Nick Griffin offers his comments on the recent media-storm

A fan, it seems.

rh22Fkb.jpg


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.
 
is there any proof that morrissey isn't now vegan? has he been spotted eating a block of cheese? or are people just taking what brummieboy says as gospel for some reason?
 
is there any proof that morrissey isn't now vegan? has he been spotted eating a block of cheese? or are people just taking what brummieboy says as gospel for some reason?

If anyone believes my signs I think he wants to try but is hung up on milk in tea. I could be wrong.
 
is there any proof that morrissey isn't now vegan? has he been spotted eating a block of cheese? or are people just taking what brummieboy says as gospel for some reason?

Towards the end of his book, Autobiography, he describes himself as vegetarian: "Days pass and I speak to no one unless to explain my vegetarianism (whereas blood-spurting cannibalism demands no questions)." I think he would have used the term vegan, if he were vegan.
 
If anyone believes my signs I think he wants to try but is hung up on milk in tea. I could be wrong.

nobody believes your "signs".

Towards the end of his book, Autobiography, he describes himself as vegetarian: "Days pass and I speak to no one unless to explain my vegetarianism (whereas blood-spurting cannibalism demands no questions)." I think he would have used the term vegan, if he were vegan.

you may be right.
 
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.

Then what is?

The simple act of refusing to eat meat has very real positive political consequences (in the USA at least):

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2014/features/big_beef048356.php?page=all.

Important quote: "Today, when you buy a Big Mac or a T-bone, a portion of the cost is a tax on beef, the proceeds from which the government hands over to a private trade group called the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The NCBA in turn uses this public money to buy ads encouraging you to eat more beef, while also lobbying to derail animal rights and other agricultural reform activists, defeat meat labeling requirements, and defend the ongoing consolidation of the industry."

That's right: every single American meat-eater (unless you are buying free-range and locally grown) who acknowledges that factory farming is downright evil is actively supporting inhumane farming practices (for both humans and animals).

My question is this: how pleasurable do you find meat to be? Is it so good that you are willing to sell out strongly-held beliefs? If you're an American and a meat-eater, then you are complicit in cruelty to animals, destruction of the environment and exploitation of human workers. I cannot fathom how good people can continue to support such a corrupt system, when giving up commercially raised meat has so many positive consequences for personal health, the environment and social justice.

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.

You put human suffering above animal suffering: workers' conditions in the meat industry are legendarily exploitative (thank you Upton Sinclair), and you are supporting that industry with your dollars and your actions every time you eat commercially produced meat. We cannot control everything, but we can control some things. Yes, let's minimize the suffering of animals and humans: giving up meat is a great start.
 
Last edited:
Than what is?

The simple act of refusing to eat meat has very real positive political consequences (in the USA at least):

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2014/features/big_beef048356.php?page=all.

Important quote: "Today, when you buy a Big Mac or a T-bone, a portion of the cost is a tax on beef, the proceeds from which the government hands over to a private trade group called the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The NCBA in turn uses this public money to buy ads encouraging you to eat more beef, while also lobbying to derail animal rights and other agricultural reform activists, defeat meat labeling requirements, and defend the ongoing consolidation of the industry."

That's right: every single American meat-eater (unless you are buying free-range and locally grown) who acknowledges that factory farming is downright evil is actively supporting inhumane farming practices (for both humans and animals).

My question is this: how pleasurable do you find meat to be? Is it so good that you are willing to sell out strongly-held beliefs? If you're an American and a meat-eater, then you are complicit in cruelty to animals, destruction of the environment and exploitation of human workers. I cannot fathom how good people can continue to support such a corrupt system, when giving up commercially raised meat has so many positive consequences for personal health, the environment and social justice.



You put human suffering above animal suffering: workers' conditions in the meat industry are legendarily exploitative (thank you Upton Sinclair), and you are supporting that industry with your dollars and your actions every time you eat commercially produced meat. We cannot control everything, but we can control some things. Yes, let's minimize the suffering of animals and humans: giving up meat is a great start.

