).

It's the dominant culture of meat-eating that's comparable to fascism, not vegetarians.

If you are talking about me, that is not what I said. This is what I wrote: "The thing is, most people don't think animal life is sacred. Period. Only fanatical animal rights activists and militant vegans do. The majority of people surely find Morrissey's statements to be both ignorant and crass."

I did not say vegans were telling me how to live. That was not my complaint. I said they are the only ones claiming animal life is sacred. You read my comments the way you wanted to: confirmation bias. There is quite a lot of that going on in this thread and the TTY / replies one.

 

[realitybites]

It's hypocritical in her case, too. Read her screeds against the religious, and how she'll never stop fighting them, bla bla bla?

And what was the point of that "vegan challenge," after all? Just attention?

Never said that vegans were telling me how to live, think, or act. I said: "The thing is, most people don't think animal life is sacred. Period. Only fanatical animal rights activists and militant vegans do. The majority of people surely find Morrissey's statements to be both ignorant and crass."

I don't really believe in that live and let live policy though. Not really. I am NOT a moral relativist. So I don't have a problem with them trying to tell me what they think is right and wrong. I am a big girl. I can handle it. They are entitled to do so. They are arguing a moral position. I get it. I do the same thing when it comes to religion. Have I ever told them to shut up and stop preaching to me? No. Only time I said anything close to that was when I said vegetarians, including Morrissey, are hypocrites for eating dairy yet condemning meat eaters. Because the dairy industry is just as bad as the meat industry. They are codependent on one another. But vegans, well at least they are being authentic. I find them admirable, actually. Not so much because what they are rallying against, but because they are dedicated, passionate, and consistent. Vegans are like atheists. Vegetarians are like agnostics. I get being hardcore, as I am as well. Just on a different issue.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Nobody compares vegetarians to Nazis because of Hitler's dietary habits. They do it because some militant vegetarians behave like fascists--telling everyone how to live and think.

Ahem.

 

[BrummieBoy]

No. People are not that rational. They may see the facts, but they do not react. ("[This information] holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not.") What may actually change everything is in vitro meat. When people can admit their responsibility without actually giving up anything, they will do it. Most people already are against animal abuse in theory, but this will affect their behaviour in practice.

All people are never going to suddenly go vegan. Even if they did, it would take centuries, and we don't have that much time to act. Realistically speaking, in vitro meat is the only thing that can save the animals, us and the planet.

I agree with this, but wonder if there's time to construct the infrastructure for in-vitrio meat before the entire planet is reduced to a grazing plain for hamburger supply chain.

 

[realitybites]

It's still suffering, even by your limited definition (which, by your argument, means that if someone has no family or friends who will miss them when they die, it's morally OK to kill them) . You can't take the moral high-ground by being all 'sad-face' at the Holocaust whilst happily causing the misery and deaths of millions of living beings by eating meat. You are not on the moral high ground, you are in a f***ing ditch. You, personally, by being a slave to your taste buds and thinking you are superior to all other life forms, are contributing needless death and suffering to the world.

And you have the nerve to get upset when Morrissey dares to call you out by comparing animal and human suffering? Really? Are you that far up your own ass?

A human has a greater potential for suffering. Is that better? Because we CAN form intricate relationships with others. And our deaths may cause great suffering for other humans. I don't see how you can find a issue with this--at all. How can you argue against this statement?

 

[realitybites]

Ahem.

Yes. Others call vegans fascists. I don't and have never done so. Just like I don't call hardcore atheists fascists. You have taken my statement out of context. Please stay out of the discussion I am having with these people.

 

[BrummieBoy]

You privilege human cognition above all other forms of consciousness, relegating animal consciousness and emotional capacity for suffering to irrelvance. You are overtly humancentric, steeped in the Biblical Carnism Food Economics Ideologies of Abrahamic Religion and do not even realise it!

You are guilty of humancentric trans-species 'racism'. I do not regard myself as part of a privileged species as laid down by the Books of Abrahamic Religion, you clearly do. I am part of a continuum of consciousness and regard animals as part of my family and, yes, I would fight to protect and save family members from predators, whether paedophiles or cannibals. I regard you and all Carnists as Cannibals. Carnism Is Cannibalism.

http://voices.yahoo.com/pigs-emotionally-sensitive-conscious-creatures-8084712.html

 

[BrummieBoy]

i love it when meat-eaters whine about 'militant' vegetarians 'telling them how to live', completely ignorant of how the dominant, accepted culture of eating animals means that vegetarians get the same damn thing every day, whether through advertising, restaurant menus full of nothing but flesh, and direct mockery and taunting from meat eaters ('go on, don't you want a bacon sandwich?!' etc etc etc).

