Kindness

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

I’ve no problem offending the cunts!

Yeah, pick on the peaceful ones eh?  

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, pick on the peaceful ones eh?  

They don’t fight back innit.  

[Ace Nova]

Nice. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by Ace Nova

[lame ass security]

8 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

How fuckin' old are you man, that shit is aincent, my old man remembers that

Ah, the glory of syndication.😄 It used to be on A&E or something. 

[soon]

You know what I'd like more than Matt and Slash telling Chinese peasants what to do? 

Chinese Democracy. 

[PatrickS77]

On 7.8.2020 at 10:19 PM, Len Cnut said:

If we are to take humans and animals on the same level as living beings then, really, there is no excuse, don’t you think?

If animals are equal in value to humans then thats like saying Nazi’s require a transition period for their feelings about Jews.

Animals kill animals for food. Sometimes more gruesome than you can imagine. So whatever. Doesn't mean that one can't care about animals. It's not all black and white.

And the most innocent cat, who makes your daily live feel better, will kill anything smaller than them, if given the chance. So much for animals being innocent. It's not all black and white.

[PatrickS77]

On 8.8.2020 at 11:44 AM, Dazey said:

Used to LOVE Russell Brand! His Radio 2 show was brilliant. Nowadays I just want to knock the cunt out.  

Funny you should mention Geldof though. One of Russell’s finest moments was taking the piss out of Geldof.  

 

Was it though? Geldof left him looking like cunt. I'd say Russel: 0 Gandalf: 1 

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Animals kill animals for food. Sometimes more gruesome than you can imagine. So whatever. Doesn't mean that one can't care about animals. It's not all black and white.

And the most innocent cat, who makes your daily live feel better, will kill anything smaller than them, if given the chance. So much for animals being innocent. It's not all black and white.

I never argued that animals are innocent, I argued that the people making those types of stands say they are, or often say they say, personally I’m not a veggie or a vegan or any of that shit and i don’t preach about nothing.

[SoulMonster]

On 7.8.2020 at 9:46 PM, Len Cnut said:

 If you ain’t a vegan you don’t care shit for animals, end of. 

Of course you can care for animals yet still eat animals  

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Of course you can care for animals yet still eat animals  

Well, yes, on some level you can...but if you’re gonna go from there, with leather shoes on your feet and a gutful of dead cow you start to look a bit of a cunt trying to position yourself as St Soulie of the Church of the Sacred Cow and lecturing people on the basis of their chosen type of murder.  We are all part of the same immorality here and if you want my attention you need be consistent to a point of view.  Or, you could, y’know, not preach...I understand thats asking a lot of some people.

I care about animals...not so much that I won’t kill em, skin em, season and roast their flesh, eat it and throw their bones in the bin.  But I care, I care enough to bestow upon them the easiest death I can fathom, well how fucking big of you   Yes, I guess that is caring on some level, like a rapist laying down a blanket over the grass before he does some bird in the local park.

[action]

chickens are some of the cruelest animals I've ever encountered, even more than cats. don't forget, chickens are small raptors.

I've had one chicken continually pecking the eye of the other until she lost it. If chickens see blood with another chicken, they'll swarm on the victim all pecking the red spot until the other one dies.

yeah, that's what I said: chickens are cool

[SoulMonster]

55 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well, yes, on some level you can...but if you’re gonna go from there, with leather shoes on your feet and a gutful of dead cow you start to look a bit of a cunt trying to position yourself as St Soulie of the Church of the Sacred Cow and lecturing people on the basis of their chosen type of murder.  We are all part of the same immorality here and if you want my attention you need be consistent to a point of view.  Or, you could, y’know, not preach...I understand thats asking a lot of some people.

I care about animals...not so much that I won’t kill em, skin em, season and roast their flesh, eat it and throw their bones in the bin.  But I care, I care enough to bestow upon them the easiest death I can fathom, well how fucking big of you   Yes, I guess that is caring on some level, like a rapist laying down a blanket over the grass before he does some bird in the local park.

I wasn't speaking to the other points you made (and I also disagree with the idea that unless the messenger is pure we should disregard the message, but that is another topic), about veganism and people (read: celebrities) coming across as holier-than-thou (which seems to really bug you), but exclusively to the idea that if you eat meat you don't care for animals. You do point out that "on some level you can", and yes, that is exactly the point: You can care for them on the level where you want to give them a good, long life where they are allowed to roam outdoors as much as possible, are treated for sickness, are given good food, are allowed to interact with others of their species according to instincts yet in the end after having been killed with as little pain as possible is eaten. That's one level of caring for animals. It is not on the same level as we care for our fellow human beings, of course -- unless you are Jeffrey Dahmer, but odds are you aren't -- but then again, they aren't humans. That doesn't mean that the care we have for them isn't genuine or actually substantial.

And I am absolutely not saying that all the meat we buy come from animals treated as above. Or most of it. But we can't burden under the simplified impression that all meat sold are from industrialized livestock farms where the animals are subjected to speechless cruelty. The world isn't entirely like those Youtube videos. There is a lot of differences in quality of meat (and price). What I am saying is that most farmers who produce meat actually care for their animals (at least the smaller who actually get to interact with them and not those large factory-type of entities) and do as best they can within the realm of possibilities open to them, and that most consumers would prefer meat from animals that lived good lives - within the realm of possibilities open to them. Eating pork from a pig who hasn't had a good life doesn't mean the care and love you have for animals is immediately negated. 

There are other ways of looking at this, too, or we can take the idea further. I love trees, too. I do. I like planting trees, nurturing trees. Doesn't mean I can't just now type this while seated on a wooden table. Is there a hypocrisy between caring for trees yet accepting that some of them will be cut down while in their prime to make stuff? Living in nature and using nature to survive doesn't mean one cannot love nature. On some levels we love trees for what they do for us, the walls of my cabin, the logs in the fireplace. But also for sitting nestled into the trunk of a massive pine, feeling the texture of the bark of a sequoia, climbing your first oak, embracing their importance in ecosystems, breathing the oxygen they release. This simplified idea that it is either or, that you have to forgo all products made of animals otherwise you are a monster, seems to me to be born out of a place far away from nature. Something coming out of a very urban and unnatural environment. An idea after seeing horrible images of cattle being tortured. And I get it. But the world has colors too and there is an ocean between being indifferent to animal welfare on one side and going vegan on the other, or, as you pointed out, "on some level you can".

Edited August 10, 2020 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

What a fucking nob!  

 

 

[action]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

What a fucking nob!  

 

 

he makes a mockery of a valid point while he sits there as if he was the leader of some bizarre sect of free love.

however if you look into the double slit experiment, there is a valid point to be made about the role of consciousness and quantum physics.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

however if you look into the double slit experiment, there is a valid point to be made about the role of consciousness and quantum physics.

However, if you actually do look into the double-slit experiment, you will see there is nothing about gods there.

[action]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

However, if you actually do look into the double-slit experiment, you will see there is nothing about gods there.

you can perfectly come up with a theory of creation, without ever needing to use the word "god"

 

[SoulMonster]

Since I am too sleep-deprived to do anything useful I will ramble more about animals.

I am thinking of an uncle of mine who is a hunter. It actually could have been another of my uncles, or some in-laws, or a cousin, etc -- we tend to hunt down a lot of the meat we eat here in Norway. Give them a fun chase before we savagely murder them before disrespecting them through the gruesome ritual of eating their corpses. Anyway, this uncle of mine has a great appreciation for nature. He loves it. It is as much part of him as I suppose his relatives are (although he is too fond of piece of mind to tell them this). It's where he lives. It's what he does. He loved his dog. I am sure he cried when it was put down. It is real. It is genuine. Yet he still hunts down animals and eat them. Is there a contradiction here? Has he just been faking his appreciation for nature all this time? In reality he hates it and hates the moose? And that's the reason why he mercilessly guns them down whenever their is a season and within the limits of the local quota? He is a serial moose killer with a deep-rooted hatred for the things? 

My brother-in-law loves to fish. He drags them up from the bottom of the sea only to bash their heads in and later eat them. But he also seems to be genuinely concerned about fish stocks and pollution of the oceans and micro plastics and all that. He also keeps an aquarium but now I realize that is just him torturing the be-gilled bastards.

My point is, can you reconcile the idea of wanting to give animals good lives yet still accept that a select few of them are killed for our consumption? That you can love an animal up to the point where you actually use it for sustenance? Almost the way you love your annoying mother-in-law. If there is a ladder of love, she sits fairly high up, animals just below, the difference being is that you won't serve her for Sunday dinner. It seems like people who live in nature, and truly appreciate nature, do this without any conflict at all. They love animals, they just don't go all-in to the extent we do with our fellow human beings. 

Then you might say that it is different to eat game, i.e. from animals who have lived their lives in the free, according to their instincts, and that those who eat produced meat can't care for animals because then they support a barbaric practise. But I maintain that some (not all, not most) meat production isn't as bad as some would tell you. Sure, the animals are in captivity but they are cared for and live lives that approximate the lives of their free brethren. Except that they generally live more comfortable lives and they will die less painfully (although earlier). Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to paint a picture of livestock farming as rosy and all great and that it is as great as living free. But again, these are animals that are being kept for our sustenance, it is not your mother-in-law kept in a cage (still not legal). They actually are a step down on the Love Ladder. Doesn't mean we can't love them. On the level below.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I wasn't speaking to the other points you made (and I also disagree with the idea that unless the messenger is pure we should disregard the message, but that is another topic), about veganism and people (read: celebrities) coming across as holier-than-thou (which seems to really bug you), but exclusively to the idea that if you eat meat you don't care for animals. You do point out that "on some level you can", and yes, that is exactly the point: You can care for them on the level where you want to give them a good, long life where they are allowed to roam outdoors as much as possible, are treated for sickness, are given good food, are allowed to interact with others of their species according to instincts yet in the end after having been killed with as little pain as possible is eaten. That's one level of caring for animals.

I'm speaking about people that, OK, they'll have a pop at the chinks for their dog fry ups, they'll have a pop at Jews over Kosher butchery, Muslims over halal butchery etc, stuff they consider inhumane...yet all the while, still eating animals, its murderers arguing over their chosen form of murder and attempting to position themselves as some sort of moral authority over each other on the basis of that shit, I think thats crooked as fuck.

Quote

And I am absolutely not saying that all the meat we buy come from animals treated as above. Or most of it. But we can't burden under the simplified impression that all meat sold are from industrialized livestock farms where the animals are subjected to speechless cruelty. The world isn't entirely like those Youtube videos. There is a lot of differences in quality of meat (and price). What I am saying is that most farmers who produce meat actually care for their animals (at least the smaller who actually get to interact with them and not those large factory-type of entities) and do as best they can within the realm of possibilities open to them, and that most consumers would prefer meat from animals that lived good lives - within the realm of possibilities open to them. Eating pork from a pig who hasn't had a good life doesn't mean the care and love you have for animals is immediately negated. 

I am frequently astounded by our ability to sheild our conscience.  I don't find that to be a bad thing, its just when you (not you personally) start moralizing and givin' it the fuckin' biggun it gets annoying.  I'm not saying that people shouldn't take care of animals that they kill for food, do that, by all means, its essential...just don't think it makes you fuckin' Jesus fucking Christ or something, cuz it don't and when you wanna get into an argument about it it amounts to this, arguing your form of murder over anothers, if you do have some kind of moral authority (and maybe you do) it is razor fuckin' thin.  Its two abusive husbands arguing over open hand vs closed fist. 

Quote

Looking after the livestock with as much care as possible and giving them an easy death before butchering them is bigger than eating that meat while morally raking the people who did the butchering over the coals.

nah nah nah nah nah nah nah, thats backwards cuz see I didn't begin any conversation here waving my dick around like I'm fuckin' holier than thou, I'm a cunt and any argument I make on this matter of have previously made around here on this matter have begun with the premise firmly established, I ain't no fuckin' moral authority on the matter because I eat SHITLOADS of meat.  It is absolutely bigger than etc etc but that wasn't the argument I was making.  I need fuckin' Ricky Gervais and Matt Sorum to dictate morality to me, I don't fuckin' think so.  If there's one thing that gets on my thrupenny bits its listening to some jumped up fuckin' celebrity twat explain to the world how much of a carey sharey little lovebug they are using the little animules as their bait, go fuck yourself.  This shit is a set up, a PR exercise, its presented to you with the express purpose of elliciting a positive response towards 'x' celebrity, its an exercise in the projection of image and I find it patronizing. 

I actually respect Morrissey and the hardcore PETA motherfuckers more than anybody in regards to all this, at least they are consistent to a point of view. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

28 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I'm speaking about people that, OK, they'll have a pop at the chinks for their dog fry ups, they'll have a pop at Jews over Kosher butchery, Muslims over halal butchery etc, stuff they consider inhumane...yet all the while, still eating animals, its murderers arguing over their chosen form of murder and attempting to position themselves as some sort of moral authority over each other on the basis of that shit, I think thats crooked as fuck.

I get that point. Exactly how we decide to kill an animal is sort of a smaller moral dilemma to whether we should kill animals at all, and lording over those other who do the killing slightly differently seems a bit silly. Don't get me wrong, we should off course strive to make the killing itself as pain-free as possible, and it is completely legitimate to critisize unnecessarily brutal ways of killing animals, but we are not delivering that judgment from a place of moral perfection in terms of animal welfare and shouldn't make it seem we are.

Edited August 10, 2020 by SoulMonster

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I need fuckin' Ricky Gervais and Matt Sorum to dictate morality to me, I don't fuckin' think so. 

I will use this isolated statement to blabber about on that other point which I didn't went into before, if you don't mind. The point about refusing to take good advice from celebrities, or from people who aren't perfect themselves. I don't get that. This is not art where what we are looking at is impossible to disconnect from the artist. This is an advice. Or a suggestion. Or a rally. It can and should be considered alone and separately. The message should be assessed independent of the messenger. Even a fool can say smart things. Even a sinner can give advice on morals. And opposite: Even a brilliant mind may say stupid things, or a great saint may curse. So we have to look at the inherit value of each statement without letting it get contained by whoever uttered it. Don't necessarily accept at face value, nor dismiss as a result of a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe they got this right, or wrong, because sometimes human beings surprise us, or maybe that actually speak from a position of some personal experience even if their lives seem to contradict their message? Maybe they don't want to come across as hypocritical, but still got it right only in theory? Or maybe just forget about who said what and focus on the statement itself, because in a sense it's the statements that matters not whoever managed to utter them (usually after having heard it somewhere else before anyways). Some times a good idea lives longer after having been passed along by a moron, some times a bad idea is given the gift of extended life by a genius. Forget about who said it last, we are nothing but short-lived conduits of ideas; the ideas, when born and spread, are immortal. 

And I also doubt they dictate morality to you. Being convinced that something is bad (or good), and publicly talking about it with conviction isn't really dictating anything. It is just eagerness and a heart-felt belief in something. We should see through that and be tolerant. Not be so opposed to anything that takes the guise of superiority but in reality is just heartfelt excitement.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying many of them aren't insufferable cunts who aren't acting like pricks. Just that even if they are, what they say can hold merit, and regardless of that, they are just humans under special circumstances (celebrities with a platform and newfound ideology and all that).

 

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

What a fucking nob!  

 

 

John Lennon in the house.

[DieselDaisy]

Life lessons from Matt Sorum, the replacement drummer for Guns N' Roses, haha. 

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I will use this isolated statement to blabber about on that other point which I didn't went into before, if you don't mind. The point about refusing to take good advice from celebrities, or from people who aren't perfect themselves. I don't get that. This is not art where what we are looking at is impossible to disconnect from the artist. This is an advice. Or a suggestion. Or a rally. It can and should be considered alone and separately. The message should be assessed independent of the messenger. Even a fool can say smart things. Even a sinner can give advice on morals. And opposite: Even a brilliant mind may say stupid things, or a great saint may curse. So we have to look at the inherit value of each statement without letting it get contained by whoever uttered it. Don't necessarily accept at face value, nor dismiss as a result of a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe they got this right, or wrong, because sometimes human beings surprise us, or maybe that actually speak from a position of some personal experience even if their lives seem to contradict their message? Maybe they don't want to come across as hypocritical, but still got it right only in theory? Or maybe just forget about who said what and focus on the statement itself, because in a sense it's the statements that matters not whoever managed to utter them (usually after having heard it somewhere else before anyways). Some times a good idea lives longer after having been passed along by a moron, some times a bad idea is given the gift of extended life by a genius. Forget about who said it last, we are nothing but short-lived conduits of ideas; the ideas, when born and spread, are immortal. 

And I also doubt they dictate morality to you. Being convinced that something is bad (or good), and publicly talking about it with conviction isn't really dictating anything. It is just eagerness and a heart-felt belief in something. We should see through that and be tolerant. Not be so opposed to anything that takes the guise of superiority but in reality is just heartfelt excitement.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying many of them aren't insufferable cunts who aren't acting like pricks. Just that even if they are, what they say can hold merit, and regardless of that, they are just humans under special circumstances (celebrities with a platform and newfound ideology and all that).

 

I've got nothing against taking good advice from a bad or imperfect (as we all are) person but at the same time I don't feel that its without value to point out that I don't think their intent has to do with the matter at hand, I honestly think that its more to do with projecting a certain image of themselves for the furtherance of their career, THAT then taints the well.  Also, I don't need them to tell me that shit, I don't think anybody does, there are not Matt Sorum fans booting kittens around their living rooms that suddenly, because Matt Sorum or Ricky Gervais says so, have some kind of internal revelation about cruelty to animals, nobody with any common sense need to be told that shit, its just stating broad obviously moral concepts to people to make themselves look like they're Charlie Big Potatoes, I don't need, as Dies' said, the replacement drummer from Guns n Roses to tell me not to be cruel to animals, I've known better than that since I was an infant.

Also, on the original argument, it could be said that once you take the position that you have the authority to kill a living being, after that being cruel to it while its living isn't much of a stretch for the bad people that might do such a thing. 

[action]

I've said it before, but to me, celebreties that join in on the latest moral bandwagon in order to score some popularity points (I guess "has beens" like matt sorum could use those) are utter twats

[YOUCOULDBEMINE.]

On 08/08/2020 at 12:15 AM, Oldest Goat said:

Animals are important, ecosystems should be preserved and you shouldn't be cruel to animals etc but no they aren't equal to humans. 100% of the time I'd choose to save the one human from the burning building rather than even the cutest litter of 100 kitties.

I had this conversation a couple of times with different people. I don't care about humanity enough to save them from anything, I'd choose to save whatever animal instead of a human being. 

There's just too many of us on this planet and the majority are assholes, dicks or just really really dumb.