Last week, not-so-ambiguously gay crooner Morrissey used the victims of the recent Norwegian massacre to draw attention to the tons of animals slaughtered for fast-food chains.
While onstage at a concert, the Maudlin One said, “We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Shit every day.” Morrissey’s management originally refused to comment, saying that the statement spoke for itself.
But now he’s decided to dig his hole even deeper, err… we mean, elaborate further by comparing the killing victim to delicious Big Macs and the Colonel’s extra-tasty crispy chicken.
“The recent killings in Norway were horrific. As usual in such cases, the media give the killer exactly what he wants: worldwide fame. We aren’t told the names of the people who were killed – almost as if they are not considered to be important enough, yet the media frenzy to turn the killer into a Jack The Ripper star is …. repulsive. He should be unnamed, not photographed, and quietly led away. The comment I made onstage at Warsaw could be further explained this way: Millions of beings are routinely murdered every single day in order to fund profits for McDonalds and KFCruelty, but because these murders are protected by laws, we are asked to feel indifferent about the killings, and to not even dare question them. If you quite rightly feel horrified at the Norway killings, then it surely naturally follows that you feel horror at the murder of ANY innocent being. You cannot ignore animal suffering simply because animals ‘are not us.'”
Morrissey’s argument misses one very important point: the Norway shootings victims are nowhere near as tasty as McAngus Deluxes or Double Down Chicken Sandwiches. So juicy, so artery-clogging, so denim-rippingly delicious!
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
In a similarly tasteless vein, PETA recently compared penned animals to slaves and handed out leaflets dressed in KKK robes. Awesome job, you guys!
alan Balehead
Morrissey please!!!
Cam
Why is this on a Gay News Blog?
christopher di spirito
Who is Morrissey?
The crustybastard
And those who would compare the slaughter of chickens to the slaughter of children may rightly be compared to the lunatics who actually go out and slaughter children because they have no sense of proportion.
Ganondorf
@The crustybastard
And those who believe that the needless suffering of one human child is worth more than the entire population of chickens on earth and the needless suffering slaughter chickens experience is also a loon with no sense of proportion.
Alex Sarmiento
Morrissey has a point, but it was tasteless to juxtapose that with what happened in Norway. By the by, is there such a thing as a vegetarian fast-food joint?
Codswallop
Save a chicken, eat Morrissey!
Ogre Magi
You know Morrisey got mauled by a dog recently
http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/12/morrissey.dog.attack.rstone/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5
Apparently it didn’t care that he was a member of PETA
nineinchnail
Morrissey only opens his mouth to change feet and this is quite possibly the stupidest thing he has ever said.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Chickens are food. Delicious food. If you don’t like it, don’t eat it. I’ll happily throw a hundred chickens into a wood chipper, if it would help out one person.
Jim
This is almost as despicable as blaming your political enemies’ rhetoric for a shooting inside a mall in Tucson, AZ, especially without any supporting evidence.
Riker
@Mr. Enemabag Jones: Wouldn’t it be more productive and tasty to throw 100 chickens into a deep fryer than a woodchipper?
Anyway, Morrissey may have a point, but it gets buried beneath his hyperbolic rhetoric.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Yeah, and in some cultures down papua new guinea way so are humans. But does the pleasure one experiences in eating a being that is capable of experiencing suffering worth the cost of that suffering? If so, the consumption of human flesh is also justified. Hmmmm, people.
Additionally, if intelligence is the metric by which a life is deemed more ethically significant than other lives, and not the capacity to suffer…well, most of you are but gerbils to me with regard to our comparative IQ’s, and occasionally, I do enjoy a steak.
Ganondorf
Not just the cost of the needless suffering, but also the being’s ability and opportunity to live and enjoy satisfying life, or life worth living (cows and chickens are so capable as well as white trash treabaggers and the repulsive gays on logo). I really don’t understand why people who defend factory farms don’t also defend cannibalism. Be consistent.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Yeah, and in some cultures down papua new guinea way so are humans.
Cannibalism hasn’t been practiced in New Guinea for decades. Unless you’re willing to make an excursion into the remotest of villages to see if they eat folks, then I’ll defer to people more knowledgeable than you.
But does the pleasure one experiences in eating a being that is capable of experiencing suffering worth the cost of that suffering?
Show me a chicken that can say, “Hey, please don’t eat me,” and I’ll accept your argument. For every one chicken that is consumed, well over 100 are not. i think if those chickens could speak, they’d whistle in the direction of the other gal.
If so, the consumption of human flesh is also justified. Hmmmm, people.
Invalid argument is invalid.
Additionally, if intelligence is the metric by which a life is deemed more ethically significant than other lives,
Intelligence is not the benchmark that judges any position on the food chain. What you’ve done is implied that an animal life is more important than that of a human, (in an attempt to take the argument into a position you can control). Not so. Animals serve their purpose on earth. Some are for work, companionship, and slaughter. That isn’t about intelligence, it’s about might. Perhaps wrong, but not incorrect, nor immoral. That’s why you rarely see bear steaks on the menu in restaurants.
and not the capacity to suffer…
That you would put animal suffering ahead of human suffering demonstrates clearly your pathological tendencies. I don’t like to see any living thing suffer, but I would step on a kitten to save a person.
well, most of you are but gerbils to me with regard to our comparative IQ’s,
Hmm…for someone who boasts about a higher than average IQ, you sure are stupid. I’ve seen a lot of flowery language here, but nothing that would indicate you are intelligent. Just a pompous ass.
That said, I’d be happy to go up against you in an intelligence test. The outcome would be highly entertaining.
and occasionally, I do enjoy a steak.
During the zombie apocalypse you will be the main course. When we run out of meat, we’re going after the vegetarians.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Riker:
Well, I was referring to the situation where farmers were doing this during the bird flu outbreak. But I see where you’re going with this.
sam
@Ganondorf: You realise that “supporting eating meat” (which is a natural, long-established and beneficial thing for humans) is NOT the same as “supporting factory farming”.
I’m opposed to horrendous mistreatment of animals in conditions like that. I KNOW there are more humane ways to care for the animals, and subsequently have them killed for eating. Animals dying is not the end of the world. Killing something else for food is… you know… beyond the norm. I see no reason why humanity has to rise above that part of our biology.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
It has been and still is. More to the point, have you ever been to an open air market in the republic of congo? I have. They put big bold signage up stating clearly that no human meat is sold there, which is a better indicator that it is than that it isn’t. Obvious the point, however, is lost on you.
“Show me a chicken that can say, “Hey, please don’t eat me,” and I’ll accept your argument. For every one chicken that is consumed, well over 100 are not. i think if those chickens could speak, they’d whistle in the direction of the other gal.”
LOL! So the chicken would have to demonstrate NORMAL human intelligence for it be off limits for consumption as meat. So you’re either denying a chicken’s ability to suffer, which it has and would be false, or you’re saying that the mere ability to suffer isn’t grounds for respecting an organism’s life. If the latter, well, kicking a mentally. retarded person to death is morally A-OKAY to you.
I just want to clarify that YOU are not an intelligent person, enemabag. You are NOT A SMART PERSON. You are extremely poorly educated, and moreso, have a low IQ. You would be food to me using your own metric.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Cows eat, and shit. They provide milk for their young, and wait until spring to get rogered by a bull to begin the cycle all over again. Chickens scratch, and shit. They lay eggs, sit on them and wait for them to hatch. They wait for the rooster to arrive and begin the cycle all over again.
I’m sure a life of never ending eating, shitting and getting fucked would appeal to you, but some of us would like a little variety in our lives. And since cows, and chickens can’t read, write, travel, or philosophize, I don’t think their lives are tragically cut short when we butcher them.
As a teenager, I worked on farms all over my province. Most times doing jobs most people wouldn’t do for $100 an hour, and I did them for $3 an hour. I respected the animals, because that is how my parents raised me. They taught me that meat doesn’t come from the grocery store, and vegetables don’t grow in cans.
When I was eight, my father told me after I asked him why he was feeding the pig so well, if he was going to be killed the next day, that just because we’re going to eat him doesn’t mean we have to treat him like nothing.
I have yet to see a PETA pricks treat animals with the respect, and love that farmers treat animals with.
I worked in s laughter house for two weeks. I left not because of the fact that animals knew they were coming there to die, but because the people working there seemed to have a hatred, or at least an intense dislike of these animals. I’m sure it stemmed from the fact that they knew that these animals knew what was going to happen, and the only way they could live with themselves doing their job was to view the animals as nothing.
Ganondorf
@sam:
Of course I am. Nothing I’ve said would indicate otherwise. However, it doesn’t really argue against factory farming techniques when you’re shoving a burger in your maw that was “organically processed”. Most people, however, eat meat from factory farms. Again, I think I’ve offered an argument against even that, too. Even if certain humans were raised in a good environment for slaughter…most would probably say that’s wrong for entirely irrational/inconsistent reasons, apparently. Humans are animals, and humans dying isn’t the end of the world, either according to you. If you’re suggesting it’s no big deal, well…that depends. Most people would consider the norway massacre a “big deal”. But they wouldn’t the millions of animals slaughtered every year in torture conditions for pleasure. It’s good to be consistent, though.
We don’t live in a hunter gatherer society anymore. In the first world, we eat for pleasure and, much less importantly, nutrition (and much further down the priority list if you’ve seen the disgusting specimens of humanity that are free grazing at malls).
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Well, I just don’t see that your “reasoning” here argues against the torture of pigs, cows and chickens in factory farms. I think it’s silly, actually. I think you’re silly and unintelligent.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
It has been and still is.
Your opinion not withstanding, please provide facts to back up your opinion.
More to the point, have you ever been to an open air market in the republic of congo? I have. They put big bold signage up stating clearly that no human meat is sold there, which is a better indicator that it is than that it isn’t.
I haven’t bee to the Republic of Congo, but I have been to Chinatown in Toronto. Some open air stalls used to have signs that read: ONLY CHICKEN AND PORK HERE. Now I seriously doubt anyone was selling anything other than chicken, or pork, but the decades of rumors, and truths, that persisted among those who view Chinese food as anything other than farm raised meat still lingers.
That a sign was put up in a tourist bazaar, frequented–by your own admission–non-natives, it wouldn’t surprise me that some sellers might decide to curtail any ideas that foreigners might have about the products being offered for sale.
Obvious the point, however, is lost on you.
And obviously the sales tactic was lost on you.
So the chicken would have to demonstrate NORMAL human intelligence for it be off limits for consumption as meat.
It’s your argument, sunshine. You didn’t say they shouldn’t demonstrate human intelligence.
So you’re either denying a chicken’s ability to suffer,
Not denying it, just placing it in it’s proper perspective. A child’s suffering, contrary to what you wrote above, is paramount to that of an animals.
which it has
Momentarily.
or you’re saying that the mere ability to suffer isn’t grounds for respecting an organism’s life.
To what end? At what point does the fear of an “organisms” suffering trump that of humans well being?
If the latter, well, kicking a mentally. retarded person to death is morally A-OKAY to you.
False analogy. Developmentally challenged people are that–PEOPLE. Animals are what they are, and people are what they are, and never the twain shall meet; whether in moral relativism, or in actuality.
I just want to clarify that YOU are not an intelligent person, enemabag.
I’ve never claimed to be.
You are NOT A SMART PERSON.
Based on the observations of a faceless individual on a blog.
You are extremely poorly educated,
Perhaps. But I’ve met some wonderfully educated people, who were complete imbeciles. I’ve learned over the years that the smarter people are, the dumber they are.
and moreso, have a low IQ.
Although IQ tests are a poor method for gauging true intelligence, I’m more than happy to put my IQ up against yours.
You would be food to me using your own metric.
Sadly no. As I wrote above, we are at the top of the food chain because of might, not intelligence. In that regard, you would be the main course at my dinner party.
Ganondorf
“which is a natural, long-established and beneficial thing for humans”
So is rape (I’m not being glib, some evolutionary psychologists have argued for the rape gene), and war. Natural, long-established and beneficial.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I appreciate that you would like to keep their argument based on factory farming, in order to appear to be correct in this argument, that that ignores the hundreds of thousands of family run farms, and hobby farms that spot the north American continent.
Using your logic, we should avoid large hospitals, in favour of small, private run clinics because large hospitals have so many people suffering within their doors.
What’s intelligent is arguing in favour of the comfort of animals who were raised specifically for food, over the comfort of humans, as you did in your first post.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
No, it’s not my argument that intelligence determines the ethical status of organisms. Nothing I’ve written would indicate that. Go away. You’re too stupid to waste another second on.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
So is rape
How is rape “beneficial” for human beings? You’re so desperate to come off as clever, you make absurd arguments.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
What’s intelligent is
What’s intelligent in…
Ganondorf
“Using your logic, we should avoid large hospitals, in favour of small, private run clinics because large hospitals have so many people suffering within their doors.”
Are you comparing the treatment of humans in a large metropolitan hospital (even, say, a low income hospital in an economically depressed part of a city) to the treatment of pigs in a factory farm? Really? ROTFLMAO! One operating under such a delusion should be suspended by the balls of one’s feet for hours before being unceremoniously butchered by having their throat cut and left as they jerk around over a drain to demonstrate the difference. LOL! Or stuffed into a cage with so many other humans that they can’t move from the moment they’re born until they’re slaughtered.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Well, some evolutionary psychologists associate rape with higher rates of fertility than non-rapey heterosexual coitus. So it is “useful” in passing along genetic material. That’s how it could be viewed as beneficial according to the argument.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
No, it’s not my argument that intelligence determines the ethical status of organisms. Nothing I’ve written would indicate that.
From comment #13–Your comment:
Additionally, if intelligence is the metric by which a life is deemed more ethically significant than other lives…
You were the person who brought the intelligence of animals into this debate. I appreciate that you don’t relish losing the debate, even after trying to skewer the debate in your favour, but learn to take your failures like a man.
You’re too stupid to waste another second on.
We’ll never know until you accept my challenge.
Ganondorf
Ya know, the last time I checked, and I could be wrong here but I don’t think that I am, humans in hospitals aren’t dipped into vats of boiling water while they were still alive until they’re dead. Maybe “treatment” methods differ in canada.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Yes, IF. IF…
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Well, some evolutionary psychologists associate rape with higher rates of fertility than non-rapey heterosexual coitus.
Links with facts to back up your opinion, please.
So it is “useful” in passing along genetic material. That’s how it could be viewed as beneficial according to the argument.
According to your argument. Until you provide links showing that evolutionary psychologists “associate rape with higher rates of fertility” it’s just your opinion, and not fact.
Terry
~~~Morrissey’s management originally refused to comment, saying that the statement spoke for itself.~~~
Hahaha, oh dear. That’s comedy.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
the last time I checked…humans in hospitals aren’t dipped into vats of boiling water while they were still alive until they’re dead.
And last time I checked, animals aren’t sought after for their opinions on geo-political doctrine.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Or stuffed into a cage with so many other humans that they can’t move from the moment they’re born until they’re slaughtered.
So if overcrowding in horrendous conditions bothers you so much, I presume you find the treatment of prisoners despicable?
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Neither are you, moo cow.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
And I’m sure you’re opinion is sought after in all your fantasies, basement troll.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Does it bother me? I’m just saying that torture of people for pleasure tends to activate the moral compass, and to generally desirous effect. And speciesism suppresses that activation for no good reason.
Henry
@Ganondorf: I hope you also agree with the “some” evolutionary psychologists who think the Holocaust was useful for weeding out the sheepish Jews who wanted to die. A lot of them got on trains suspiciously packed full of Jews, just because they were told they should.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Well, I just don’t see that your “reasoning” here argues against the torture of pigs, cows and chickens in factory farms.
My argument presents the other view, the other side of the argument for slaughtering animals for food. Your argument rests on your belief that factory farming is the standard by which all farms are run. That is a stupid, and sheltered argument, from a stupid, and sheltered person.
I think it’s silly, actually
So is believing that factory farms are the end all, and be all of farming.
Ganondorf
@Henry:
Really? I have yet to encounter an evolutionary psychologist who would argue for the evolved capacity for the holocaust, to weed out sheepish jews in a decade. Evolution tends not to work in a decade…but millions of years. Unlike certain evo psychologists who argue for the evolved tendency to rape, in
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259
I don’t agree with it, but there it is. What is natural or even “beneficial” doesn’t imply what’s right.
Now why would you say something like that about the jews and the holocaust? very interesting. Are you a neo nazi? A skinhead? A religious extremist?
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Yes, it attempts to provide the other view. That needless suffering based on pleasure is justified. I trust that people of sound mind will evaluate both sides of the issue, and not justify needless suffering because of the pleasure it causes.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I’m just saying that torture of people for pleasure tends to activate the moral compass, and to generally desirous effect. And speciesism suppresses that activation for no good reason
Shorter Ganondorf: I think people kill animals because they want to kill people. Like I wrote before, a lot of flowery language, that adds nothing to the debate.
Comparing the torture of people for “pleasure”, to the butchering of animals for food is asinine.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Really? So we don’t butcher animals in factory farms because we like to eat meat? Is that your argument? That WE NEED to torture and slaughter animals in factory farms to survive? Once again, I trust that people of SOUND MIND will evaluate both sides of the issue and come to a REASONABLE conclusion.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
That needless suffering based on pleasure is justified.
Where have I argued for “needless” suffering? Further where have I “justified” inflicting suffering for pleasure?
I trust that people of sound mind will evaluate both sides of the issue,
Here we go again. Not only trying desperately to get readers to pay attention to your comments, but seeking their affirmation in your opinions. How starved are you for attention?
and not justify needless suffering because of the pleasure it causes.
Please show me where I wrote that I support “needless suffering” for “pleasure”. It’s one thing to make absurd arguments, but to just make bullshit up is pathetic.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
So we don’t butcher animals in factory farms because we like to eat meat?
We eat animals because humans need to eat to survive.
That WE NEED to torture and slaughter animals in factory farms to survive?
Clearly your issue is with how these factory farms are run. Even when faced with the blatant fact that not all farms are factory farm standards, you still insist on conflating factory farms with all farming standards. If you have this issue with hw factory farmsm are run, then consult with their owners, and deal with them directly. Not indirectly on a gay blog.
Once again, I trust that people of SOUND MIND will evaluate both sides of the issue and come to a REASONABLE conclusion.
Once again you hope that readers will buy your horseshit, and accept your opinion as fact.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
That’s the link justifying your belief that rape is “beneficial” for humans? That study wasn’t even taken seriously, yet you present it as scientific fact?
The authors base their argument partly on statistics showing that in the United States, most rape victims are of childbearing age. But disturbingly large numbers of rapes of children, elderly women, and other men are never adequately explained. And the actual reproductive success of rape is not clear. Thornhill and Palmer’s biological interpretation is just that–an interpretation, one that won’t withstand tough scientific scrutiny. They further claim that the mental trauma of rape is greater for women of childbearing age (especially married women) than it is for elderly women or children. The data supporting these assertions come from a single psychological study, done by Thornhill in the 1970s, that mixes first-person interviews with caretaker’s interpretations of children’s reactions.
You’re like the blind man feeling an elephant.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Ah, so there it is.
“We eat animals because humans need to eat to survive.”
Point blank. You don’t think that humans can survive without eating animals. It’s just a matter of ignorance (as it usually is with you) of vegetarian diets, and how eating meat is a luxury of the first world (most people on earth aren’t sustained on meat based diets as it’s far too expensive for them) that is entirely predicated on pleasure and not utility or necessity. In fact, it can be persuasively argued with medical facts that red meat contributes to higher rates of colon cancer and heart disease. Additionally, just about every human plague can be directly linked to livestock.
“Clearly your issue is with how these factory farms are run”
partly. You aren’t very quick, apparently. There’s abundant evidence throughout this thread and topic that the ability to suffer and lead a life worth living (for a species) is what I base the dignity of life on. Not intelligence…anyway, it’s a complicated explanation that you’re incapable of grasping. Peter Singer makes the case far better than I. Maybe you should read up on it to understand how others could have a problem with it.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Yes, I disagree with it. The moral of the story is once again lost on you. The fact is that some evolutionary psychologists have argued for the evolved tendency to rape in males. I am agnostic about it. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t make rape right. Even if humans were evolved to consume the flesh of other sentient life forms, it doesn’t justify it.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
You don’t think that humans can survive without eating animals.
You don’t think humans should have the personal freedom to eat, or not eat meat? If you would force a meat eater to not eat meat, is that morally comparative to me forcing a vegan to eat steak?
It’s just a matter of ignorance (as it usually is with you) of vegetarian diets,
So, you would supplant personal freedom with your dictatorial worldview? What other beliefs do you hold, that you feel necessary to force on others? You think you’re more intelligent that readers here; you think you know better how we should live, than we do; you feel it necessary to force your opinions on those around you. Clearly you are a psychopath.
and how eating meat is a luxury of the first world (most people on earth aren’t sustained on meat based diets as it’s far too expensive for them)
Meat is consumed in every location on earth. There are no wholly vegan populace any where on earth. To correlate a small population of vegans as being the standard worldwide is patently false.
that is entirely predicated on pleasure and not utility or necessity.
So, when an Korean family eats a dog, they do it for pleasure, rather than the need of protein?
In fact, it can be persuasively argued with medical facts that red meat contributes to higher rates of colon cancer and heart disease.
Since we’ve been debating the plight of chickens, I find it disingenuous that you would present red neat as the only protein alternative for humans to eat. What does scientific evidence say about skinless, boneless chicken breast?
Additionally, .
Oh! Like hoof in mouth? No, not that one. That being said, if you’re correct and “just about every human plague can be directly linked to livestock”, then we are better off killing these animals before they infect us.
You aren’t very quick, apparently.
The more you ridicule my intelligence, the more you prove how sadly ignorant you really are.
There’s abundant evidence throughout this thread and topic that the ability to suffer and lead a life worth living (for a species) is what I base the dignity of life on.
And based on your opinion, the lives of animals should supersede that of humans. That you feel a multitude of chickens suffering are far more important that of one child shows your pathological view of humanity.
it’s a complicated explanation that you’re incapable of grasping.
This is a response made by those far too ignorant to actually defend their opinions. Unless you actually make the argument, and explain what you mean, then no one will be able to call bullshit on your opinion. In the end, you look foolish.
Peter Singer makes the case far better than I.
Bazooka Joe could make a better case than you. You haven’t presented one argument here that shows any intelligence, original thought, or life experience on your part.
Maybe you should read up on it to understand how others could have a problem with it.
The only problem you have is being a contrarian. Contrarians have no opinion other than, “I don’t agree with that.” You haven’t the brains, nor wherewithal to actually defend the absurd things you’ve written here, so you dismiss anyone who challenges your absurdity as being far too ignorant to understand your rhetoric. In the end you present nothing. No argument, No ideas, not thoughts. Just a lot of wandered over ideas created by people, far more intelligent than you.
Ganondorf
“You don’t think humans should have the personal freedom to eat, or not eat meat? If you would force a meat eater to not eat meat, is that morally comparative to me forcing a vegan to eat steak?”
I don’t think that speciesism justifies one species torturing and consuming another for pleasure. And I don’t think one SHOULD be free to make that decision on their own just as I don’t think that a human should be free to decide whether or not to kill other humans. Let’s use an example to facilitate understanding of this point for someone like you. Let’s say that a vastly superior civilization encountered human beings. I mean we were literally insects to them. Using your offered excuses here (hardly reasoning), it is, at least, at their discretion whether or not they would wipe our species and all trace of it off the map for whatever purpose they saw fit (e.g., earth’s natural resources–and further, let’s specify that they didn’t require them, but desired them for their pleasure).
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
The moral of the story is once again lost on you.
You haven’t presented any stories, or ideas, or ideologies for one to be lost on,
The fact is
Your opinion is.
that some evolutionary psychologists
Two evolutionary psychologists.
have argued
Unsuccessfully.
for the evolved tendency to rape in males.
They presented thier theory, not fact.
I am agnostic about it.
Until a family member is raped.
Even if it were true, it wouldn’t make rape right.
You defended rape as being evolutionary, so obviously you believe it is right.
Even if humans were evolved to consume the flesh of other sentient life forms, it doesn’t justify it.
So when a wild animal consumes a human, does that make it wrong? After all, they were evolved to consume animal protein, whether wildebeest, or human. And according to you, biological evolution be damned, living things should not eat other living things.
Ganondorf
“Meat is consumed in every location on earth. There are no wholly vegan populace any where on earth. To correlate a small population of vegans as being the standard worldwide is patently false.”
While there may be no wholly vegan population on earth, meat IS a luxury because it is expensive to raise livestock and slaughter them. Well over a billion people on earth live on less than a REAL dollar a day. Lest you ignorant cunts believe that the dollar they have goes further than the dollar you have to buy your big fat ass a soda, it doesn’t, that what a “real” dollar is. Most people on earth don’t have the luxury of eating meat for pleasure like first world countries do.
The bottom line is that not only is it possible to survive on a vegan diet, it is possible to flourish on a vegan diet. That is a fact that doesn’t need to be argued for.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I don’t think that speciesism justifies one species torturing and consuming another for pleasure.
You haven’t presented any evidence that humans are “torturing” animals for “pleasure. that is your opinion, and a ridiculous one at that.
And I don’t think one SHOULD be free to make that decision on their own
Unless you provide evidence that farmers are willfully “torturing” animals for “pleasure”, you have no argument. You’re entire argument hinges on your belief that animals are tortured for pleasure, rather than food. unless yo provide evidence that farmers are tormenting animals for pleasure , you will either have to concede your argument is wrong, or accept that fact that you are a fool, incapable of presenting coherent argument.
just as I don’t think that a human should be free to decide whether or not to kill other humans.
No one is talking about humans killing humans except you. You continually try to take the debate off in another direction, in order to appear correct.
Let’s use an example to facilitate understanding of this point for someone like you.
Considering you haven’t presented a single intelligent argument here, I’m fairly confident in my intelligence, and ability to understand.
Let’s say that a vastly superior civilization encountered human beings…
BULLSHIT! Present facts, not stories about imaginary civilizations? You dipshit. This is the best you can do Stories about made up creatures? Seriously? And you claim to be smarter than all of us? You pathetic loon.
Facts. Plain and simple facts. Not stories, not maybe’s or ifs. Reality. if you cannot present an argument within these parameters, how do you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously?
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Once again, evolutionary psychologists (well respected, at one point, anyway) have a provided an argument in a published book that seeks to show that the tendency to rape in human males is an evolved trait. It has received much criticism, and I don’t agree with it. However, I ultimately remain agnostic as to whether or not the tendency to rape is an evolved characteristic in human males as I do just about every finding in evo psych. The moral, however, of me saying that, was in response to a person who, at least suggested, that what is NATURAL is what is right. I do not believe that what is natural is identical to what is ethical. I will continue to repeat this until you understand it (cut and paste if necessary). What is natural is not identical to what is ethical. This applies to the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings. Just because human beings are evolved omnivores DOES NOT MAKE IT ETHICALLY PERMISSIBLE to consume the flesh of other sentient beings for pleasure. It is not necessary for our survival, and we do it for pleasure. The pleasure we derive from needlessly consuming the flesh of other sentient beings and the suffering that they endure when we harvest it does not justify the practice. Read this as many times as you require to understand the argument here. You obviously do not yet.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
It is not my opinion that slaughter animals in factory farms are tortured and endure horrific suffering. It is not opinion that people do not require meat in their diets to survive. Because slaughter animals in factory farms endure horrific suffering and humans do not require the consumption of meat to survive, that the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings is carried out due to preference and the pleasure of consuming it by humans. Are you cognitively impaired? I’m not saying this in jest. I’m genuinely curious here. Are you handicapped mentally? It’s not funny if you are, but the more I respond to you, the more I’m convinced of an intellectual disability on your part.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
“Meat is consumed in every location on earth. There are no wholly vegan populace any where on earth. To correlate a small population of vegans as being the standard worldwide is patently false.”
While there may be no wholly vegan population on earth, meat IS a luxury
No matter how desperately you want your ridiculous argument to stand, and no matter ow vigorously you try to defend your absurdity, that fact remains:
Meat is consumed in every location on earth. There are no wholly vegan populace any where on earth. To correlate a small population of vegans as being the standard worldwide is patently false.
No matter how badly you want it to not be so, it is so. That is a fact, cupcake.
because it is expensive to raise livestock and slaughter them.
And it’s expensive for me to own a green house, and maintain it. Using your logic, no one should be permitted to own one.
Well over a billion people on earth live on less than a REAL dollar a day.
Bullshit. This is yet another attempt by you to steer the debate in another direction. We are not discussing the living wages of peoples, we are talking about the consuming of animals protein in North America.
The bottom line
The bottom line is, you haven’t presented one single, fact to back up your trivial opinion.
is that not only is it possible to survive on a vegan diet, it is possible to flourish on a vegan diet.
The fact is, animals were raised for food. if an impoverished person had the choice between a salad, or a chicken, chances are very good they would take the chicken. Even the tribes of papua new guinea will eat human flesh for protein.
That is a fact that doesn’t need to be argued for.
You pathetic, elitist arrogant slob. Arguing in favour of some luxury vegan diet. That you would defend a way of eating, a luxurious way of eating that many people the world over would gape at in shear horror, shows how out of touch your really are. You latte sipping, pretentious jackass.
That you live in a place where people have the luxury of choosing what to eat, and you would ridicule that choice, a choice that people over the word would lay down their lives for, is the height of arrogance.
You’re far too pampered to be taken seriously.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Once again, evolutionary psychologists (well respected, at one point, anyway)
You based your entire argument on this point on a study–a theory–that was outright rejected. You have no argument.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
While there may be no wholly vegan population on earth [and there are, they’re called vegans], meat IS a luxury because it is expensive to raise livestock and slaughter them. Well over a billion people on earth live on less than a REAL dollar a day. Lest you ignorant cunts believe that the dollar they have goes further than the dollar you have to buy your big fat ass a soda, it doesn’t, that what a “real” dollar is. Most people on earth don’t have the luxury of eating meat for pleasure like first world countries do.
I’m simply going to repeat myself from here on out by cutting and pasting previous responses to you. You are incapable of arguing for or against your beliefs.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Once again, evolutionary psychologists (well respected, at one point, anyway) have a provided an argument in a published book that seeks to show that the tendency to rape in human males is an evolved trait. It has received much criticism, and I don’t agree with it. However, I ultimately remain agnostic as to whether or not the tendency to rape is an evolved characteristic in human males as I do just about every finding in evo psych. The moral, however, of me saying that, was in response to a person who, at least suggested, that what is NATURAL is what is right. I do not believe that what is natural is identical to what is ethical. I will continue to repeat this until you understand it (cut and paste if necessary). What is natural is not identical to what is ethical. This applies to the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings. Just because human beings are evolved omnivores DOES NOT MAKE IT ETHICALLY PERMISSIBLE to consume the flesh of other sentient beings for pleasure. It is not necessary for our survival, and we do it for pleasure. The pleasure we derive from needlessly consuming the flesh of other sentient beings and the suffering that they endure when we harvest it does not justify the practice. Read this as many times as you require to understand the argument here. You obviously do not yet.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
It is not my opinion that slaughter animals in factory farms are tortured and endure horrific suffering.
But it is your opinion that all animals are treated that way, therefore not animils should be consumed. Following your logic, because some gay men become infected with HIV, no gay men should be permitted to have sex with each other. You’ve made the exception the rule.
It is not opinion that people do not require meat in their diets to survive.
And it is not a fact that humans are vegan by nature.
Because slaughter animals in factory farms endure horrific suffering
Once again, you cannot use the treatment of animals in one situation, to make sweeping judgements in all situations. Your entire argument is premised on factory farms. Since factory farms are the exception, and not the rule, your augment is not valid.
and humans do not require the consumption of meat to survive,
that the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings is carried out due to preference and the pleasure of consuming it by humans.
Once again, you cannot use the treatment of animals in one situation, to make sweeping judgements in all situations. Your entire argument is premised on factory farms. Since factory farms are the exception, and not the rule, your augment is not valid.
Are you cognitively impaired?
I don’t know. make a sentient, valid argument and we’ll see.
I’m not saying this in jest. I’m genuinely curious here. Are you handicapped mentally? It’s not funny if you are, but the more I respond to you, the more I’m convinced of an intellectual disability on your part.
Fr lack of a coherent argument, you fall back on the tired, and childish name calling. I’m sorry that you’re far too ignorant to present a realistic argument. But that doesn’t make me, or anyone else stupid. it makes you mentally lazy, and incapable of presenting your arguments in a factual way.
I really don’t see any reason to continue this debate with someone who refuses to follow even the most basic tenets of logical debate. You’re like a chimp at the zoo flinging shit. Desperate for attention, and you don’t know how to get it.
Ganondorf
“Bullshit. This is yet another attempt by you to steer the debate in another direction. We are not discussing the living wages of peoples, we are talking about the consuming of animals protein in North America.”
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/resources/fastfacts_e.htm
More than one billion people in the world live on less than one dollar a day.
In total, 2.7 billion struggle to survive on less than two dollars per day.
We are discussing whether or not it’s possible to live without meat. Not only is it well established to be possible, it’s common.
Another great cut and paste opportunity to argue against this religious zealot/troll.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Since you already wrote this, I’ll just re-post what I wrote:
You based your entire argument on this point on a study–a theory–that was outright rejected. You have no argument.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
But it is your opinion that all animals are treated that way, therefore not animils should be consumed.
No. I did not say that all animals are treated the way that animals in factory farms are treated. Once again, are you cognitively impaired? You’re very stupid, and though it’s difficult to talk to stupid, it’s fun to make fun of it. Especially when it’s so willful.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I’m simply going to repeat myself from here on out by cutting and pasting previous responses to you. You are incapable of arguing for or against your beliefs.
You’ll do this because you’re incapable of coming up with a logical argument. That you repeat yourself shows how weak minded you really are. Incapable of debating on the fly, and relying on your opinions as fact.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Once again, evolutionary psychologists (well respected, at one point, anyway) have provided an argument in a published book that seeks to show that the tendency to rape in human males is an evolved trait. It has received much criticism, and I don’t agree with it. However, I ultimately remain agnostic as to whether or not the tendency to rape is an evolved characteristic in human males as I do just about every finding in evo psych. The moral, however, of me saying that, was in response to a person who, at least suggested, that what is NATURAL is what is right. I do not believe that what is natural is identical to what is ethical. I will continue to repeat this until you understand it (cut and paste if necessary). What is natural is not identical to what is ethical. This applies to the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings. Just because human beings are evolved omnivores DOES NOT MAKE IT ETHICALLY PERMISSIBLE to consume the flesh of other sentient beings for pleasure. It is not necessary for our survival, and we do it for pleasure. The pleasure we derive from needlessly consuming the flesh of other sentient beings and the suffering that they endure when we harvest it does not justify the practice. Read this as many times as you require to understand the argument here. You obviously do not yet.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
LOL!
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I did not say that all animals are treated the way that animals in factory farms are treated.
You’ve based your entire argument on the methods incorporated by factory farms. When presented with points of how family farms are run, you ignore this, and continue with your opinions of factory farms, and your absurd belief that those are the standard operating practices.
Once again, are you cognitively impaired? You’re very stupid, and though it’s difficult to talk to stupid, it’s fun to make fun of it. Especially when it’s so willful.
For lack of a coherent argument, you fall back on the tired, and childish name calling. I’m sorry that you’re far too ignorant to present a realistic argument. But that doesn’t make me, or anyone else stupid. it makes you mentally lazy, and incapable of presenting your arguments in a factual way.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
You based your entire argument on this point on a study–a theory–that was outright rejected. You have no argument.
How do you expect to be treated, or viewed as an adult, as a man, when you act like a petulant child?
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
No. I haven’t based my entire arguments (plural) on factory farming. I’ve based on them many other considerations. However, I did not say that all animals are treated like the animals in factory farms are. LOL!
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
Once again, evolutionary psychologists (well respected, at one point, anyway) have provided an argument in a published book that seeks to show that the tendency to rape in human males is an evolved trait. It has received much criticism, and I don’t agree with it. However, I ultimately remain agnostic as to whether or not the tendency to rape is an evolved characteristic in human males as I do just about every finding in evo psych. The moral, however, of me saying that, was in response to a person who, at least suggested, that what is NATURAL is what is right. I do not believe that what is natural is identical to what is ethical. I will continue to repeat this until you understand it (cut and paste if necessary). What is natural is not identical to what is ethical. This applies to the consumption of the flesh of other sentient beings. Just because human beings are evolved omnivores DOES NOT MAKE IT ETHICALLY PERMISSIBLE to consume the flesh of other sentient beings for pleasure. It is not necessary for our survival, and we do it for pleasure. The pleasure we derive from needlessly consuming the flesh of other sentient beings and the suffering that they endure when we harvest it does not justify the practice. Read this as many times as you require to understand the argument here. You obviously do not yet.
Because you’re retarded, and I’m amused that you either don’t understand or don’t want to.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
You based your entire argument on this point on a study–a theory–that was outright rejected. You have no argument.
I find it disturbing that you work so hard at defending rape.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones:
ROTFLMAO!
Why do you hate puppies?
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
I haven’t based my entire arguments (plural) on factory farming.
Yes you have. Your entire argument, and your defense of your argument, hinges on factory farming being the norm. Since it is not, your opinion is moot.
I’ve based on them many other considerations.
Whatever your feeble mind may conjure up, I’m sure.
However, I did not say that all animals are treated like the animals in factory farms are.
You’ve based your entire defense of veganism on the methods employed withing factory farms. Since factory farming is not the normal standard, your argument is a poor one, since not all animals meet the same process that factory farm animals do.
Ganondorf
Look, obviously this was about my desire to be right coinciding with the fact that I am. I’m always right. Always. I can’t remember the last time I’ve been wrong about anything. Even trivial stuff (excluding grammar and spelling, of which I’m much more right than even the people who write articles for queerty and other gay blogs). And now…fifty posts later…
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Why do you hate children?
Ganondorf
I’m still right.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
Look, obviously this was about my desire to be right coinciding with the fact that I am.
Since you haven’t presented any facts to prove your argument, at best you are suborn, at worst, a lazy thinker.
I’m always right. Always.
And the sky in your world is what colour?
I can’t remember the last time I’ve been wrong about anything.
And you can’t remember the last time yous saw sunlight, or exercised, or kissed someone.
Even trivial stuff
Everything you think and write is trivial.
And now…fifty posts later…
You’re still getting your ass kicked.
Mr. Enemabag Jones
@Ganondorf:
But then your mom calls you, and you wake you just before the best part in your dream happens.
Ganondorf
@Mr. Enemabag Jones
Stop raping kids, you kid raping kid raper!
Ganondorf
‘Colour’? You’re from not-america. I’ve argued with someone who is from not-america–an unamerican or non-american. You’re not even a real person. This is awful.
xander
@Ganondorf : Mr Jones used “favour” in comment 24, so your much-touted IQ must be impervious to ‘non-American’ spelling. If, later on, he spells the piece of rubber around wheels “tyre” he’s likely non-Canadian, because your neighbo(u)rs to the North spell it as you do, with the ‘i’.
\/
I’ll dig into my free-range Halal chicken now. Not much of a meat-eater here, but the pair of you have inspired me to stay engaged in ‘conscious eating’ when possible. It’s less spendy than the Kosher chx, btw.
Ganondorf
@xander:
What? Oh, okay. More irrelevance from the opinion no one asked for. Are you from not-america, too? Tryna to be people. LOL! Goddamnit, America needs to turn not-america into either a glass parking lot or rental property. Oh wait, we’ve done the latter.
xander
@Ganandorf : -1.
Better luck on your next go round, though. So far Jones has given you precisely enough rope with which to hang yourself. Don’t, though. I always root for the underdog in the second half.
OneVoice
I do not know what is worse:
A- DANIEL VILLARREAL is not able to write anything that does not seem to be at a first grade intellectual level. Seriously, DANIEL VILLARREAL, how is it that you are even employable?
or
B- QUEERTY allowing this GANANDORF wacko to ruin the comments with a first grade intellectual level. Seriously, GANANDORF, how is it that your mommy lets you spend so much time on a computer with adults? This is not a kiddy topic.
OneVoice
I do not know what is worse:
A- DANIEL VILLARREAL is not able to write anything that does not seem to be at a first grade intellectual level. Seriously, DANIEL VILLARREAL, how is it that you are even employable?
or
B- QUEERTY allowing this Mr. Enemabag Jones wacko to ruin the comments with a first grade intellectual level. Seriously, Mr. Enemabag Jones, how is it that your mommy lets you spend so much time on a computer with adults? This is not a kiddy topic.
x
@OneVoice: Hey, One Voice, one comment! Believe it!
OneVoice
C- Both Of The Above
boomer
I was wondering why a Morrissey post had 80+ comments…turns out it was just two irrational people squabbling. What a terrible surprise.
Can we just agree that cruel farming techniques are awful and shooting down children with an assault rifle is also awful? And that they’re so different from each other that comparing the two is pointless, as the Chuckle Brothers above have so aptly demonstrated?
Queer Supremacist
Reading this alleged debate brought two thing to my mind. It reminded me of Michael Palin’s character of Ken the stuttering animal rights activist in A Fish Called Wanda. He cried and cried when any harm was done to an animal, but had no qualms with murdering people for a living, and when Otto said “killing old ladies isn’t nice,” Ken replied, “it’s b-b-b-b-better than b-b-b-buggering people.”
And Ganodorf has now made the reason for Hitler’s vegetarianism clear to me. I’m going to honor the memories of the victims of the Holocaust—and fulfill my body’s nutritional needs—by eating at least one piece of lean meat every day.
Ganondorf
@xander:
Nah. I hate foreigners. It’s just not american. They’re all strange, especially the filthy not americans. But, he’s not providing an argument. I have. That you too ignorant and, to be brutally honest, stupid to know the difference is par the course.
Now he admits that if a vastly superior civilization encountered humans on earth, it would be morally permissible for it to obliterate the human race, or at least use it however it deems appropriate for whatever purpose it desires. For example, if members of this civilization enjoyed the taste of human flesh, then it would be morally permissible for it to enslave the entire human race and treat it as livestock. That his “ethical” outlook (and I hesitate to describe this non-cognitive’s outlook as anything other than hard trollin’) entails this and yet is yet still endorsed indicates that the needless suffering of sentient beings is permissible to him. Him and the psychopath.
Now obviously if intelligence is the metric by which a being has rights, more intelligent people should have more rights than less intelligent people according to this view. For example, if a person with an IQ of 166 kicked a person with an IQ of 85 to death for his amusement, then people who tout this as THE standard of personhood need to factor that into his punishment, and not to increase it…as his life, according to them, is more valuable and worthy of protecting and sustaining–and OUGHT HAVE more rights to do as he pleases to others of less intelligence. This metric (intelligence) doesn’t uniquely describe humans. Of course I cede that there is a difference in the level of sentience between humans and chickens, but both are capable of tremendous suffering, and for most normal people, that capacity for suffering does factor in to how such entities ought be treated. It’s just that there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance (and profit!) that enables people to chow down on the flesh of other animals.
Ganondorf
@Queer Supremacist:
Wanda: I’m sorry about my brother, Ken. I know he’s insensitive. He’s had a hard life. Dad used to beat him up.
Ken: Good.
Hell of a flick.
David B.
@ Mr. Enemabag Jones:
I don’t know where you get your information about food production from, but even a cursory examination would show that factory farming is the rule, NOT the exception. Family and free-range farms may have dominated a hundred years ago, but certainly not today. Personally, I’m not against people eating meat. After all, animals eat other animals. But an animals existence shouldn’t have to be misery and suffering from birth to slaughter. There are humane ways to produce meat.
Also, I disagree that viewing animals as being here solely for our use is “not immoral.” Just because we can dominate and force animals into any circumstance we want doesn’t mean we should. Animals have their own right to exist and their own right to their share of the ecosystem. Bulldozing acre after acre of wildlife habitat to sate developer greed and exurban sprawl is hardly a tenable position.
Of course, if your argument boils down to “the whims of humanity trumps any and all needs of the animal kingdom,” then I’m wasting my time even arguing with such ego-centric vanity. It’s like trying to argue with the straights who tell gays to “shut up” about seeking their rights because it intrudes on their comfortable self-interest and status quo.