Animal prison planned for Manchester - Morrissey Central

Animal prison planned for Manchester - Morrissey Central
January 10, 2019

"Trafford Council's idea to open a zoo in Manchester is probably the worst idea in the history of the human brain. Just as the world makes terrific advancements in animal rights, Trafford Council leaps back 100 years with plans to trap, strap, clamp, cramp and restrain animals from living anything close to a natural life. I'm decrepit enough to remember Belle Vue Zoo… the lucky animals died in transit from their natural habitat. Personally, I think I'd rather be shot in the head by Prince Harry.
Anyone who thinks a zoo is a good idea should spend one full year in a cage. I'd anticipate a swift change of mind! It's no different to proposing plans for a concentration camp in Wilmslow. Welcome to the sorry past."

Morrissey 10 January 2019.

45653_images-1_p3lwph.jpg


45652_Unknown-1_sd7mr8.jpg
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Habitat destruction is inevitable, and zoos create a connection with the pubic regarding the existence of these animals, and their need to protect them. They do more for animals than any animal rights activist has ever done.

As long as these animals are allowed to indulge their natural instincts they are not suffering. There's a reason why so many animals are willing to "enslave" themselves when given food, water, and shelter, and that's because their interests are much more binary, and immediate than yours. They're not philosophizing their existence.

Anthropomorphisizing their interests is not helping them. It can actually hurt them.

Animal rights types don't typically help animals. They're usually shallow young people with soft heads that don't deal well with nuance. They have personality disorders, and don't connect well with humans.

It's easy to sit on your couch and bleat about slavery, and your feelings, and all kinds of naive rhetoric, but it's quite another tot get your hands dirty, and deal with the complexity of an issue.

Animal rightists are the ones who need to be opposed, and mocked. They are not serious people.

Morrissey: Bad for people, and bad for animals.

Really??

"There's a reason why so many animals are willing to "enslave" themselves when given food, water, and shelter, and that's because their interests are much more binary, and immediate than yours. They're not philosophizing their existence."

That's the idea behind comunism: a zoo of people designed to benefit the managers.

You are wrong when you say animals are happy to give up their freedom. Mainly because nobody asked them. Just talk for yourself, because -unlike you- most people and animals value their freedom and dignity.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hate to break it to ‘ol Morrissey, but Harry already has his own African trophy he shoots between the eyes every night at Frogmore Cottage:
bc24eda7b4acc1652eb08dcbf682059c.jpg

8cf53ea4af83cbe20ce70811f8183b61.jpg

9a7f594d478e4459decd163f044a451a.jpg

961aa57231b1c3089e267a9742a9f897.jpg

The bright future of England:
albinoredhair.jpg

:laughing:Well played, Prince Shit4brains!:flamethrow:Let the beheadings begin!:crazy:
Why the photos of children with your tasteless racist post? And I am using racist in the right context unlike others on this forum. Are you inferring your Prince Harry is a paedophile??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Habitat destruction is inevitable, and zoos create a connection with the pubic regarding the existence of these animals, and their need to protect them. They do more for animals than any animal rights activist has ever done.

As long as these animals are allowed to indulge their natural instincts they are not suffering. There's a reason why so many animals are willing to "enslave" themselves when given food, water, and shelter, and that's because their interests are much more binary, and immediate than yours. They're not philosophizing their existence.

Anthropomorphisizing their interests is not helping them. It can actually hurt them.

Animal rights types don't typically help animals. They're usually shallow young people with soft heads that don't deal well with nuance. They have personality disorders, and don't connect well with humans.

It's easy to sit on your couch and bleat about slavery, and your feelings, and all kinds of naive rhetoric, but it's quite another tot get your hands dirty, and deal with the complexity of an issue.

Animal rightists are the ones who need to be opposed, and mocked. They are not serious people.

Morrissey: Bad for people, and bad for animals.

So many ill informed clichés in one post. Wow.
 

reelfountain

On Timeout
Why the photos of children with your tasteless racist post? And I am using racist in the right context unlike others on this forum. Are you inferring your Prince Harry is a paedophile??
Harry's sudden preference for exotica (after a lifetime of dating pure blondes) is his personal revenge for the killing of his mother by M15 (which was endorsed if not requested by the royals around him).

He even admitted that 5 years ago he wanted to leave the royal family. Instead he 'soiled the royal line' so to speak.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Harry's sudden preference for exotica (after a lifetime of dating pure blondes) is his personal revenge for the killing of his mother by M15 (which was endorsed if not requested by the royals around him).

He even admitted that 5 years ago he wanted to leave the royal family. Instead he 'soiled the royal line' so to speak.
She's related to him they don't marry outside their family. She's part of their bloodline.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm glad docking dogs tails is illegal now, a little step forward in animal welfare.
Tail docking is much more pleasant than an adult male Doberman breaking their tail at the age of 5. Believe me. Freddy had to have two operations, one to remove the shattered tail and a second as it didn't heal properly. Countless infections and bloody episodes for the rest of his life.
Tail docking does have its pros, especially for a Doberman with a strong whippy tail or a working Spaniel etc. Some things you perceive as cruel actually are not!
 
R

Ragdale Road

Guest
I was thinking of buying a Hamster. I need a little animal to keep me company. It would be a one way relationship. He would be there to appease me. My little
hamster.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why does he copyright the statement and not give credit to the illustrator? When is he going to stop stealing other people's artwork and either selling it or using it without pay or credit?
 
R

Ragdale Road

Guest
I don't like the way David Attenborough, has cornered the market in wildlife. I'm sick of hearing him slobbering over wildlife documentaries. And he always has to anthropomorphise animals and make them twee. Everything has to tell a story, rather than just letting people see animals behaving naturally. Then you have the dramatic music and sound effects. And he's so self aggrandising. You can guarantee his animals are the biggest, strangest, rarest, deadliest. He's turned nature into a circus. Then there's the way the programmes are edited, and the use of time lapse photography to make it look as though animals are behaving the way we're always told they behave. And when that little baby elephant was dying and they couldn't intervene because it wasn't 'natural' It wasn't natural for them to be there filming it in the first place. It would have been natural as a compassionate human being who'd put themselves in the proximity of a dying baby animal, to help it out. And now we have ten minutes at the end of these documentaries, showing how the film crew got the pictures, and how very clever they are at what they do. Attenborough has besmirched natural history with a middle class elitism. And divorced wildlife from everyday people. The same goes for charities. They have the ultimate say over poverty and compassion. The little wide Eyed baby with the swollen tummy, on deaths door. It's become an image I'm so used to, it means nothing to me anymore. It's just become synonymous with Oxfam and rattling money boxes making me feel guilty if I can't offer anything more than a fiver because, of course, Oxfam know the cost of a life, they're in the know when it comes to compassion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

countthree

Well-Known Member
I don't like the way David Attenborough, has cornered the market in wildlife. I'm sick of hearing him slobbering over wildlife documentaries. And he always has to anthropomorphise animals and make them twee. Everything has to tell a story, rather than just letting people see animals behaving naturally. Then you have the dramatic music and sound effects. And he's so self aggrandising. You can guarantee his animals are the biggest, strangest, rarest, deadliest. He's turned nature into a circus. Then there's the way the programmes are edited, and the use of time lapse photography to make it look as though animals are behaving the way we're always told they behave. And when that little baby elephant was dying and they couldn't intervene because it wasn't 'natural' It wasn't natural for them to be there filming it in the first place. It would have been natural as a compassionate human being who'd put themselves in the proximity of a dying baby animal, to help it out. And now we have ten minutes at the end of these documentaries, showing how the film crew got the pictures, and how very clever they are at what they do. Attenborough has besmirched natural history with a middle class elitism. And divorced wildlife from everyday people. The same goes for charities. They have the ultimate say over poverty and compassion. The little wide Eyed baby with the swollen tummy, on deaths door. It's become an image I'm so used to, it means nothing to me anymore. It's just become synonymous with Oxfam and rattling money boxes making me feel guilty if I can't offer anything more than a fiver because, of course, Oxfam know the cost of a life, they're in the know when it comes to compassion.

That's very interesting. Talking about charities, there's nothing less compasionate with a suffering human being than detachment and not getting involved in other people's sufferings and needs when giving them a material thing for charity. Sometimes the hardest thing is to empathize with someone in need, but that is precisely true charity. If you give some money to someone who needs it it's ok but nothing will change for that person in the long run. If you invite that same person to a coffee and have a talk you can change a life. And you can change your own life too, because talking with different people you understand that we humans are not so different, the thing is that we had different experiences that led us to behave, live and think in different ways. It's very important to know other people's point of view from their places in life, not only from your own place. After all, our places in life are purely accidental.
That's why it's so difficult to understand how and why people who say they are working in the interest of poor people and they arrogate for themselves the representation or the voice of poor people, at the same time they live in secluded and exclusive places and never use public transportation. Especially those who live on public funds, who are the richest people in my country. If you don't share a life experience you can't understand that experience and even more, you can't help to improve it. In a society as economically unjust as in which I live, with more than a third of the population living in poverty, it's a matter of personal ethics to live in a way that allows you to have the more symmetrical as possible relationship with everybody. There is a high risk of ending up proposing inadequate solutions for nonexistent problems instead of using the few available resources and funds to propose concrete solutions to real problems. Good intentions are not enough.
Maybe it's because of my catholic backgorund or it's just a personal choice, but I feel it's totally inadequate to make ostentation in front of people who don't have what to dine, even when you earned your money with the effort of your own personal work. Of course that would imply a cultural change within capitalism itself -a system to which I totally adhere- which would promote personal success not as the obsessive accumulation of money and valuable material objects, but as the achievement of greater social well-being and happiness. Always using the benefactor's own resources, not by imposing expropriating taxes as the rich socialist politicians do. Well, guess I wrote too much here.
 
T

The Irish Hare

Guest
Tail docking is much more pleasant than an adult male Doberman breaking their tail at the age of 5. Believe me. Freddy had to have two operations, one to remove the shattered tail and a second as it didn't heal properly. Countless infections and bloody episodes for the rest of his life.
Tail docking does have its pros, especially for a Doberman with a strong whippy tail or a working Spaniel etc. Some things you perceive as cruel actually are not!
It is unfortunate and distressing when a dog gets an injury to its tail as they are prone to repeated infections and take a long time to heal, if at all. My friends border collie had a tumour on its tail and had part of it amputated and it took a long time to heal.
Having said that I know several people with boxers, rottweilers and one with a doberman who have their tails and ears undocked with no mishaps and they are all over 10years old.
The main reasons for docking were the vanity of the owners and kennel clubs as well as a wish to make certain guard dog breeds appear more aggressive.
There is also the opinion that they became more aggressive because they couldn't express their true nature by wagging their tails.
All of the original reasons for amputating a dogs tail had nothing to do with the welfare of the animal at all.
 

markem41

Member
Is there any petition to stop plans for the zoo?

It's not even reached the stage where a planning application has been submitted. It's just a person throwing ideas around and looking for possible locations - whilst at the same time gaining valuable publicity. The Carrington area discussed is part of the Mersey Valley and is also used as an emergency flood plain when the Mersey overflows further upstream. Doesn't seem that suitable for any building projects hence why it's a lot of fields at the moment (although there are some alpacas in one field). There is a much bigger housing development planned for another drier part of Carrington but not sure whether a zoo would increase or decrease house prices.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom