Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
right. who's going to stick up for Morrissey then? form an orderly queue
is because he's an absolute end-of-level bellend.
he has a point.
The way he shouts on Someone To Love cracks me up.
absolutely ludicrous. i'll eat a mixed grill in his honour tonight.
i don't expect his fans to care. if his solo material and racist views aren't going to turn them away this will not.
Can't get my head round why, after after about 30 years of proto-trolling people, so many people still take the things he says at face value.
Chinese Cunts, Immigrant Pogrom
with just a picture of the troll face underneath
Seems to be a bit apt here.
Shame really that is where his genius ends.
It has made me want a KFC for lunch.
Great censorship there Metro
is the funniest thing I've ever read on DiS. Brilliant!
they described him as an 'assfuck' or an 'asscunt'?
however, there is probably a point to be made about the massive industrial processes of the slaughter of 100s of millions of animals every day to feed our human urges
a can't be bothered making it though - gonna have a pastrami and egg salad instead
But I can *sort of* understand that he would feel frustrated that the whole world is moved to massive amounts of grief over 76 human deaths, when thousands (humdreds of thousands?) of animals are slaughtered every day... having had no quality of life whatsover thanks to humans.
And this is coming from someone who tries to eat ethically farmed meat, but occaisionaly has a drunken bucket of fried chicken.
35 MILLION chickens are killed EVERY DAY in the US alone.
Fully one third of them are thrown away uneaten.
Morrissey trolled me
quite something isn't it?
And that's just chickens. In the US alone. Yeeesh.
Hugh Fearnley Wittingstall seemed to do it right though
policies have probably resulted in more deaths than the nutter killed in Norway?
the number is from a documentary that was made by Channel4 and shown on Swedish TV about 2 years ago - I forget the name
but I'm sure there are plenty of documentaries and articles online if you want to do some research
hes made it pretty clear hes cares more about animals than humans - so this is his logical thought process. Whether that makes it right or not, idk.
= please carry on paying attention to me, pleeeeaaassee.
in my coat made of steaks
(i won't be there)
bat him around the head with a rolled up meat feast pizza.
Totally abhorrent using a tragedy to promote your personal beliefs.
There's 'believing strongly' and there's being unreasonable.
Should send him to an abattoir for an afternoon.
people got pissy when people said you shouldnt drink and drive after Ryan Dunn died.
To make a completely unrelated point about meat eating after this event is fairly undefensible, whatever your views on meat eating are.
Rember when Lee out of Blue compared the plight of Elephants to 9/11?
"HOW CAN YOU GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AMY WINEHOUSE DYING WHEN THERE WAS THE MASSACRE IN NORWAY
compared to a Harvester.
and he's like, a philosopher and stuff.
Yeah I guess this time it is pretty insensitive of him
But i still love him so fuck all you guys
The only thing I can remember is that he smelt *funny* not horrible or unpleasant, not of anything recognisable, but he definately had an... aroma?
It's all supply and demand. If people didn't demand fried chicken, KFC wouldn't survive. I assume this is why he doesn't like black people.
obviously, this is a bountiful time for the music industry, and they can certainly afford to overlook an artist with a pretty rabid fanbase who buys everything he puts out, just to keep up their unspoken ageism policies.
or it could just be because the man is a PR disaster.
His brief flirtation with fascism/nationalism in the early 90s was one of main reasons his albums started tanking. That, and the fact they were really shit.
that'd be a dilemma
This specific recrding, not a lot else does him justice.
like, after amy winehouse died and all those IDIOTS were like "This is nothing compared to the hundreds of other people who die every day because of drugs and don't receive a fraction of the support Winehouse did" I just want to TAKE MORE SMACK to SHOW THOSE IDIOTS. Cos thats what adults do.
'one' said this, 'one' said that, no referencing or anything, could just be made up. since when did journalism turn into c+p'ing off twitter?
No it's just more lock jawed pop stars
Thicker than pig shit, Nothing to convey
They're so scared to show intelligence
It might smear their lovely career
This world, I am afraid, Is designed for crashing bores
I am not one, I am not one
You don't understand, You don't understand
... he's touring here next week. Tickets are still on sale. No such thing as bad publicity...
... he's consistently said stuff like this throughout his career and made awesome songs to boot. & I met him once, made a complete fool of myself yet he was gracious nevertheless (but that's another story).
so people are more likely to go out and buy tickets to see him because he made moronic comments about a massive tragedy? yeah, makes sense.
it's lazy 2 + 2 = 5 thinking. the more logical explanation is that because he's playing gigs/releasing something, he's interviewed more, and thus his crackpot statements come out.
Selling more tickets/records IS the benefit and is a likely and direct consequence of having your profile raised, regardless of why it was raised. I don't know what others benefits there could possibly be.
When I said 'that's not how PR works', what I really should have said is 'that's not how publicity works', because it isn't- it's about raising profiles.
Incidentally, this latest 'crackpot statement' has surfaced as a direct, unsolicited quote made at a gig- not a pre-arranged interview.
This charming spam
The boy with the quorn in his side
How soon is cow?
Sheila take a sow
First of the gang to fry
You have grilled me
Right, I'm banning myself from this thread now
Please someone take a "Girlfriend In A Korma" sign to the next festival that bell-end plays please.
something so blunt but subtle about that one, i like it
And, for all its flaws, there's no clear reason why any other ethical system should be considered better than utilitarianism.
Please explain what you mean in more detail.
and/or reducing total pain/suffering.
So from that perspective it seems that the suffering/pain inflicted on animals daily is cumulatively almost certainly worse than the total inflicted in Norway.
Now, it's quite easy to find flaws with this line of argument; it seems to suggest that a million people each suffering a very minor pinprick is worse than a few people being tortured for ages. But examples can be found to contradict every ethical system, and there is no reason to believe one is better than another.
Utilitarianism is at least based on actual experiences of sentient beings, rather than some arbitrary notion of abstract (human/animal) 'rights'. Though 'rights' can certainly be supported as a means to promoting overall utility.
Yes it may cumulatively be worse. But where's the connection? Where's the trade-off? It's pretty irrelevant to utilitarianism if there's no choice to be made between the two.
cumulatively worse, then it should be condemned at least as much as the bombing and shooting. So that's what he's doing.
Do we have to choose between children being massacred and chickens being killed?
They're two bad things, completely seperate from one another
I guess Morrissey's argument would be that if it can be considered
cumulatively worse, then it should be condemned at least as much as the bombing and shooting. So that's what he's doing.
Morrissey can use utilitarianism to justify why he thinks killing the chickens and other animals is worse.
You know, the thing that annoys me about people like Morrissey, is that I'm a lifelong Vegetarian, and enthuse the point that battery farms and slaughter-houses are evil, but there are precise and tactful ways of expressing that to people, rather than sensationalising it by making ludicrous and crass statements.
In this instance, rather than raising awareness about animal cruelty, Morrissey has just succeeded in making himself look like a cunt.
He's also managed to trivialise the rank-and-file nature of fast food preparation techniques by comparing it with an event that wasn't about economics or gluttony.
Now, instead of people reading his words and thinking "oh, maybe the food I eat is hideously unethical and I should reassess my position as a meat-eater", they're going to be thinking "oh, that Morrissey's a vile old twat isn't he, I'm glad I'm not a Vegetarian, it seems to bring out the worst in people".
anyone that sympathises with him on this is a cunt. Thank fuck I had a big mac at lunch break today, knew there was a reason I had a mcdonalds craving.
but this, no way. I say this as an aspiring vegan, campaigner for the league against cruel sports etc. I can understand the sheer frustration of taking an ethical and political standpoint that isn't even compatible with most lifestyles and that most people willfully misunderstand.
I fully understand it was a political statement intended for maximum impact. But it's just a downright insensitive thing to say. I'm quite sure he (someone who wrote an album about child abuse) doesn't really think mass murder of children is literally "nothing" compared with slaughter of animals for meat. Of course some people think killing an animal is just as wrong as killing human beings. I don't. Even if I did, to use this as a counterpoint, to make a hugely inflammatory statement like this, is so so lacking in respect for the victims and their families that it can be called cruel. Vegetarianism is (or should be) about ending unnecessary cruelty.
This had saddened me a bit because it's made me feel I have to justify myself in some way. I don't cry for the millions of chickens being slaughtered every day (I think it's exploitative, cruel and disgusting). I cried today when I saw the photograph of the kids on the island taken the day before they were killed.
I think he's just trying to prove his point that "David Cameron is as bad as a child killer." Perhaps the dumbest thing about this whole thing is Morrissey isn't even vegan.
Is this fucking news anyway? Some blokes opinion.. wow.
I could forgive you of anything but you're really pushing it this time.
If that statistic is correct, and it certainly seems feasible - is worse than 76 deaths on one occasion. Bearing in mind that the chickens would mostly live in fear and discomfort before being slaughtered as well.
I suppose deaths within our own species will always take greater precedence. I just find the utilitarian scale interesting - is, for example, just one human life worth more than a million animals? Are certain species inherently more sentient, or otherwise deemed to be of greater 'value' than others?
Of course it's obscene to weigh up one life against another; most people have rightly pointed out that the Norway attacks and the malpractices of the meat industry should be met with separate, not competitive, horror. But if we're discussing this at all, I think it's because Morrissey has pointed out - in crude terms - that that isn't the case. The deaths in Norway were a tragedy, whereas however many millions die daily to be eaten by humans (or discarded) is a statistic.
Interesting that Amy Winehouse died at the same time, and lots of people had no problem then making utilitarian arguments that the 76 dead was 'worse' than one dead popstar, regardless of a more widespread emotional connection to the latter.
Given the choice, I think most would prefer Amy Winehouse dying 76 times in 76 different universes (apparently of natural causes) to 76 young people being brutally murdered. Not utilitarianism.
Please let's stop talking about this though.
and tell Morrissey what you did and why and hope he felt guilty
It would seem a waste not to.
humans r animals tho
or whether he was just trying to stir up publicity and attention. Whatever.
I merely suggested that utilitarianism could be consistent with what he said. There is nothing in what you have written that contradicts this reasoning.
Both massive supporters of animal rights.
Utilitarian philosophy does factor in the well-being of all life on Earth.
A lot of human suffering concerns the anticipation of future pain. We can generally anticipate future events better than animals. That doesn't mean utilitarianism doesn't care about animals, but rather it cares about them in proportion to their actual characteristics. We shouldn't consider treating an elephant as if it was equal to, say, a mussel, even though they're both animals. So why would we consider treating one chicken as if it was equal to one person?
Where it gets tricky is whether you think it becomes ok to 'aggregate' the suffering of many individual animals and people. Whether you do or don't think it's ok, you come to unappealing and counter-intuitive conclusions.
-So what if eating meat is 'part of our way of life'? Sexism, racism, slavery, homophobia have all been these things.
-The consciousness of humanity will never rise above eating meat? Maybe, but we may well rise above killing animals for meat (see: in vitro meat).
I have literally no idea what question you're trying to put to me regarding the holocaust.
why people just assume that things have moral worth.
It's pretty easy to justify an assertion that I believe animals have zero moral worth.
I know this just boils down to subjectivity etc. But people are making a lot of objective/prescriptive statements or at least phrasing them in that way.
Kinda lost patience with him after the 'sub-species' comments last year (or the year before?) but you can't deny the unique brilliance of the timeless, beautiful classics he created.
He should have retired many years ago. I like to think of 80's / early 90's Moz as a totally different being to his latter day self.
Getting old sucks. . . .
Now what he's with isn't it, and what's it is weird and strange to him.
Dirty Mike & the boyz