I don't want to stop meat-eating, though. I do find eating meat to be very pleasurable. Would I like suffering to be reduced? Of course. How? We can buy humanely reared products. Hunt and fish for our own animal proteins. And eat lower on the food chain--oysters and mussels.
 
I don't want to stop meat-eating, though. I do find eating meat to be very pleasurable. Would I like suffering to be reduced? Of course. How? We can buy humanely reared products. Hunt and fish for our own animal proteins. And eat lower on the food chain--oysters and mussels.

So you only eat humanely reared meat and seafood? That's a good start. Because if animal suffering, human exploitation and environmental degradation are not good enough reasons to forego sensual pleasure, then there is no reason good enough, and everything is permitted (in the absence of God).
 
As I stated in a previous post, I think that Morrissey's way of expressing his opinions on the meat industry is idiotic. It is harmful to the cause. The act of buying meat certainly does not require the same emotional darkness as the act of raping children. But:



You are being irrational. There is no scientifically valid reason to assume that the suffering of human animals is morally any more important than the suffering of other vertebrates. You think the way you do only because of prevailing ideology, which is strongly based on Middle Eastern religions.

Think of it this way:

Mark is a very wealthy child genius. One day, somebody tortures him to death. Everybody mourns.

Susan, Mike and Frank are poor kids. They are also kind of dumb. Retarded even. One day, somebody tortures them to death. Nobody cares.

The next day, Morrissey compares the two crimes. He claims that the suffering of Susan, Mike and Frank was morally just as important as the suffering of Mark - even more important, actually, because the number of victims was higher.

After Morrissey's statement, people start expressing their outrage: how can Morrissey compare the suffering of penniless retards to the suffering of a wealthy child genius? He's clearly understating the suffering of Mark! No. This is a logical error. When Morrissey says that the suffering of a dumb kid is as important as the suffering of a smart kid he doesn't understate the suffering of the smart kid. He just says that as important as Mark is, the other kids are as important. The problem is you; you think that the suffering of a dumb kid is not morally very important, so you miss the message.

The only reason why you think that Morrissey is 'belittling' the suffering of humans is that you think that the suffering of animals doesn't matter very much. He believes in the rights of all species, you believe in the rights of your species. When Morrissey compares the suffering of animals to the suffering of humans, your brain thinks that he's saying that humans are as unimportant as you think animals are. No. He's stating that as important as the suffering of humans is, to him the suffering of other animals is equally important.

Whatever you think of animal rights, there's no reason to feel outraged by this particular comment. You find yourself important, and when Morrissey says that somebody else is as important, you feel offended. But he's not understating your moral value in any way; he's saying that you matter and others matter too. Factually, the only one understating somebody's suffering is you.



I find this very sad. I think that people should react to violence. I also think that 'meat-eating = pedophilia' kind of comments are idiotic and only distance people from the issue.



Incorrect.

____________


Btw, this was not written by me: "I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks the meat industry and Auschwitz are not comparable. They only killed around 1 million people in Auschwitz. Back in 2003 statistics were showing 53 BILLION land animals were being killed each year.
Anyone who thinks people are someone 'special' and all other animals are fair game to be slaughtered by the billion has a screw loose, if you ask me.
There is no difference between the holocaust and the meat industry - only a difference in scale."

Howerer, what this poster writes is factual. In terms of inflicted suffering, the modern meat industry is a much greater problem than the Holocaust. The main reason you're reacting to this irrationally is that you're supporting the meat industry financially. Most people do. The reaction is psychologically understandable.

This person is a genius.
 
So you only eat humanely reared meat and seafood? That's a good start. Because if animal suffering, human exploitation and environmental degradation are not good enough reasons to forego sensual pleasure, then there is no reason good enough, and everything is permitted (in the absence of God).

How do you justify that everything is permitted because we allow for some suffering and environmental degradation in the name of sensual pleasure? We do not allow adults to have sex with children. This is almost a universal taboo, in both meat-eating and vegetarian cultures. We also do not condone murder. We forbid it. Your argument is absurd. And invalid.

Pleasure is a very good thing indeed. Maximize pleasure, minimize pain. Or, maximize pleasure, while at the same time making efforts to reduce pain. Cost/benefit analysis. If the benefit exceeds the cost, it is a good thing. I don't think human and animal suffering are the same. Not even close. I also do not think animal pleasure and human pleasure deserve equal considering. And most don't. That is why people buy expensive foodstuffs for themselves, yet buy the generic pet foods for their pets. They don't feed their dogs filet mignon, do they? They feed them scraps and bones and leftovers. In practice, we demonstrate we DO value our own pleasure over the pleasure of animals--even our own pets. Sea Word wouldn't exist if this were not the case. Neither would circuses or zoos or aquariums.
 
How do you justify that everything is permitted because we allow for some suffering and environmental degradation in the name of sensual pleasure? We do not allow adults to have sex with children. This is almost a universal taboo, in both meat-eating and vegetarian cultures. We also do not condone murder. We forbid it. Your argument is absurd. And invalid.

I was not speaking to this particular case, rather I was making a general argument. As atheists, we have certain moral obligations; if we hold certain moral beliefs, but do not stand by them in pursuit of pleasure, then we lack morality, and everything is permitted (including pedophilia) in the absence of a judgmental god.

Holy cow! Did I just make Morrissey's argument for him?!

Pleasure is a very good thing indeed. Maximize pleasure, minimize pain. Or, maximize pleasure, while at the same time making efforts to reduce pain. Cost/benefit analysis. If the benefit exceeds the cost, it is a good thing. I don't think human and animal suffering are the same. Not even close. I also do not think animal pleasure and human pleasure deserve equal considering. And most don't. That is why people buy expensive foodstuffs for themselves, yet buy the generic pet foods for their pets. They don't feed their dogs filet mignon, do they? They feed them scraps and bones and leftovers. In practice, we demonstrate we DO value our own pleasure over the pleasure of animals--even our own pets. Sea Word wouldn't exist if this were not the case. Neither would circuses or zoos or aquariums.

You are supporting my argument: enough human and animal suffering are involved in the process of factory farming that it outweighs the cost/benefit analysis: personal pleasure does not trump universal harm. Sea World is a great example: if you think it is an immoral and destructive enterprise, then don't patronize them. If you think that commercial meat production is an immoral enterprise, then don't patronize it. It's not worth it.
 
I was not speaking to this particular case, rather I was making a general argument. As atheists, we have certain moral obligations; if we hold certain moral beliefs, but do not stand by them in pursuit of pleasure, then we lack morality, and everything is permitted (including pedophilia) in the absence of a judgmental god.

In the absence of a god, all things are not permitted, and never have been. There have been atheists throughout time that have lived very moral lives despite not believing in god. They followed the Golden Rule--perhaps without even realizing it. Morality is NOT dependent upon a god or religion. I believe it is in our best interest to behave altruistically towards one another. It benefits us both as individuals and as a species. We also have a vested interest in helping other species survive as well, if/when it benefits us--brings us pleasure or is necessary for our survival. We aren't always careless and stupid. Sometimes being kind is in our own best interests. We need trees for oxygen production and for weather regulation. We need marine/freshwater life to thrive for food sources and to keep the waters clean and regulated.

Holy cow! Did I just make Morrissey's argument for him?!

Too bad he is not intelligent enough to formulate a moral argument himself. He can write great lyrics. But the man is not an intellectual thinker. Not even close. And no, your moral argument is not very sound, sorry--as I just demonstrated. You have apparently bought the, if there is no god there is no morality argument, hook, line, and sinker. Fortunately it is not valid. Religionists use that argument to justify belief in god. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true. Just as there is no evidence to suggest there is even a god. Why, as an atheist, are you continuing to circulate such an erroneous proposition? You sound like an apologist for god and religion. You are using their own arguments against atheism. ???

You are supporting my argument: enough human and animal suffering are involved in the process of factory farming that it outweighs the cost/benefit analysis: personal pleasure does not trump universal harm. Sea World is a great example: if you think it is an immoral and destructive enterprise, then don't patronize them. If you think that commercial meat production is an immoral enterprise, then don't patronize it. It's not worth it.

Agree with this. I think Sea Word is immoral. Watching marine life do tricks seems to be a small benefit compared to the costs--capturing and breeding marine life in horrible conditions, and keeping them confined and unable to form family units, etc, etc. I don't visit places like Sea Word--ever.
 
We also have a vested interest in helping other species survive as well, if/when it benefits us--brings us pleasure or is necessary for our survival.

This seems like the perfect argument advocating pedophilia.
 
In the absence of a god, all things are not permitted, and never have been. There have been atheists throughout time that have lived very moral lives despite not believing in god. They followed the Golden Rule--perhaps without even realizing it. Morality is NOT dependent upon a god or religion. I believe it is in our best interest to behave altruistically towards one another. It benefits us both as individuals and as a species. We also have a vested interest in helping other species survive as well, if/when it benefits us--brings us pleasure or is necessary for our survival. We aren't always careless and stupid. Sometimes being kind is in our own best interests. We need trees for oxygen production and for weather regulation. We need marine/freshwater life to thrive for food sources and to keep the waters clean and regulated.

That's exactly what I'm saying - you're supporting my argument.

Seafood is not sustainable by the way - big fish stocks have fallen 90 percent in the last half-century. The common good is in jeopardy to feed our pleasure: it's wrong, and it's not worth it.


IToo bad he is not intelligent enough to formulate a moral argument himself. He can write great lyrics. But the man is not an intellectual thinker. Not even close. And no, your moral argument is not very sound, sorry--as I just demonstrated. You have apparently bought the, if there is no god there is no morality argument, hook, line, and sinker. Fortunately it is not valid. Religionists use that argument to justify belief in god. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true. Just as there is no evidence to suggest there is even a god. Why, as an atheist, are you continuing to circulate such an erroneous proposition? You sound like an apologist for god and religion. You are using their own arguments against atheism. ???

Regarding Morrissey: I do wish he'd follow up on his own statements, or rethink his strategy; he's hopeless at PR. He's the greatest singer I've ever heard, though, and nothing will ever change that.

You seem to be arguing with yourself: faith is an awful, terrible, not-very-good basis for morality. There is no god (judgmental or otherwise). I am saying that atheism holds up a higher standard, requires a more moral culture, and depends on a more universal sense of civic duty. Hence our requirement to look out for each other, all the way down the food chain.

Agree with this. I think Sea Word is immoral. Watching marine life do tricks seems to be a small benefit compared to the costs--capturing and breeding marine life in horrible conditions, and keeping them confined and unable to form family units, etc, etc. I don't visit places like Sea Word--ever.

You see - we do agree.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying - you're supporting my argument.

No, I don't think so. Without god, we have nature and evolution to explain human morality. Empathy is a tool for human survival. I don't eat your children because I don't want you to eat mine. If you eat my children, my genes will not survive in the next generation. Sure, we make up all kinds of fancy arguments to explain and codify morality. But it is rather simple. Survival of our species. We are under no moral obligation to take care of other species for any reasons other than ones which aid in the survival of our own. No other species takes care of and concerns itself with the welfare of other species. Even those in symbiotic relationships don't. Because they don't consciously aid in the survival of another species. It happens naturally through evolutionary processes. There is no moral agency because they are incapable of being moral agents. They lack reasoning ability.

Seafood is not sustainable by the way - big fish stocks have fallen 90 percent in the last half-century. The common good is in jeopardy to feed our pleasure: it's wrong, and it's not worth it.

Not all seafood is unsustainable. Farm raised mussels are sustainable, healthy, and not harmful to the environment--unlike many other farm raised proteins such as shrimp and salmon. And low on the food chain. Low cost/suffering. Great benefit.

Regarding Morrissey: I do wish he'd follow up on his own statements, or rethink his strategy; he's hopeless at PR. He's the greatest singer I've ever heard, though, and nothing will ever change that.

What he is doing now, is not working. It is polarizing and hypocritical. Maybe you could teach him a thing or two. Who exactly are his veggie mentors? Patricia Newkirk? Gosh, that is a frightening thought.

You seem to be arguing with yourself: faith is an awful, terrible, not-very-good basis for morality. There is no god (judgmental or otherwise). I am saying that atheism holds up a higher standard, requires a more moral culture, and depends on a more universal sense of civic duty. Hence our requirement to look out for each other, all the way down the food chain.

I don't think atheists are under any moral obligation to behave better than religionsists. I don't need to prove I CAN BE moral without a god. If they think people would behave immorally without god and do as they please without god, then that is really sad--for them. Is that the only reason they are not raping and murdering, because they fear punishment from god or wish for reward? Perhaps for some. But then surely they are operating on a very low level of moral reasoning. Most of us who are intelligent and moral, treat others well because we have empathy. And we follow the Golden Rule, instinctively.


You see - we do agree.

On that point, yes we do. :)
 
Last edited:
Not all seafood is unsustainable. Farm raised mussels are sustainable, healthy, and not harmful to the environment--like many other farm raised proteins such as shrimp and salmon. And low on the food chain. Low cost/suffering. Great benefit.

Did you know that "Farm Raised" salmon is fed pig feces and is raised in squalid conditions that you would call the city if the gutter outside your house remotely resembled it? Those salmon suffer, they just aren't afforded the luxury of voices to articulate their suffering. That is why the moral compass of atheism and "The Golden Rule" is a tenant that we all should strive to emulate. "Do Unto Others" is not reserved for HUMANS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/9-surprising-fish-farming_n_518724.html
 
No, I don't think so. Without god, we have nature and evolution to explain human morality. Empathy is a tool for human survival. I don't eat your children because I don't want you to eat mine. If you eat my children, my genes will not survive in the next generation. Sure, we make up all kinds of fancy arguments to explain and codify morality. But it is rather simple. Survival of our species. We are under no moral obligation to take care of other species for any reasons other than ones which aid in the survival of our own. No other species takes care of and concerns itself with the welfare of other species. Even those in symbiotic relationships don't. Because they don't consciously aid in the survival of another species. It happens naturally through evolutionary processes. There is no moral agency because they are incapable of being moral agents. They lack reasoning ability.

Well, this could go on forever (as a matter of fact, on this website it has). Humans are uniquely moral, and that is our great potential and our great tragedy. It seems self-evident to me.

What he is doing now, is not working. It is polarizing and hypocritical. Maybe you could teach him a thing or two. Who exactly are his veggie mentors? Patricia Newkirk? Gosh, that is a frightening thought.

Isaac Bashevis Singer is the man who said: "for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka," and I agree with him. Morrissey simply cannot make that argument: he lacks the intellectual heft. That said, he got us to feel it all those years ago. He should have stopped while he was ahead - for his sake, and for the animals' sake as well.

I don't think atheists are under any moral obligation to behave better than religionsists. I don't need to prove I CAN BE moral without a god. If they think people would behave immorally without god and do as they please without god, then that is really sad--for them. Is that the only reason they are not raping and murdering, because they fear punishment from god or wish for reward? Perhaps for some. But then surely they are operating on a very low level of moral reasoning. Most of us who are intelligent and moral, treat others well because we have empathy. And we follow the Golden Rule, instinctively.

I think all humans are under a moral obligation to fulfill our potential as moral beings. If Jesus gets you there, Hallelujah. If the FSM gets you there, RAmen. If Plato, Nietzsche, Satan or Singer gets you there, that's good too, because this ship is going down with all hands on board.
 

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom