Morrissey refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Your analogies are not very logical, but I'm curious how a human in utero stacks up against a kitty-cat who at last has been born.

Which life is worth more: a dog whose destiny is to save lives (including human lives) or a convicted murderer (homicidal murderer)?

I say that pro-lifers who eat meat are actually pro-deathers.

GoneForeverNotQuite

Claiming animal and human lives are equally important is the equivalent of claiming fetuses and fully realized adult women are equally important. An animal death is not the same as a human death. A death of a fetus is not the same as an adult female. Just like the loss of property is not the same as loss of life. No matter how many buildings you blow up, it will never be worse than the loss of one human life. Same with animals. There is no strength in numbers here. Human life trumps animal life.

It is disturbing to know there are misanthropes and non-humanists who claim otherwise. These people don't value human life more, because they don't value human life, period. They are human haters. Ask them some key questions and you will find this to be the case. They are pessimists, cynics, think humans are basically evil and bad. And that animals are precious, innocent.

It really is due to some psychological, faulty wiring. A deep seated personalty flaw... like the self-hating Jew, or gay, or white. Guilt, shame, low-self esteem, compels them to hate all humans because they essentially hate themselves.

One who loves him/herself and values human life would be deeply upset by Morrissey's comments. That he harbors these sentiments is disturbing enough. That he has to broadcast them in the wake of a tragedy in front of a large audience makes him careless and insensitive.

If Morrissey had any balls, he'd man up and attend the press conference. He could share his feelings of regret. Or stick to his guns. Either way, avoidance equals cowardice.

He's good with the poison pen but not so good on the spot, in real time.

- - - Updated - - -



You are not going to like my post. :(
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Your analogies are not very logical, but I'm curious how a human in utero stacks up against a kitty-cat who at last has been born.

Which life is worth more: a dog whose destiny is to save lives (including human lives) or a convicted murderer (homicidal murderer)?

A human in utero? Not even a fetus or an embryo? If you have already assigned it the human label/status, then it is a no-brainer. It is more valuable than the kitten. The 'human' is just inside the womb still--for a little while longer. While the kitten has made its way out already.

You would have made a better argument if you used the word fetus instead of human.

The human in prison who committed murder (you did not say what the circumstances were), is more valuable than a dog who has the potential to save lives. Humans have the potential to save lives as well. Including that prisoner. Soldiers kill. The state kills. When is murder wrong? Is it ever OK? Is it okay for dogs to kill? Dogs kill and injure humans much more frequently than they save their lives.

I say that pro-lifers who eat meat are actually pro-deathers.

I agree that many pro-lifers are hypocrites. Many also support the death penalty and are hawks. They are pro-some-life, and pro-some-death.
 
Last edited:

Chip

Member
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

A human in utero? Not even a fetus or an embryo? If you have already assigned it the human label/status, then it is a no-brainer. It is more valuable than the kitten. The 'human' is just inside the womb still--for a little while longer. While the kitten has made its way out already.

You would have made a better argument if you used the word fetus instead of human.

The human in prison who committed murder (you did not say what the circumstances were), is more valuable than a dog who has the potential to save lives. Humans have the potential to save lives as well. Including that prisoner. Soldiers kill. The state kills. When is murder wrong? Is it ever OK? Is it okay for dogs to kill? Dogs kill and injure humans much more frequently than they save their lives.



I agree that many pro-lifers are hypocrites. Many also support the death penalty and are hawks. They are pro-some-life, and pro-some-death.

That's because most of the anti-abortion creeps aren't really pro-life, but just hate women and want to control their bodies/sexuality. That's why in spite of the fact that they hate abortions they won't do anything to actually lower the rate of abortions--like sex education, providing contraception, etc. They tend to hate these things just as much as they would give people, especially those devious women, some semblance of control over their own bodies.

And as far as your earlier comment goes--I was explicitly instructed by my mother that if there was even a fire and I could save only one member of the family it was to be our cat.

I also really disagree with your description of all people who equate non-human animal life as being equal with human life as being anti-human misanthropes. I have known many people who diehard animal rights proponents who engaged in tremendous service towards people--pro bono legal work, international human rights work, civil rights work, labor rights, even women's and abortion right's work. I think people are capable of equating human and animal life as being equal and dedicating their lives to working towards protecting and helping both.

Anti-choice people are just creeps who want totalitarian control over women's bodies. I mean I think a few of them really believe zygotes and fetuses are people and are solid in their convictions--anti-death penalty, anti-war and I feel slightly bad lumping them in with the majority of people who espouse their cause.


But only slightly bad.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

How disrespectful.
People of Oslo lets hear some noise !!!!
Protest ! Protest ! Protest ! Its time to make a stand against this ignorant idiot. On the night rise up and give him hell.


Benny-the-Butcher

Benny the bummer, why do you bother, nobody cares you loser
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Coward won't own up for what he said.

Typical Morrissey. He's got a big mouth until someone calls him on it.[/Q

He is no longer taken seriously by the media and continues to spout the same bull shit about the royals.

Morrissey face the press or shut your mouth
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

I have known many people who diehard animal rights proponents who engaged in tremendous service towards people--pro bono legal work, international human rights work, civil rights work, labor rights, even women's and abortion right's work. I think people are capable of equating human and animal life as being equal and dedicating their lives to working towards protecting and helping both.
so have I, but not a single one of those people have ever posted on this site :eek: at least to my knowledge :straightface:
just saying :cool: you gotta deal with what we have here at a site like this :rolleyes:
which is a small minority of extremely loud vegans/vegetarians giving the rest of people with similar ideas a bad name :o
sorry, its just the way it is, as long as the "BrummieBoys"* of veganism are not muzzled :p by those less misanthropic
or at least do a better job of keeping their distance from supporting such vitriol :sick:
well, then all the good work done by others on behalf of animal rights is just drowned out by their noise :thumb:





*=its just the first name that came to mind when I think of these people here, there are others, of course
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Benny the bummer, why do you bother, nobody cares you loser



Is that the best you can do ? Well done sour-face


Benny-the-Butcher
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Is that the best you can do ? Well done sour-face


Benny-the-Butcher

No but that's all I can be arsed doing when it's someone as irrelevant as you.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

That's because most of the anti-abortion creeps aren't really pro-life, but just hate women and want to control their bodies/sexuality. That's why in spite of the fact that they hate abortions they won't do anything to actually lower the rate of abortions--like sex education, providing contraception, etc. They tend to hate these things just as much as they would give people, especially those devious women, some semblance of control over their own bodies.

And as far as your earlier comment goes--I was explicitly instructed by my mother that if there was even a fire and I could save only one member of the family it was to be our cat.

I also really disagree with your description of all people who equate non-human animal life as being equal with human life as being anti-human misanthropes. I have known many people who diehard animal rights proponents who engaged in tremendous service towards people--pro bono legal work, international human rights work, civil rights work, labor rights, even women's and abortion right's work. I think people are capable of equating human and animal life as being equal and dedicating their lives to working towards protecting and helping both.

Anti-choice people are just creeps who want totalitarian control over women's bodies. I mean I think a few of them really believe zygotes and fetuses are people and are solid in their convictions--anti-death penalty, anti-war and I feel slightly bad lumping them in with the majority of people who espouse their cause.


But only slightly bad.

This seems to suggest you are in favour of abortion for humans, but would not be in favour of abortion for animals. Humour me with a hypothetical. Is that your position?

The argument about the soul of animals being equal to those of humans is yet to be proved. It seems a slightly odd argument from those who are most likely to be vehement, zealous - dare I say it - almost evangelical atheists.

I am probably one of the few people here to have visited a chicken processing plant. It is horrific, and frankly the humans on the production line seemed not very much more sentient than the creatures they were despatching. At some point in the next few centuries that practice will end, and to see a chicken, cow or pig, you'll probably have to visit a nature reserve, on Kepler-22b, perhaps. Until then, until a viable source of protein for the whole of humankind can be found to replace it, we are stuck as a species with meat eating. As a matter of slight interest what is the PETA position on the meat eating of the Masai, the Inuit, or the Evenki? Presumably those meat eaters are just as bad. Why do I suspect there is a PETA get out clause? We know PETA don't have a problem with killing animals per se. They do it all day, every day.

My cat is better at certain things than I am. Sleeping by the radiator for hours, crying for food while his bowl is already full, pissing by the back door within six feet of his litter tray, jumping on top of the shed and not being able to get down on his own, but I love him unconditionally. Having evolved thumbs and a different set of skills I am able to service his needs on a voluntary basis. Who gets the best of the deal? He does, but as I say to my fellow liberals, I call it even.

I'm also mindful that that beautiful little ball of grey fur is a cold blooded killer the moment he clunks out through his cat flap. When he comes to sit with me every evening to have his ears tickled for an hour, I sometimes think how different our relationship would be if he was my size and I was his. He'd have killed me years ago. In all this hand wringing let's not forget that we as a species are here both because of and despite animals. It's not been all one way, has it? We are animals ourselves. We are the most successful creatures that have ever walked, crawled or swum. We earned it. Who'd be a duck?

Animals are wonderful, but your relationship with them would be rather different under canvas on the Veldt or swinging in an hammock half way up the Amazon. PETA is an organisation which is a perfect example of an exponent of the concept of the first world problem. There is a distinct air of the Timothy Treadwell about the lot of them, with a slight sheen of the Red Army Faction thrown in for good measure. When they start protesting across the Okavango Delta I'll be a lot more impressed with their shenanigans.
 

mywar

practicing troublemaker
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

How disrespectful.
People of Oslo lets hear some noise !!!!
Protest ! Protest ! Protest ! Its time to make a stand against this ignorant idiot. On the night rise up and give him hell.


Benny-the-Butcher

Go f*** yourself.

Love,
The People of Oslo
 

Chip

Member
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

This seems to suggest you are in favour of abortion for humans, but would not be in favour of abortion for animals. Humour me with a hypothetical. Is that your position?

No that is not true. I also reread my post and don't understand how a reasonable person could come to that conclusion. It make me tempted to ignore everything else you are going to say. Not that I wasn't already tempted.

The argument about the soul of animals being equal to those of humans is yet to be proved. It seems a slightly odd argument from those who are most likely to be vehement, zealous - dare I say it - almost evangelical atheists.

As an atheist I don't believe animals or humans have souls. Am I being evangelical?

For what it's worth I am also not a vegetarian. I am just capable of understanding the views of others.



I am probably one of the few people here to have visited a chicken processing plant. It is horrific, and frankly the humans on the production line seemed not very much more sentient than the creatures they were despatching. At some point in the next few centuries that practice will end, and to see a chicken, cow or pig, you'll probably have to visit a nature reserve, on Kepler-22b, perhaps. Until then, until a viable source of protein for the whole of humankind can be found to replace it, we are stuck as a species with meat eating. As a matter of slight interest what is the PETA position on the meat eating of the Masai, the Inuit, or the Evenki? Presumably those meat eaters are just as bad. Why do I suspect there is a PETA get out clause? We know PETA don't have a problem with killing animals per se. They do it all day, every day.

Yes they do. Which is why I don't support PETA. That and I think they waste resources on stupid publicity stunts like trying to get Judas Priest to change their album name to "Hellbent for Pleather."



My cat is better at certain things than I am. Sleeping by the radiator for hours, crying for food while his bowl is already full, pissing by the back door within six feet of his litter tray, jumping on top of the shed and not being able to get down on his own, but I love him unconditionally. Having evolved thumbs and a different set of skills I am able to service his needs on a voluntary basis. Who gets the best of the deal? He does, but as I say to my fellow liberals, I call it even.

I'm also mindful that that beautiful little ball of grey fur is a cold blooded killer the moment he clunks out through his cat flap. When he comes to sit with me every evening to have his ears tickled for an hour, I sometimes think how different our relationship would be if he was my size and I was his. He'd have killed me years ago. In all this hand wringing let's not forget that we as a species are here both because of and despite animals. It's not been all one way, has it? We are animals ourselves. We are the most successful creatures that have ever walked, crawled or swum. We earned it. Who'd be a duck?

Animals are wonderful, but your relationship with them would be rather different under canvas on the Veldt or swinging in an hammock half way up the Amazon. PETA is an organisation which is a perfect example of an exponent of the concept of the first world problem. There is a distinct air of the Timothy Treadwell about the lot of them, with a slight sheen of the Red Army Faction thrown in for good measure. When they start protesting across the Okavango Delta I'll be a lot more impressed with their shenanigans.

I am not sure how any of this is directed at what I wrote about abortion advocates or animal rights activists. Though I do appreciate your reference to the Red Army Faction. It was a surprise and quite thankfully I was getting sick of the Guardian-Socialist Workers Party cabal.

As I explained earlier I am not a supporter of PETA and I am not even actually a vegetarian. Though I have not eaten any animal protein that was not fish in over a year and I have not had any mammalian meat since June of 2008. I was a strict vegetarian for about 5 years, but that was awhile back.

I do believe that lady animals should be allowed to have abortions if they elect to. I wouldn't want to oppress them with the patriarchal ideas of humans.
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
Glad to hear it, old Chip. No need to be so defensive. I'm just trying to gauge the measure of your madness. We've already discovered this week that "some" or "a lot" means "everyone" and "all" in your lexicon, so you'll forgive me for trying to pin down your true position.

I wouldn't want to accuse you of meaning something other than the thing you wrote. I'm happy to leave that to you.
 

Chip

Member
Glad to hear it, old Chip. No need to be so defensive. I'm just trying to gauge the measure of your madness. We've already discovered this week that "some" or "a lot" means "everyone" and "all" in your lexicon, so you'll forgive me for trying to pin down your true position.

I wouldn't want to accuse you of meaning something other than the thing you wrote. I'm happy to leave that to you.


No we have not. I explicitly said every time I responded to your asinine remarks in that thread that "some" or "a lot" were not the same as "all" or "everyone." Every time.

I also took time to explain to you--twice--how what you actually said was offensive. As did multiple other people. You chose to either ignore them or were intellectually incapable of understanding them and instead responded to made up and imaginary nonsense--like a bizarre and nonsensical rant about the Huffington Post and how people are wising up to their notions of equality. Kind of how you responded to my post with a deliberately irrelevant question and than gave me a hypothetical than was neither relevant to my post or your original irrelevant question. It's what you do.

No one accused you of meaning something other than what you wrote. Multiple people called you out on what you said just like just like with your disgusting John Lennon remarks. And once again you pretended like you had written something other than what you had actually written, because you are incapable of holding yourself accountable for your actions. It's why your posts are always devolving into this bizarre rants at irrelevant perceived enemies.

It's not your fault people are calling you out on having written something blatantly bigoted--it's the pretend political correctness lobby twisting your words. Or it's me. I am now apparently mentally ill ("madness"), but before you just blew me off on the grounds that I must spend all week pretending to be offended at things that are not offensive.

Which is hysterical because that is exactly what you do. You are always incessantly whining about how oh so offended you are at the politically incorrect views of Morrissey (He was mean to the monarch! Teenagers in Sweden don't understand our parliamentary system! He thinks killing humans and killing animals is bad therefore he must not like humans!).

Must of what you go around accusing other people of, including Morrissey, are in fact behaviors that you yourself have displayed time and time again. Is this a conscious attempt of your's? Is this another one of your attempts at "irony" like when you wished someone would shoot Morrissey?
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

That's because most of the anti-abortion creeps aren't really pro-life, but just hate women and want to control their bodies/sexuality. That's why in spite of the fact that they hate abortions they won't do anything to actually lower the rate of abortions--like sex education, providing contraception, etc. They tend to hate these things just as much as they would give people, especially those devious women, some semblance of control over their own bodies.

Agree 100%

And as far as your earlier comment goes--I was explicitly instructed by my mother that if there was even a fire and I could save only one member of the family it was to be our cat.

I also really disagree with your description of all people who equate non-human animal life as being equal with human life as being anti-human misanthropes. I have known many people who diehard animal rights proponents who engaged in tremendous service towards people--pro bono legal work, international human rights work, civil rights work, labor rights, even women's and abortion right's work. I think people are capable of equating human and animal life as being equal and dedicating their lives to working towards protecting and helping both.

My psychological description was over the top. Of course not all animal lovers and rights activists are pessimistic misanthropes. But many are. Especially the ones who post on Solo, as Robby pointed out. But I STILL take issue with anyone that believes animals are equal in value to humans. Imagine if I told your mom that my cat is as worthy of life as her son. And that her loss (if you died) would be no greater than the loss I would feel for my cat. If you were replaceable, your mom would easily and quickly just get a new son, like a pet is so often replaced days after its death. Companion animals are not the same as children. Apples and oranges.

Some people who lose a child never desire to have another child. It is too painful. Have you seen the film Gravity? Imagine Sandra Bullock claiming to be disconnected, losing herself in her work, just going through the emotions, because years earlier her cat was killed. The movie would lose all credibility. Her character would be discredited, a weirdo. But when she tells about the loss of her daughter, we get it. We empathize. We understand how this loss could forever alter one's life and throw someone into an existential crisis. But the loss of a pet having this same effect? Surely not. Apples and oranges. If my cat died today, my life would not lose meaning. If my son died, I am not sure I would want to continue with life myself.

Anti-choice people are just creeps who want totalitarian control over women's bodies. I mean I think a few of them really believe zygotes and fetuses are people and are solid in their convictions--anti-death penalty, anti-war and I feel slightly bad lumping them in with the majority of people who espouse their cause.

Again, I agree. Some are consistent. Most aren't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

Go f*** yourself.

Love,
The People of Oslo

The people of Oslo ? Are you sure you speak for them all :mock:
 

realitybites

making lemonade
Subscriber
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

This seems to suggest you are in favour of abortion for humans, but would not be in favour of abortion for animals. Humour me with a hypothetical. Is that your position?
I don't think he suggested this.

The argument about the soul of animals being equal to those of humans is yet to be proved.

The argument that there is such a thing as a soul hasn't been proved.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Re: Morrissey Refuses to participate in press conference for Nobel concert (in Norwegian)

I don't think he suggested this.



The argument that there is such a thing as a soul hasn't been proved.


Bart said it. Nothing more to say.

P.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trending Threads

Top Bottom