The New News Thread.

This is the place for topical debate and discussion about anything in the world (non-Queen related).

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:05 pm



while I think 90% of what he says here is drivel, he has a point when he says people are quick to pull the racist card when losing an argument.

Now you have to understand, that the vast majority of internet users have very poor intellectual capabilities, and aren't really good at making considered, structured arguments. When faced with someone who is able to do discussions in such a way, things can get frustrating really fast, and the easy next thing to do is start to call people names. What names? well, preferrably something really nasty and impactfull, like "racist". "Racist" is really the word of the times these days. It used to be different words, like "communist", or "heathen".

There really is a problem there.
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise

      
 
Posts: 2396
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:06 pm

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:So thousands of Commonwealth citizens who have been in the UK for decades, often since childhood, face being sent ‘home’ to countries they have next-to-no knowledge of:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241

Funny how it’s Jamaica and India, and not Canada, Australia and New Zealand, isn’t it?


this is a case of "bad governing" and unacceptle inaction during decades.

I strongly criticise this decision.


It’s looking like the government are going to intervene and sort it out, but imagine the unnecessary anxiety so many people are going through over it.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:11 pm

action wrote:


while I think 90% of what he says here is drivel, he has a point when he says people are quick to pull the racist card when losing an argument.

Now you have to understand, that the vast majority of internet users have very poor intellectual capabilities, and aren't really good at making considered, structured arguments. When faced with someone who is able to do discussions in such a way, things can get frustrating really fast, and the easy next thing to do is start to call people names. What names? well, preferrably something really nasty and impactfull, like "racist". "Racist" is really the word of the times these days. It used to be different words, like "communist", or "heathen".

There really is a problem there.


Yeah, I mean a lot of the time these people aren’t actually ‘racists’, they’re just ‘morons’, and it just so happens that the discussion of the day involves racial issues. On another day the person/culture/body they irrationally despise may well be white (eg atheists, scientists, ‘lefties’, the lower/middle/upper class, the rich/poor, the poorly/well educated, etc.).
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:17 pm

Elessar wrote:Yeah, I mean a lot of the time these people aren’t actually ‘racists’, they’re just ‘morons’, and it just so happens that the discussion of the day involves racial issues. On another day the person/culture/body they irrationally despise may well be white (eg atheists, scientists, ‘lefties’, the lower/middle/upper class, the rich/poor, the poorly/well educated, etc.).


little misunderstanding here. It's the ones on the winning end of the discussion that are called "racists" who, in my hypothesis, are laying out well reasoned arguments. If anyone is the moron in this situation, it's the one calling names.

On the other hand, if someone is acting like a moron and are irrationally dispising certain groups, then by all means call them racist if necessary. I'll be the first to do so, in fact
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise

      
 
Posts: 2396
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:42 pm

action wrote:
Elessar wrote:Yeah, I mean a lot of the time these people aren’t actually ‘racists’, they’re just ‘morons’, and it just so happens that the discussion of the day involves racial issues. On another day the person/culture/body they irrationally despise may well be white (eg atheists, scientists, ‘lefties’, the lower/middle/upper class, the rich/poor, the poorly/well educated, etc.).


little misunderstanding here. It's the ones on the winning end of the discussion that are called "racists" who, in my hypothesis, are laying out well reasoned arguments. If anyone is the moron in this situation, it's the one calling names.

On the other hand, if someone is acting like a moron and are irrationally dispising certain groups, then by all means call them racist if necessary. I'll be the first to do so, in fact


I’ve not encountered many instances of people ‘winning’ an argument and then being called racist, although I’m sure it has happened. I think that if you’ve constructed an argument such that you’re open to that kind of accusation, you’ve either constructed it in a way that makes those accusations fair, or it will be very easy for you to explain why your accuser is wrong - what Morrissey does is immediately respond to accusations of racism with cries of political correctness, leftism and Guardian-readership, which essentially means responding to one label by throwing out another. Given Morrissey’s comments on Sadiq Khan, acid attacks and halal meats, I think he would struggle to defend his position whilst successfully explaining that he is not being prejudiced (eg it’s fine to be against halal meats, but very difficult to say that halal meats can only be approved by ISIS supporters, without facing very reasonable accusations of prejudice).
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:55 pm

Elessar wrote:I’ve not encountered many instances of people ‘winning’ an argument and then being called racist, although I’m sure it has happened. I think that if you’ve constructed an argument such that you’re open to that kind of accusation, you’ve either constructed it in a way that makes those accusations fair, or it will be very easy for you to explain why your accuser is wrong - what Morrissey does is immediately respond to accusations of racism with cries of political correctness, leftism and Guardian-readership, which essentially means responding to one label by throwing out another. Given Morrissey’s comments on Sadiq Khan, acid attacks and halal meats, I think he would struggle to defend his position whilst successfully explaining that he is not being prejudiced (eg it’s fine to be against halal meats, but very difficult to say that halal meats can only be approved by ISIS supporters, without facing very reasonable accusations of prejudice).