It's the dominant culture of meat-eating that's comparable to fascism, not vegetarians.

^this!

 

[realitybites]

Why all the anonymous posts? Am I having multiple discussions with just one person? It feels like it.

 

[DAVIE]

Why all the anonymous posts? Am I having multiple discussions with just one person? It feels like it.

Probably...that's the trouble with anonymous posts. Could be 1. Could be many! Damn the system

FWD, isn't it hilarious to see Griffin cooking stews and cheap meals? In comparison it's like Darth Vader taking his pet dog for a walk
Looks like stews is all he'll be cooking now since it's been rumoured he's bankrupt.

 

[realitybites]

Most people don't experience much existential angst. I do and you do, because we are the intelligent, angry type. Most people I know are not.

Perhaps. But don't all humans have the potential to suffer from existential angst? Isn't that the human condition? Some don't. They stay safely medicated through food, drugs, sex, TV, music. They don't allow these feelings to surface. They never walk into the fire and confront the pain. Perhaps you have. I know I have. And it feels like hell--literally. But it also makes me feel alive. In touch with what it truly means to be human.

I disagree. The reason why my dog gets so easily distressed and scared is that she doesn't see situations rationally. She's completely emotional. She doesn't know how to rationalize her way out of the fear and pain. She's easily traumatized by silly things.

We don't know how much of what we are seeing is fright or just behaviors that look like fright responses. A cat may hear a noise and react--its ears pop up and it runs under the couch. Does she actually experience fear? Pain? Suffering? Or are we interpreting what looks like these things, to be that? Anthropomorphism?

It doesn't need to be, because pigs in the meat industry don't associate with the earlier generations. Those generations are dead after living lives of constant horror. And then the new generations live lives of constant horror. They've got enough suffering even without the burden of their parents.

I am not in any way arguing that pigs in factory farming environments do not suffer. They do. Gestation crates alone, are abominable and should be outlawed, imo. They suffer emotionally--lack of stimulation. And physically, tail docking, GCs, confinement, etc. The actual slaughter itself, is painless compared to the years of suffering--before this one act that ends their lives. I am not ignorant to their suffering. I just don't think suffering is enough of a reason to argue against eating meat. Factory farming, yes. We can do better, no doubt. Suffering should be kept to a minimum. The fact IS, all animals, including humans, suffer. It is as much a part of all life as pleasure is. Maximize pleasure, minimize suffering. That is the best we can do. We cannot stop all suffering. Because we cannot control for everything. There are forces outside of our control, such as weather conditions, which cause great suffering in the form of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Both animals and humans suffer when natural disasters strike. Only way a life can be guaranteed to not suffer in the future, is for it to die. Of course, it doesn't end suffering though does it? The human survivors suffer--greatly. Trying to eradicate suffering altogether, is a waste of time. Minimizing it should be the goal.

I don't know about pigs, but I recently read about a study that revealed that in elephant populations, the traumas of older generations affect the younger generations. It's quite interesting: in some way or another, they communicate the pain to their young. A traumatic life creates traumatized animals. A traumatized animal is necessarily not a stable parent.

That would be interesting, if true. I'll see if I can find that study.

Yes you do. If you didn't, there wouldn't be any reason to feel offended. You think that animals aren't very important, and when Morrissey says that they are as important as humans, you think that he's belittling humans.

Otherwise the outrage would be pointless. If you believe that Izzie is a worthless moron and somebody disagrees with you, there's no point to feel offended. That's their opinion. Let them like Izzie. As if moral value was something limited that you have to guard against those that you think don't deserve it.

I have to think about this more fully.

"Hitler was a vegetarian -> vegetarianism is wrong and vegetarians are Nazis" is one of the most common arguments against vegetarianism. Unfortunately. Believe me, I know.

Well, that is just ignorant. His diet had nothing to do with how he treated humans. Or why he was a fascist. Don't even lend those ignoramuses an ear. The same argument is made regarding Stalin--that he was an atheist so that is why he slaughtered millions. It is absurd. Hitler was a Catholic. He slaughtered millions as well. Hitler didn't kill in the name of HIS religion. Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism. Most atheists don't kill anyone. Most vegans are not fascists.

To assume that the suffering inflicted by the Holocaust was greater than the suffering inflicted by the meat industry, you'd have to assume that the suffering of a human animal is hundreds of thousands of times more intense than the suffering of a non-human animal. And that would be ridiculous from a biological point of view.

This is just crazy. (Btw, I don't really care about deaths. I care about suffering. Of course the death of a human animal will normally cause more suffering than the death of a non-human animal.)

Oh, I DO care about deaths. Deaths cause more suffering in the form of survivors. That is where the potential for exponential suffering for humans comes in. That was central to my argument. If we are only talking about suffering, and not death, then my argument is diluted, slightly. But not entirely. For, a human suffering greatly from depression, causes great suffering for his/her loved ones who feel powerless to help him/her. They are suffering as a result of his suffering. And there is no death component.

 

[realitybites]

Probably...that's the trouble with anonymous posts. Could be 1. Could be many! Damn the system

 

[Famous when dead]

Probably...that's the trouble with anonymous posts. Could be 1. Could be many! Damn the system

FWD, isn't it hilarious to see Griffin cooking stews and cheap meals? In comparison it's like Darth Vader taking his pet dog for a walk
Looks like stews is all he'll be cooking now since it's been rumoured he's bankrupt.

I truly couldn't believe what I was seeing.
According to the media, he will be releasing a guide to money problems also (hopefully not including advice like: invade Poland!).
I'm not as analytical about things as highlighted in this thread, but I watched his appearance on Question Time and it turned my stomach.
I wouldn't put it past him to orchestrate comments re:Moz for shaping his finely crafted public profile.
But cooking with Nick is possibly the most insane moment I've seen this year so far.
There are too many humour opportunities emanating from this, but out of respect for the more serious discussions - will be resisted.
Regards,
FWD

 

[DAVIE]

I truly couldn't believe what I was seeing.
According to the media, he will be releasing a guide to money problems also (hopefully not including advice like: invade Poland!).
I'm not as analytical about things as highlighted in this thread, but I watched his appearance on Question Time and it turned my stomach.
I wouldn't put it past him to orchestrate comments re:Moz for shaping his finely crafted public profile.
But cooking with Nick is possibly the most insane moment I've seen this year so far.
There are too many humour opportunities emanating from this, but out of respect for the more serious discussions - will be resisted.
Regards,
FWD

A guide to money problems? He's bloody bankrupt! The irony!

 

[Famous when dead]

A guide to money problems? He's bloody bankrupt! The irony!

Morrissey could perhaps borrow his p.r. team if Nick can't afford them. This guy would smell of roses in a dung heap.
Cheers,
FWD
Worth a read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...upt-where-has-all-his-money-gone-9037271.html

 

[CrystalGeezer]

You privilege human cognition above all other forms of consciousness, relegating animal consciousness and emotional capacity for suffering to irrelvance. You are overtly humancentric, steeped in the Biblical Carnism Food Economics Ideologies of Abrahamic Religion and do not even realise it!

You are guilty of humancentric trans-species 'racism'. I do not regard myself as part of a privileged species as laid down by the Books of Abrahamic Religion, you clearly do. I am part of a continuum of consciousness and regard animals as part of my family and, yes, I would fight to protect and save family members from predators, whether paedophiles or cannibals. I regard you and all Carnists as Cannibals. Carnism Is Cannibalism.

http://voices.yahoo.com/pigs-emotionally-sensitive-conscious-creatures-8084712.html

This.

 

[realitybites]

It's hypocritical in her case, too. Read her screeds against the religious, and how she'll never stop fighting them, bla bla bla?

And what was the point of that "vegan challenge," after all? Just attention?

Well, no. My vegan challenge was never about becoming vegan, now was it? It wasn't even about compassion for animals. Nope. And I said as much in my blog: "Why? Detox, cleanse, reflect, awareness, compassion for self, rebuild."

But hey, I did prove it CAN be done. So Morrissey CAN be vegan. He just doesn't WANT to.