TTY / replies : January 2014 - true-to-you.net

Link posted by SomeTotallyRandomMozFan:

TTY / replies : January 2014
- true-to-you.net
2 January 2014

Morrissey has answered a sixth series of questions submitted by Questions And Answers participants. These questions and Morrissey's answers are as follows.

Excerpts:

Who inspired you to sing?
KARICACSARY, Fontana.

Bobby Hatfield. He was the smaller of the two Righteous Brothers, and his falsetto swoop made me jump backwards over the settee. You should You Tube their You've lost that lovin' feelin', and you'll see what I mean. When I made the record Ringleader of the tormentors, the producer (Tony Visconti), who is a very close friend of David Bowie, tried to get both Bowie and I together to do our version of You've lost that lovin' feelin', with David doing the deep Bill Medley parts, and me doing the Bobby Hatfield shrieks. I loved this idea, but David wouldn't budge. I know I've criticized David in the past, but it's all been snotnosed junior high ribbing on my part. I think he knows that.

I was lucky enough to see you in Istanbul in July 2012. It was an amazing night, very intense, and it was a dream come true. How was it to be in Istanbul, and what do you think about the audience and the concert?
MELIS, Istanbul.

Well, we are about to record our new album, and one of the tracks is called Istanbul. It is second to Rome as my most favorite city in the world...

You are one of the few personalities in modern times who have really influenced my thinking about art and life. Have you ever thought about writing a novel?
HANNA, Germany.

In 2013 I published my Autobiography and it has been more successful than any record I have ever released, so, yes, I am mid-way through my novel. I have my hopes...



Media coverage:

 
Last edited:
Per Wikipedia, "Recording for the album commenced in late November and ended in late December 2007 in Los Angeles at Conway Recording Studios. Mixing began in early February 2008."

Was that supposed to contradict my statement? It didn't.
Also, why don't you look at who created/wrote the Wikipedia article and then get back to me.
 
The brutality that was inflicted by the Nazis through unethical experimentation, torture, and methodical mass murder is unfathomable and completely repulsive to all rational human beings; but it is also true that animals suffer this same brutality everyday. So, if you believe that all life is sacred, then Morrissey is theoretically right in his position.

The problem is that this is not a black and white issue. No vegan would save an animal before saving his or her own family member; that is just a ridiculous analogy to propose, but ask someone who lives alone whether he/she would save a pet who is like a family member over a total stranger and the answer might not be that easy. Morrissey feels very passionate about this issue, which is admirable, but his extreme analogies are not really helping the cause; I think that he is just using brash statements to generate attention for a subject that is so important to him. Unfortunately, his views on vegetarianism were formed years ago before the brutality of dairy and egg farming was brought to light; so, his militant stance is losing credibility. I wish that he would try a more inspirational approach to changing people's attitudes on this subject. His heart is in the right place, in my opinion, and he has always been prone to responses fueled by emotion rather than reason. Remember, that emotional approach to life has also given us some of the most moving lyrics in pop music.

We could debate this endlessly, but ultimately,it is an indivdual decision. Personally, I can't comprehend how anyone can say that they love animals and still eat them, but I know that my preaching or berating will not change most people's minds. On the flip side of that, if you are a carnivore, please note that for most vegetarians/vegans, this is not some frivolous trend, it is a life philosophy. Seeing meat on a table causes me the same distress that would occur if you were to show a pro-lifer a picture of an aborted fetus. It all depends on how you stand on the issue.

lynnda
 
The brutality that was inflicted by the Nazis through unethical experimentation, torture, and methodical mass murder is unfathomable and completely repulsive to all rational human beings; but it is also true that animals suffer this same brutality everyday. So, if you believe that all life is sacred, then Morrissey is theoretically right in his position.

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.

The problem is that this is not a black and white issue. No vegan would save an animal before saving his or her own family member; that is just a ridiculous analogy to propose, but ask someone who lives alone whether he/she would save a pet who is like a family member over a total stranger and the answer might not be that easy.

Wow. Really? Save a pet over a human? That is frightening to me. Seems anyone who would save their pet over a human is functioning pretty low on Kohlberg's moral development scale.

Morrissey feels very passionate about this issue, which is admirable, but his extreme analogies are not really helping the cause; I think that he is just using brash statements to generate attention for a subject that is so important to him. Unfortunately, his views on vegetarianism were formed years ago before the brutality of dairy and egg farming was brought to light; so, his militant stance is losing credibility. I wish that he would try a more inspirational approach to changing people's attitudes on this subject. His heart is in the right place, in my opinion, and he has always been prone to responses fueled by emotion rather than reason. Remember, that emotional approach to life has also given us some of the most moving lyrics in pop music.

Hard to teach an old dog new tricks? Still stuck in the dark ages? I really wish you'd stop with the Morrissey apologetics. It is getting old and redundant. And you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

We could debate this endlessly, but ultimately,it is an indivdual decision. Personally, I can't comprehend how anyone can say that they love animals and still eat them, but I know that my preaching or berating will not change most people's minds. On the flip side of that, if you are a carnivore, please note that for most vegetarians/vegans, this is not some frivolous trend, it is a life philosophy. Seeing meat on a table causes me the same distress that would occur if you were to show a pro-lifer a picture of an aborted fetus. It all depends on how you stand on the issue.

I don't love all animals and I don't love all humans. Maybe people who eat meat need to choose their words more carefully? Perhaps they should say, I love my pets and some other animals I have come across in my lifetime. And I like some species more than others. Speciesism is not immoral--like some suggest. It is not equivalent to racism or sexism. Not even close. I DO value cats over cockroaches. And most others do as well. Those who say all life is equal are probably lying... or smoking too much hashish.
 
Last edited:
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.



Wow. Really? Save a pet over a human? That is frightening to me. Seems anyone who would save their pet over a human is functioning pretty low on Kohlberg's moral development scale.



Hard to teach an old dog new tricks? Still stuck in the dark ages? I really wish you'd stop with the Morrissey apologetics. It is getting old and redundant. And you keep saying the same thing over and over again.



I don't love all animals and I don't love all humans. Maybe people who eat meat need to choose their words more carefully? Perhaps they should say, I love my pets and some other animals I have come across in my lifetime. And I like some species more than others. Speciesism is not immoral--like some suggest. It is not equivalent to racism or sexism. Not even close. I DO value cats over cockroaches. And most others do as well. Those who say all life is equal are probably lying... or smoking too much hashish.

Many, many cultures which have used animal meat in their diets and by-products of slaughter for clothes had/have a profound respect for the creatures whose lives they consciously sacrificed with great care and with minimal pain and suffering after culling them in the wild. There's also the scenes in the movie 'Avatar' which echo this interdependent cycle. However, we no longer live in such a world and our technologies do indeed allow for concentration camp torture of sentient beings for food and animal by-products. It is the apologists for Speciesism and Carnism who are the fanatics. Morrissey's statements are ignorant and crass because he hasn't publicly renounced Milk Is Murder, Eggs R Egregious and Cheese Is A Carnist Crime. If he walked the talk he'd not appear utterly ridiculous.

If I had to choose between my canine animal companion and Adolf Hitler, then my Westie wins. And there's a lot of other 'humans' who I'd leave to their fate to save a non-human animal who is a link to a canine consciousness, a Wolf Nature, that has saved my life and may yet heal the planet. He is family, he is not a 'pet' and I do not teach him 'tricks' like a circus animal, as I am too busy learning his profound lessons about sentience and existence. All animal species are here to teach, including cows, chickens, pigs and fish. It is the victims of the Cult of Carnism who are 'stuck in the dark age'.

Speciesism is far worse than racism or sexism as it it the very font of dismissive 'Othering' which allows gradations of human-speicies oppression. A black female abbatoir worker who has other economic options is not going to win any medals in Oppression Olympics victimology with me, nor are ritual Jewish/Muslim butchers claiming 'faith-based Privilege' for their cruelties. Intersectionality is the key. It's possible to be multiply oppressed by gradations of inter-human oppression whilst also being a heinous criminal against other speicies. Exposing this using Intersectionality is an important step in debunking 'Othering' and your attempt to dismiss cutting-edge thinking as a result of 'smoking too much hashish' shows you are adopting defensive strategies to avoid engaging with a debate that you do not have answers to, other than to repeat the tired, discredited nostrums of Carnism and Speciesism. Just as Morrissey does with his faux-animal rights 'vegetarianism'.

regards
BB
 
Many, many cultures which have used animal meat in their diets and by-products of slaughter for clothes had/have a profound respect for the creatures whose lives they consciously sacrificed with great care and with minimal pain and suffering after culling them in the wild. There's also the scenes in the movie 'Avatar' which echo this interdependent cycle. However, we no longer live in such a world and our technologies do indeed allow for concentration camp torture of sentient beings for food and animal by-products. It is the apologists for Speciesism and Carnism who are the fanatics. Morrissey's statements are ignorant and crass because he hasn't publicly renounced Milk Is Murder, Eggs R Egregious and Cheese Is A Carnist Crime. If he walked the talk he'd not appear utterly ridiculous.

These cultures--mostly animistic ones--worshiped animal spirits. They did indeed revere animals. I don't hold anything to be sacred. Certainly nothing to do with religion or spirits. I have not seen Avatar.

If I had to choose between my canine animal companion and Adolf Hitler, then my Westie wins. And there's a lot of other 'humans' who I'd leave to their fate to save a non-human animal who is a link to a canine consciousness, a Wolf Nature, that has saved my life and may yet heal the planet. He is family, he is not a 'pet' and I do not teach him 'tricks' like a circus animal, as I am too busy learning his profound lessons about sentience and existence. All animal species are here to teach, including cows, chickens, pigs and fish. It is the victims of the Cult of Carnism who are 'stuck in the dark age'.

Then all life is not sacred. Hitler's life was not sacred. (I agree, btw.) You do place different values on different lives.

I read that book about carnism. Interesting, but, I still say it doesn't need its own theory. It is enculturation. Foodways are enculturated into the individual by their culture. Orthodox Jews who eat kosher have been encultured to abhor pork and shellfish and the mixing of meat with dairy. These things are repulsive to them. Hindus see bovine flesh as taboo. It all depends on the culture you were brought up in. I was brought up in a meat eating society. It doesn't make me a carnist. It makes me a meat eater.

Speciesism is far worse than racism or sexism as it it the very font of dismissive 'Othering' which allows gradations of human-speicies oppression. A black female abbatoir worker who has other economic options is not going to win any medals in Oppression Olympics victimology with me, nor are ritual Jewish/Muslim butchers claiming 'faith-based Privilege' for their cruelties. Intersectionality is the key. It's possible to be multiply oppressed by gradations of inter-human oppression whilst also being a heinous criminal against other speicies. Exposing this using Intersectionality is an important step in debunking 'Othering' and your attempt to dismiss cutting-edge thinking as a result of 'smoking too much hashish' shows you are adopting defensive strategies to avoid engaging with a debate that you do not have answers to, other than to repeat the tired, discredited nostrums of Carnism and Speciesism. Just as Morrissey does with his faux-animal rights 'vegetarianism'.

regards
BB

Speciesism is not far worse than racism and sexism to a person who does not see animals as equal with humans. All humans are equal in value regardless of sex and race.

I don't agree with the sentiments that the person expressed--that animals are sacred and equal to humans. Just like I don't believe people speak to gods. Both beliefs seem to come from people who are either delusional or under the influence of hallucinogenics, thus the hashish comment.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with the sentiments that the person expressed--that animals are sacred and equal to humans. Just like I don't believe people speak to gods. Both beliefs seem to come from people who are either delusional or under the influence of hallucinogenics, this the hashish comment.

The idea of a pig's suffering being morally less important than the suffering of a human animal can't be rationalized. The only reason why you think this way is the culture you live in. If you lived in the 18th century, we'd be having a similar discussion on slaves and you'd feel outraged that I'm comparing black people to white people. That's how human psyche works.

You claim that "all humans are equal in value regardless of sex and race." Once again, the only reason why you think this way is the culture you live in. You could just as well be saying that mentally handicapped people - for instance - are less important than you and me because they are less intelligent than you and me - you don't, because you believe in this wonderful, completely unnatural idea of human rights. It is beautiful that we have come up with this wild concept. It's a completely new invention. It doesn't make any more sense than the idea that all sentient creatures are morally important. It's moral evolvement. We will continue evolving.
 
The idea of a pig's suffering being morally less important than the suffering of a human animal can't be rationalized. The only reason why you think this way is the culture you live in. If you lived in the 18th century, we'd be having a similar discussion on slaves and you'd feel outraged that I'm comparing black people to white people. That's how human psyche works.

You claim that "all humans are equal in value regardless of sex and race." Once again, the only reason why you think this way is the culture you live in. You could just as well be saying that mentally handicapped people - for instance - are less important than you and me because they are less intelligent than you and me - you don't, because you believe in this wonderful, completely unnatural idea of human rights. It is beautiful that we have come up with this wild concept. It's a completely new invention. It doesn't make any more sense than the idea that all sentient creatures are morally important. It's moral evolvement. We will continue evolving.

A human suffering is worse than a pig suffering. Because the suffering is exponential. When I suffer, my whole family suffers. When my mother suffers as a result of my suffering, her husband suffers. His work then suffers. His company then suffers. His employees then suffer. Their children then suffer. The children's friends suffer, causing their parents to suffer. It can go on, and on, and on. Because humans are connected by relationships--huge interconnected ones. Our suffering doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is felt and experienced by many. Our suffering is contagious. On the other hand, one pig suffering is one pig suffering. It effects no more than perhaps the mother. Or a few pen mates. It is limited. And short term. It is minimal compared to the capacity of human suffering.

Not sure I would ever think slavery was OK. In fact, I know I WOULD not. Many, many did not. There have always been people who were in tune with justice. Those who were instinctually aware of right and wrong--universal truths. Not everybody can be indoctrinated into evil. You sound like you are arguing from a historical materialist position. Marx creeping in there? Do we evolve morally? Is this a fact? Or just a theory? History seems to suggest we do. But then how do we explain Hitler in the 40s? Seems like a huge moral backslide. How do millions of people who were once educated and civilized embrace evil so readily and resort to barbarism? Weren't they evolved? So it is not biological evolution? Cultural evolution? Is there such a thing? The moral zeitgeist can change. But can't it change back?

You see meat eating as primitive. That one day we will all evolve to regard all species as equal deserving equal protection. Funny, my hope is that one day we all will evolve to see religion as primitive. And one day no one will need to resort to believing in gods for comfort or to give life meaning.

How does that make you feel when I claim religious persons are less evolved than atheists? You know what is kind of interesting? The more educated and intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be irreligious. There is a strong correlation there. Is there a correlation between education and intelligence, and veganism?

It seems to be more like a class correlation. The more money and resources one has the more likely one can afford to be vegan. Veganism is rare among the poor. Many of them don't read books about animal rights nor embrace the ideology behind it. If they aren't eating much meat it is because they can't afford it. And they are too busy trying to survive. Veganism as a belief system, is a luxury for the rich and middle classes. So then, are poor people less evolved? Poor people are more likely to be religious. Are religious people in the west more likely to be meat eaters or vegans?

Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
A human suffering is worse than a pig suffering. Because the suffering is exponential. When I suffer, my whole family suffers. When my mother suffers as a result of my suffering, her husband suffers. His work then suffers. His company then suffers. His employees then suffer. Their children then suffer. The children's friends suffer, causing their parents to suffer. It can go on, and on, and on. Because humans are connected by relationships--huge interconnected ones. Our suffering doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is felt and experienced by many. Our suffering is contagious. On the other hand, one pig suffering is one pig suffering. It effects no more than perhaps the mother. Or a few pen mates. It is limited. And short term. It is minimal compared to the capacity of human suffering.

One's moral value can't be measured in how many friends and family members they have. If we did, we'd lose the basis of human rights. We shouldn't hurt a human being because if we do, he/she suffers. Even if he/she is a homeless person with no social connections to anybody. Even if he/she has a ridiculously low IQ.

About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry.

Not sure I would ever think slavery was OK. In fact, I know I WOULD not.

No, you don't.

There have always been people who were in tune with justice. Those who were instinctually aware of right and wrong--universal truths.

There are no universal truths. I wish there were, though.

Do we evolve morally? Is this a fact? Or just a theory? History seems to suggest we do. But then how do we explain Hitler in the 40s? Seems like a huge moral backslide. How do millions of people who were once educated and civilized embrace evil so readily and resort to barbarism? Weren't they evolved? So it is not biological evolution? Cultural evolution? Is there such a thing?

It's always cultural. We make horrible mistakes. The Holocaust was a horrible mistake. The modern meat industry is horrible mistake. Nobody thinks that factory farming is ok, yet most people support it because they started supporting it before they had any idea that such a thing even existed.

The moral zeitgeist can change. But can't it change back?

Certainly.

You see meat eating as primitive. That one day we will all evolve to regard all species as equal deserving equal protection.

Not necessarily meat-eating. Sure, in the future, meat-eating may be seen as one of those Wrong Things that people did for thousands of years, just like slavery. But more essentially we'll realize that the meat industry was a very f***ed up idea. And if we start to produce animal products synthetically, it is likely that the mere idea of killing animals and eating them will begin to be considered barbaric.

Funny, my hope is that one day we all will evolve to see religion as primitive. And one day no one will need to resort to believing in gods for comfort or to give life meaning.

Do you live in the USA? I live in Scandinavia and here nobody believes in God. Only about 10-15 % of young people report that they believe in God/gods/afterlife. Religious kids get bullied at school. It's not pretty.

I used to be a fierce antitheist myself, but then I realized that there are more urgent problems. Faith doesn't automatically cause suffering to anyone. However, religion seems to be an underlying factor in many problems. Including speciesism.

How does that make you feel when I claim religious persons are less evolved than atheists? You know what is kind of interesting? The more educated and intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be irreligious. There is a strong correlation there. Is there a correlation between education and intelligence, and veganism?

Yes. As far as I know, the IQ difference between an average omnivore and an average vegetarian is the same as the IQ difference between an average Christian and an average atheist: about 5 points. When it comes to faith, I don't think that this difference applies in my country anymore. It doesn't take much brain power to belong in the majority. The main reason for these differences in the first place is that one has to be intelligent to question the prevailing ideology.

It seems to be more like a class correlation. The more money and resources one has the more likely one can afford to be vegan. Veganism is rare among the poor. Many of them don't read books about animal rights nor embrace the ideology behind it. If they aren't eating much meat it is because they can't afford it. And they are too busy trying to survive.

I think that all kinds of political activity occur less among the poor. They don't have the time for it. It's understandable.

I personally am a poor high school dropout. I don't have money but I'm strangely educated.
 
I think there's a tendency with some critics (not yourself, necessarily) to perceive these kinds of remarks as somehow reducing the Holocaust to the level of a McDonalds' production line. However, I think it's more a case of magnifying the notion of cruelty to animals to the level of the Holocaust. This isn't Morrissey belittling the experiences of those who suffered in Auschwitz; rather, he is trying to express his equal horror at the thought of what happens daily to millions of animals. He's trying to draw our feelings up to the same level as his. However, I can understand how people who don't really care too much about what happens to animals in order to produce meat would only be capable of seeing it as a downward comparison.

Wow!

\o/

I didn't even notice this post. Exactly. In my life / on the Internet / anywhere, it's very rare to see people making this much sense.
 
These cultures--mostly animistic ones--worshiped animal spirits. They did indeed revere animals. I don't hold anything to be sacred. Certainly nothing to do with religion or spirits. I have not seen Avatar.



Then all life is not sacred. Hitler's life was not sacred. (I agree, btw.) You do place different values on different lives.

I read that book about carnism. Interesting, but, I still say it doesn't need its own theory. It is enculturation. Foodways are enculturated into the individual by their culture. Orthodox Jews who eat kosher have been encultured to abhor pork and shellfish and the mixing of meat with dairy. These things are repulsive to them. Hindus see bovine flesh as taboo. It all depends on the culture you were brought up in. I was brought up in a meat eating society. It doesn't make me a carnist. It makes me a meat eater.



Speciesism is not far worse than racism and sexism to a person who does not see animals as equal with humans. All humans are equal in value regardless of sex and race.

I don't agree with the sentiments that the person expressed--that animals are sacred and equal to humans. Just like I don't believe people speak to gods. Both beliefs seem to come from people who are either delusional or under the influence of hallucinogenics, thus the hashish comment.

You are a fish swimming in an ideological sea so cannot realise you're surrounded by water. Your belief is in the 'religions' of Scientism. Carnism & Speciesism. If you eat meat, you are a Carnist. You don't have the power to evade that classification by solipsistic semantics.


Speciesism is FAR worse than racism and sexism as refusing to accept animal sentience opens the door to refusing to accept human gradations of consciousness, thus 'othering' the disabled, Jews, gays in Auschwitz. If Morrissey was a real intellectual he could and would articulate this, but he isn't, just as by eating dairy, he is not a bona-fide animal rights 'activist radical' or whatever he imagines himself to be as he cavorts before slaughter/torture footage onstage to 'Milk Is Murder'

You imagine you have the power to dismiss others as 'delusional' or 'hallucinogenic casualties' but provide no rational discourse to support this, other than a rather shrill throwaway contempt that rebounds on you like a boomerang. Quite simply, you are part of the cult of Carnism, you have been called out and you're only response is to insist it doesn't exist. That's a very cult casualty, Stockholm-syndrome thing to do.
 
A human suffering is worse than a pig suffering. Because the suffering is exponential. When I suffer, my whole family suffers. When my mother suffers as a result of my suffering, her husband suffers. His work then suffers. His company then suffers. His employees then suffer. Their children then suffer. The children's friends suffer, causing their parents to suffer. It can go on, and on, and on. Because humans are connected by relationships--huge interconnected ones. Our suffering doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is felt and experienced by many. Our suffering is contagious. On the other hand, one pig suffering is one pig suffering. It effects no more than perhaps the mother. Or a few pen mates. It is limited. And short term. It is minimal compared to the capacity of human suffering.

Not sure I would ever think slavery was OK. In fact, I know I WOULD not. Many, many did not. There have always been people who were in tune with justice. Those who were instinctually aware of right and wrong--universal truths. Not everybody can be indoctrinated into evil. You sound like you are arguing from a historical materialist position. Marx creeping in there? Do we evolve morally? Is this a fact? Or just a theory? History seems to suggest we do. But then how do we explain Hitler in the 40s? Seems like a huge moral backslide. How do millions of people who were once educated and civilized embrace evil so readily and resort to barbarism? Weren't they evolved? So it is not biological evolution? Cultural evolution? Is there such a thing? The moral zeitgeist can change. But can't it change back?

You see meat eating as primitive. That one day we will all evolve to regard all species as equal deserving equal protection. Funny, my hope is that one day we all will evolve to see religion as primitive. And one day no one will need to resort to believing in gods for comfort or to give life meaning.

How does that make you feel when I claim religious persons are less evolved than atheists? You know what is kind of interesting? The more educated and intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be irreligious. There is a strong correlation there. Is there a correlation between education and intelligence, and veganism?

It seems to be more like a class correlation. The more money and resources one has the more likely one can afford to be vegan. Veganism is rare among the poor. Many of them don't read books about animal rights nor embrace the ideology behind it. If they aren't eating much meat it is because they can't afford it. And they are too busy trying to survive. Veganism as a belief system, is a luxury for the rich and middle classes. So then, are poor people less evolved? Poor people are more likely to be religious. Are religious people in the west more likely to be meat eaters or vegans?

Just wondering.

Pigs live in family groups. We do not understand 'porcine consciousness' and their capacity to feel suffering, though your arrogant scientific materialist Carnism and Speciesism leads you to believe we do. Many people didn't accept Primates/Great Apes were conscious until recently but countries are now affording them the same 'rights' as the human species.

Eating meat meets the criteria of a cult belief system. It's called Carnism. Eat your dog or cat then.

Check you Western Entitlement Agenda and Privilege. Travel to Southern India where millions live either a vegan diet or a diet that uses dairy whilst letting cows live out a natural life-span. Your ignorance is astonishing, even for an American. Morrissey is very rich yet eschews promoting veganism, choosing to ponce about with the rich status seekers in high-octane Italian restaurants in Lima and Oslo. He is not a Vegan, nor a Hindu Foodie, he is a hypocrite. Eating meat is largely status driven, and insecure developing nation elites mimic those in the West they aspire to. When it becomes uneconomic to do so, most will return to a largely plant-based diet as will most educated people when they realise that Carnism is a slow suicide: Milk Is Self-Murder, Cheese Causes Disease, Steak is Suicide. etc. Morrissey, as far as I know, eats milk and cheese. Yes, veganism is difficult, but not on room service in a 5* hotel. I've never had any problems using wealth and power to demand change on menus in hotels or restaurants. Mind you, I largely eat in vegan places to help support the growth of such choices. Unlike Morrissey. Moby once can take seriously, Morrissey? LOL!¬ *cliff-edge*
 
I think there's a tendency with some critics (not yourself, necessarily) to perceive these kinds of remarks as somehow reducing the Holocaust to the level of a McDonalds' production line. However, I think it's more a case of magnifying the notion of cruelty to animals to the level of the Holocaust. This isn't Morrissey belittling the experiences of those who suffered in Auschwitz; rather, he is trying to express his equal horror at the thought of what happens daily to millions of animals. He's trying to draw our feelings up to the same level as his. However, I can understand how people who don't really care too much about what happens to animals in order to produce meat would only be capable of seeing it as a downward comparison.

Nice try to rescue Cult of Morrissey, but it fails. If he was doing this, then I'd support it. Not the crass troll face-time attention whore delivery, of course, but I do agree that it's a question of getting people to understand the cosmic cruelties that underpin their diet. If only Morrissey could understand how much cruelty is involved in his decision to drink animal milk, eat cheese and eggs and wear animal wool garments. He cannot draw anyone's feelings above the abyss of his own self-proclaimed ignorance. Milk Is Murder.

- - - Updated - - -

How long before Johnny, Benny and Brummy pop up to deride the answers of someone they profess not to care about..?

Not long. Don't care about Troll Comic Klutz Morrissey: do care about the debate.
 
If Morrissey was a real intellectual he could and would articulate this, but he isn't

Yes.

I find it strange how someone so passionate about animal rights seems to be so tactless and clumsy nearly every time he's given the opportunity to actually educate people on these issues. There are so many smart things to be said, yet he fails and fails and fails.


You imagine you have the power to dismiss others as 'delusional' or 'hallucinogenic casualties' but provide no rational discourse to support this.

Good point.
 
I think there's a tendency with some critics (not yourself, necessarily) to perceive these kinds of remarks as somehow reducing the Holocaust to the level of a McDonalds' production line. However, I think it's more a case of magnifying the notion of cruelty to animals to the level of the Holocaust. This isn't Morrissey belittling the experiences of those who suffered in Auschwitz; rather, he is trying to express his equal horror at the thought of what happens daily to millions of animals. He's trying to draw our feelings up to the same level as his. However, I can understand how people who don't really care too much about what happens to animals in order to produce meat would only be capable of seeing it as a downward comparison.

Yes, that's exactly how I see it... though it is probably easier to do so when you're not a meat eater yourself.


How long before Johnny, Benny and Brummy pop up to deride the answers of someone they profess not to care about..?

Ah, the three sham egos...
 
If only Morrissey could understand how much cruelty is involved in his decision to drink animal milk, eat cheese and eggs and wear animal wool garments.

As far as I know, he is aware of all of this. He's not proud of his hypocrisy. He's stated that he's "trying but failing" for several times; I think that it's still a lot better than nothing. Wouldn't it be f***ing great if more people at least tried.
 
As far as I know, he is aware of all of this. He's not proud of his hypocrisy. He's stated that he's "trying but failing" for several times; I think that it's still a lot better than nothing. Wouldn't it be f***ing great if more people at least tried.

Yes, of course it would and every little helps, including Morrissey. However, he's not Moby so there's just too much cognitive dissonance involved in watching him emote to "Meat Is Murder" then go off and eat grilled Halloumi cheese or whatever it is he eats that mean he can't support Vegan eateries on tour. He knows all this, but thinks "do as I say, not as I do" and imagines nobody can point out the Emperor ex-Pop Star has no clothes. I can, have done so. His career is now a comedy show, from the writing of an 'autohagiography' to the absurd TTY meltdowns, to the legal threats to silence critics, to the nails on blackboard demos: it's AWESOME!!!

http://thequietus.com/articles/14213-morrissey-novel-extract
 
You are a fish swimming in an ideological sea so cannot realise you're surrounded by water. Your belief is in the 'religions' of Scientism. Carnism & Speciesism. If you eat meat, you are a Carnist. You don't have the power to evade that classification by solipsistic semantics.

You LOVE labels. Wow. OK.

I don't regard asking questions as being solipsistic. I see it more as applying the Socratic method--asking questions but realizing I don't have any answers--and neither do you. Maybe my form is wonky, sorry.

Speciesism is FAR worse than racism and sexism

I disagree. Not all animals are sentient. So I do regard cockroaches as less than cats. As most people do. Call it speciesism if you need a pejorative term to describe it. A belief by any other name...

...as refusing to accept animal sentience opens the door to refusing to accept human gradations of consciousness, thus 'othering' the disabled, Jews, gays in Auschwitz. If Morrissey was a real intellectual he could and would articulate this, but he isn't, just as by eating dairy, he is not a bona-fide animal rights 'activist radical' or whatever he imagines himself to be as he cavorts before slaughter/torture footage onstage to 'Milk Is Murder'

I agree with your position on Morrissey. I have said as much numerous times. You have enlightened me and others. This is noble and appreciated.

You imagine you have the power to dismiss others as 'delusional' or 'hallucinogenic casualties' but provide no rational discourse to support this, other than a rather shrill throwaway contempt that rebounds on you like a boomerang. Quite simply, you are part of the cult of Carnism, you have been called out and you're only response is to insist it doesn't exist. That's a very cult casualty, Stockholm-syndrome thing to do.

I explained my problem with the term carnism, already. You choose to dismiss/disagree with my claim that, "It is enculturation. Foodways are enculturated into the individual by their culture." Carnism is just a new term for an old, already clearly defined concept."

I use the term delusional a lot. Delusions may originate in the brain--misfirings or structural damage--or be due to ingestion of intoxicating substances (hallucinogenic casualties). Either way, some people are in fact cognitively impaired and unable to reason properly. Walk into any church or synagogue and you will bear witness to this fact. Whether they CAN reason in other areas of their lives, at other times, is not relevant. The point is that they are capable of suspending reason and embracing wishful thinking and a faith-based epistemology, at least some of the time. I think many vegans make emotional appeals and do not argue with logic. You are an exception. You DO use scientific evidence and logic. A person saying all animal life is scared IS, imo, making an emotional appeal--reasoning (that is being generous) from a faith-based epistemology, and thus delusional or hallucinating, or both. What is sacred? How does one know what is sacred? "Sacred" is subjective in nature--relative--not universal. Is the statue of Buddha sacred to you? How about the lord's name? Muhammad's image? An animal's life? Nothing is universally scared. Not even human life.
 
Pigs live in family groups. We do not understand 'porcine consciousness' and their capacity to feel suffering, though your arrogant scientific materialist Carnism and Speciesism leads you to believe we do. Many people didn't accept Primates/Great Apes were conscious until recently but countries are now affording them the same 'rights' as the human species.

NO animals have the same rights as the human species, in any country. And it is doubtful they ever will. Some may earn a right to life. And a right to not be used as food, entertainment, or be experimented on. But they will never have the rights afforded humans, as they are not moral agents capable of being held legally or morally accountable for their actions.

Eating meat meets the criteria of a cult belief system. It's called Carnism. Eat your dog or cat then.


I don't agree. I am a speciesist, if you need a label. Cockroaches are less than cats. I don't have a problem with cats and dogs and horses being eaten, if raised for food, or slaughtered at the end of their lives then processed into food--like horses are. Doesn't mean all cats and dogs and horses SHOULD be eaten. Not all cows or pigs become food either. Some are kept as pets. I don't think the great apes should ever be eaten. Full stop.

Check you Western Entitlement Agenda and Privilege. Travel to Southern India where millions live either a vegan diet or a diet that uses dairy whilst letting cows live out a natural life-span. Your ignorance is astonishing, even for an American. Morrissey is very rich yet eschews promoting veganism, choosing to ponce about with the rich status seekers in high-octane Italian restaurants in Lima and Oslo. He is not a Vegan, nor a Hindu Foodie, he is a hypocrite. Eating meat is largely status driven, and insecure developing nation elites mimic those in the West they aspire to. When it becomes uneconomic to do so, most will return to a largely plant-based diet as will most educated people when they realise that Carnism is a slow suicide: Milk Is Self-Murder, Cheese Causes Disease, Steak is Suicide. etc. Morrissey, as far as I know, eats milk and cheese. Yes, veganism is difficult, but not on room service in a 5* hotel. I've never had any problems using wealth and power to demand change on menus in hotels or restaurants. Mind you, I largely eat in vegan places to help support the growth of such choices. Unlike Morrissey. Moby once can take seriously, Morrissey? LOL!¬ *cliff-edge*

Hindus are vegetarians for religious reasons--superstitious reasons. Not because they value animal life. They often abuse the crap out of bovines--working them to death in their rice and grain fields. And India has one of the worst human rights records, namely in the form of an institutionalized caste system. They are not only speciesist, they are classist, sexist, and racist as well.
 
Last edited:
One's moral value can't be measured in how many friends and family members they have. If we did, we'd lose the basis of human rights. We shouldn't hurt a human being because if we do, he/she suffers. Even if he/she is a homeless person with no social connections to anybody.

I agree--not by how many loved ones one has. As I mentioned earlier, it is more about the potential for suffering. Not how many suffer as a result of our suffering or death. Humans have a potential for great suffering because of our potential for interconnectedness. Thanks for helping me clarifying my position. Humans have equal moral value. But NOT because we all have the potential to suffer. But because we are human with human QUALITIES. Which takes me to my next point. What does it mean to be human? Sentience, at the very least, right? Is a human in a vegetative state, who is no longer sentient, still human-like?

Even if he/she has a ridiculously low IQ.

I kind of side with Singer on this one. Is a human in a vegetative state worthy of the same consideration as a cognitively functioning adult? Is one life worth saving over another, if one had to chose? I say yes. Guess which one.

About 60 billion individual animals suffer in the meat industry every year. In a decade, 600 billion. That's a much greater number than the number of all humans combined. In most cases, the suffering is constant from birth to death. Even if every human on the planet started suffering right now, the amount of suffering would still be pretty small compared to the suffering in the meat industry.

It just isn't ALL about suffering, as far as I am concerned. It is more than that. Suffering is unavoidable, inevitable. In fact, it can be argued that suffering is a part of the human condition, just as much as pleasure is. And that a flat line, no pleasure/pain dichotomy, or just a constant steady stream of pleasure, would be undesirable. The lows make the highs noticeable. We need that contrast. It is what being human is all about.

There are no universal truths. I wish there were, though.

Are you sure? Is suffering inevitable? Seems to me it is. It is experienced by all humans, throughout history, in all cultures. Making it a universal truth. Buddha would agree.


It's always cultural. We make horrible mistakes. The Holocaust was a horrible mistake. The modern meat industry is horrible mistake. Nobody thinks that factory farming is ok, yet most people support it because they started supporting it before they had any idea that such a thing even existed.

Of course. I was just asking what you thought.

Not necessarily meat-eating. Sure, in the future, meat-eating may be seen as one of those Wrong Things that people did for thousands of years, just like slavery. But more essentially we'll realize that the meat industry was a very f***ed up idea. And if we start to produce animal products synthetically, it is likely that the mere idea of killing animals and eating them will begin to be considered barbaric.

I agree. Factory farming IS barbaric. I don't disagree with this FACT at all. It is even barbaric for humans--the people who work in the industry. It causes great suffering for many.


Do you live in the USA? I live in Scandinavia and here nobody believes in God.

Yes, I live in the US. We are an extremely religious nation. Religion is in your face, around every corner. The only way to escape it is to live as a complete recluse. Even then, the religionists in government, have the power to legislate--and they do. Getting laws and statues that favor and adhere to their religious views. So it is unavoidable.

Only about 10-15 % of young people report that they believe in God/gods/afterlife. Religious kids get bullied at school. It's not pretty.

This is very sad. And as heart-wrenching as learning about a gay child or atheist child being bullied. No one should be bullied for their beliefs. No one.

I used to be a fierce antitheist myself, but then I realized that there are more urgent problems. Faith doesn't automatically cause suffering to anyone. However, religion seems to be an underlying factor in many problems. Including speciesism.

If you had to pick a more 'urgent' cause, I would agree. But we all have our strengths and passions, and must put them to use where we can.

Yes. As far as I know, the IQ difference between an average omnivore and an average vegetarian is the same as the IQ difference between an average Christian and an average atheist: about 5 points. When it comes to faith, I don't think that this difference applies in my country anymore. It doesn't take much brain power to belong in the majority. The main reason for these differences in the first place is that one has to be intelligent to question the prevailing ideology.

So vegans are more intelligent on average than meat eaters? And atheists are more intelligent on average than religionists?

I think that all kinds of political activity occur less among the poor. They don't have the time for it. It's understandable.

I personally am a poor high school dropout. I don't have money but I'm strangely educated.

Yes, you ARE educated--in a good way. Enjoyed our conversation. :)
 
Last edited:

Trending Threads

Back
Top Bottom