it doesnt quite work that way.

if someone hits you in the face, will you go on to argue in a well balanced matter why he was wrong doing so?

nope. I guess you'll kick his ass or, if he's taller than you, get the hell out of there
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise

      
 
Posts: 2396
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:45 pm

Elessar wrote:I’ve not encountered many instances of people ‘winning’ an argument and then being called racist, although I’m sure it has happened. I think that if you’ve constructed an argument such that you’re open to that kind of accusation, you’ve either constructed it in a way that makes those accusations fair, or it will be very easy for you to explain why your accuser is wrong - what Morrissey does is immediately respond to accusations of racism with cries of political correctness, leftism and Guardian-readership, which essentially means responding to one label by throwing out another. Given Morrissey’s comments on Sadiq Khan, acid attacks and halal meats, I think he would struggle to defend his position whilst successfully explaining that he is not being prejudiced (eg it’s fine to be against halal meats, but very difficult to say that halal meats can only be approved by ISIS supporters, without facing very reasonable accusations of prejudice).


I have just read the Morrissey interview and am quite surprised at how honest and ballsy he really is (tbh, I have always avoided him and do not know much about him at all).

Do you think he is racist? And I am asking merely out of curiosity for your reasoning and not to get into another slagging match with you (I think we are both bored shitless with the same old crap back and forth) or to prove any point, etc. I, personally - from what I have read - do not think he is racist, but am more than willing to keep an open mind and review my opinion if there's something I have overlooked.
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 3670
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:09 pm

musicalprostitute wrote:
I have just read the Morrissey interview and am quite surprised at how honest and ballsy he really is (tbh, I have always avoided him and do not know much about him at all).

Do you think he is racist? And I am asking merely out of curiosity for your reasoning and not to get into another slagging match with you (I think we are both bored shitless with the same old crap back and forth) or to prove any point, etc. I, personally - from what I have read - do not think he is racist, but am more than willing to keep an open mind and review my opinion if there's something I have overlooked.


I’ve no idea - I don’t have much knowledge of him either. The Smiths are a band that I’m aware it’s terribly cool to like, but I’ve never really listened to.

However, if he’s been accused of being racist and his best defence is “The Loony Left forget that Hitler was a leftie” and that ‘racist’ is a word used to shut someone up when they make a good (“enlightened” - he might as well say theyve taken the blue pill) point, and then he goes on to say that Sadiq Khan doesn’t speak proper English and that most acid attacks are by non-whites who enjoy special treatment because of their ethnicity....well, I don’t know when and why he’s been called a racist in the past, but if that interview is anything to go by, it doesn’t sound like those accusations are likely to have been entirely groundless.

But then, I’ve no idea the kind of hardships millionaire working class hero Morrissey has endured.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby musicalprostitute » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:49 pm

Elessar wrote:
musicalprostitute wrote:
I have just read the Morrissey interview and am quite surprised at how honest and ballsy he really is (tbh, I have always avoided him and do not know much about him at all).

Do you think he is racist? And I am asking merely out of curiosity for your reasoning and not to get into another slagging match with you (I think we are both bored shitless with the same old crap back and forth) or to prove any point, etc. I, personally - from what I have read - do not think he is racist, but am more than willing to keep an open mind and review my opinion if there's something I have overlooked.


I’ve no idea - I don’t have much knowledge of him either. The Smiths are a band that I’m aware it’s terribly cool to like, but I’ve never really listened to.

However, if he’s been accused of being racist and his best defence is “The Loony Left forget that Hitler was a leftie” and that ‘racist’ is a word used to shut someone up when they make a good (“enlightened” - he might as well say theyve taken the blue pill) point, and then he goes on to say that Sadiq Khan doesn’t speak proper English and that most acid attacks are by non-whites who enjoy special treatment because of their ethnicity....well, I don’t know when and why he’s been called a racist in the past, but if that interview is anything to go by, it doesn’t sound like those accusations are likely to have been entirely groundless.

But then, I’ve no idea the kind of hardships millionaire working class hero Morrissey has endured.


Fair points.

I actually agree with him about the mayor: I do think it is important to at least pronounce one's words right if one is a prominent figure - and I would say exactly the same if he was a white, working class lad who spoke a bit...well...chavvy. No, it is not the end of the world...but I do kind of understand where he is coming from.

Regards the acid attacks in London: do we actually know the facts here? I mean, he made a pretty big claim there - but is it true. Because if it is then we should all be free to say it as it is; but if he is wrong then there is no excuse and I would not defend him in the slightest.

Oh, and I simply detest The Smiths. They just bore me to tears. Although, I respect his views on animal cruelty (the titbits I have read over the years anyway).
 
musicalprostitute
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Defend yourself, I bring catastrophe

      
 
Posts: 3670
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Essex and Cardiff.
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:17 pm

musicalprostitute wrote:
Fair points.

I actually agree with him about the mayor: I do think it is important to at least pronounce one's words right if one is a prominent figure - and I would say exactly the same if he was a white, working class lad who spoke a bit...well...chavvy. No, it is not the end of the world...but I do kind of understand where he is coming from.

Regards the acid attacks in London: do we actually know the facts here? I mean, he made a pretty big claim there - but is it true. Because if it is then we should all be free to say it as it is; but if he is wrong then there is no excuse and I would not defend him in the slightest.

Oh, and I simply detest The Smiths. They just bore me to tears. Although, I respect his views on animal cruelty (the titbits I have read over the years anyway).


I suspect that Sadiq Khan could, if he chose to, speak with a RP accent. These people know what they're doing. It might not be to Morrissey's taste that he speaks with a London accent, but I bet his PR people have calculated that it's best for him politically. Obama spent 10 years speaking in an accent that isn't his own, and in fact his accent changed depending on where he was speaking. It's all intentional; all part of the performance art that is politics.

It may well be true that the majority of acid attacks are by Asian people. Certainly they've been used in a lot of so-called 'honour killings/attacks'. But the idea that the people involved receive special privileges is just conspiratorial nonsense.

And as for the animal cruelty: Morrissey presents a strange dichotomy here. He quite correctly points out that 'humane slaughter' is a nonsense term (although comparing it to 'humane rape' seems to me to be unnecessarily emotive), and that stunning an animal before slaughter doesn't make it any better, but then bizarrely says that Halal meat is something that can only be approved by ISIS supporters. I don't understand why he thought it necessary to bring terrorism into the debate, especially given that his stance is that ALL meat is immoral (also, what's his point? Is it that all Muslims are ISIS supporters, or does he genuinely believe that a pre-requisite for the role of Halal meat inspector at a Halal abattoir is Jihadist beliefs?). Maybe if pushed he'd be just as critical of McDonald's, I don't know.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:44 pm

Elessar wrote:And as for the animal cruelty: Morrissey presents a strange dichotomy here. He quite correctly points out that 'humane slaughter' is a nonsense term (although comparing it to 'humane rape' seems to me to be unnecessarily emotive), and that stunning an animal before slaughter doesn't make it any better, but then bizarrely says that Halal meat is something that can only be approved by ISIS supporters. I don't understand why he thought it necessary to bring terrorism into the debate, especially given that his stance is that ALL meat is immoral (also, what's his point? Is it that all Muslims are ISIS supporters, or does he genuinely believe that a pre-requisite for the role of Halal meat inspector at a Halal abattoir is Jihadist beliefs?).


"ISIS", or more correctly "ISIL" means "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is an organisation that follows a fundamentalist, salafi doctrine of sunni islam. The group proclaimed itself a worldwide caliphate and began referring to itself as "IS" or Islamic state somewhere around 2014. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. By december 2015 it has conquered a large part of western iran and eastern syria. It then enforced their interpreation of sharia law on an estimated 3 to 8 million people.

So in short, IS is not a belief, it's a group. A group that has a fundamentalist interpretation of salafi doctrine.

But Morressey is wrong where he states that "only" ISIS supporters approve of halal meat. On the contrary, halal ready meals are a growing consumer market for Muslims in Britain and America and are offered by an increasing number of retailers (see: https://www.economist.com/news/britain/ ... l-la-carte). You're far more likely to find a muslim that only eats halal meat than a muslim that eats every kind of meat. So if anything, I think Morressey is underestimating the role of halal meat in islamic culture.

There is no question that halal slaughtering, where there is no sedation, is far more painful to the animal than "regular" slaughtering. Morally speaking though, a killing is a killing and thus equally as bad, but I guess any moralist will reckognise the added level of "pain", a moral category according to the utilitarians (which you seem to support I guess, judging from recent exhanges), in halal slaughtering.
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise

      
 
Posts: 2396
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:17 pm

action wrote:There is no question that halal slaughtering, where there is no sedation, is far more painful to the animal than "regular" slaughtering. Morally speaking though, a killing is a killing and thus equally as bad, but I guess any moralist will reckognise the added level of "pain", a moral category according to the utilitarians (which you seem to support I guess, judging from recent exhanges), in halal slaughtering.


I think that reducing the pain is probably a good thing, but when that reduction is just a few seconds before death, there doesn’t seem a huge amount of point - not breeding and slaughtering the animal for meat in the first place would be ideal. But I say that as someone who consumes animal products.

I’d almost argue that taking measures to limit their suffering shows a bizarre hypocrisy - we accept that the animal suffers, and we’re happy with the overall premise as long as we make an effort to limit that suffering. At least someone who doesn’t care about the animal’s suffering at all is honest about it, rather than dancing this strange dance where they want to give the animal - little more than a commodity - a humane execution.

PS Without knowing much about modern day abattoirs, I’d be willing to wager good money that as well as reducing suffering, the highly mechanised stunning and slaughtering of animals reduces struggling and screaming, thus making the enterprise more efficient and more profitable.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby action » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:53 pm

Elessar wrote:I think that reducing the pain is probably a good thing, but when that reduction is just a few seconds before death, there doesn’t seem a huge amount of point - not breeding and slaughtering the animal for meat in the first place would be ideal. But I say that as someone who consumes animal products.

I’d almost argue that taking measures to limit their suffering shows a bizarre hypocrisy - we accept that the animal suffers, and we’re happy with the overall premise as long as we make an effort to limit that suffering. At least someone who doesn’t care about the animal’s suffering at all is honest about it, rather than dancing this strange dance where they want to give the animal - little more than a commodity - a humane execution.

PS Without knowing much about modern day abattoirs, I’d be willing to wager good money that as well as reducing suffering, the highly mechanised stunning and slaughtering of animals reduces struggling and screaming, thus making the enterprise more efficient and more profitable.


if we cant grant a living creature even a few more seconds of not suffering, what does that make of us?

I know. economics and morality work hand in hand to justify cruel slaughtering. slaughterhouses are full of people with a little nazi buried deep within their minds.

if the animals were humans (I know, it's becoming silly, but bear with me), then surely those extra seconds would matter on a moral level?

We kill humans too, legally, with the death penalty. Europe has abolished the death penalty completely, but in the US it's still common. But, you'll find that they don't kill people in any way they can think of: it's all very regulated. The chair, lethal injection.... ideally, there should be as less pain as possible involved.

So there "is" a moral interest in killing living creatures with as less pain as possible. I'm of the opinion that, what goes for humans, also goes for animals. Animals have a central nervous system, they feel pain, they feel emotions and they can communicate on a rudimentary levels. Especially pigs, are known to be easily stressed.

Those few seconds of sedation are a whole fuckload of seconds when multiplied with the millions and millions of animals slaughtered each year.

Ironically, sedation with animals is done with gas in some cases. I could now elaborate on the moral characteristics of using gas, but that's a topic for another day...
I see you standing there. You think you so cool. Why don't you just..... fuck off!
 
action
Don't Stop Me Now
 
User avatar

 

Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise

      
 
Posts: 2396
Images: 0
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:58 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:41 pm

action wrote:
if we cant grant a living creature even a few more seconds of not suffering, what does that make of us?

I know. economics and morality work hand in hand to justify cruel slaughtering. slaughterhouses are full of people with a little nazi buried deep within their minds.

if the animals were humans (I know, it's becoming silly, but bear with me), then surely those extra seconds would matter on a moral level?


I think that if their suffering is that important to you, you don’t kill them at all. After all, it’s not essential. It may be in some places, but not in Western society. And I don’t say that as a preacher - I consume animal products.

We kill humans too, legally, with the death penalty. Europe has abolished the death penalty completely, but in the US it's still common. But, you'll find that they don't kill people in any way they can think of: it's all very regulated. The chair, lethal injection.... ideally, there should be as less pain as possible involved.


I don’t think that’s why they use the lethal injection. I think they want it to be as clinical as possible to avoid any possibility of martyrdom. The lethal injection in its current form isn’t particularly humane. A bullet would actually be better.

So there "is" a moral interest in killing living creatures with as less pain as possible. I'm of the opinion that, what goes for humans, also goes for animals. Animals have a central nervous system, they feel pain, they feel emotions and they can communicate on a rudimentary levels. Especially pigs, are known to be easily stressed.

Those few seconds of sedation are a whole fuckload of seconds when multiplied with the millions and millions of animals slaughtered each year.

Ironically, sedation with animals is done with gas in some cases. I could now elaborate on the moral characteristics of using gas, but that's a topic for another day...


I sedate people with gas on a daily basis mate ;)
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

Re: The New News Thread.

Postby Elessar » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:10 am

Barbara Bush has died. Fair play to the girl - her husband AND son became president of the USA.
 
Elessar
I Want To Break Free
 
User avatar

 
 
Posts: 10270
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 152 times

PreviousNext

Return to Views Of The World

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests