This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Sir Paul's divorce settlement (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Sir Paul's divorce settlement
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Also, does putting "retarded" in scare quotes change what it means? Or is this like where Ricky Gervais tells racist jokes but it's okay because he knows they're racist? I keep missing these meetings...
Er, he's quoting linus.

I agree with linus, though, SR. He's not saying that animal rights/human rights is an either/or in general - he's saying that for McCartney it appears to be, because he speaks up for one and not the other.

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskolnikov
Member
Member # 751

 - posted      Profile for Raskolnikov     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Ms Mills' budget included £39,000 p.a. for wine.
Posts: 651 | From: London, England | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Spearmint Rhino
Member
Member # 189

 - posted      Profile for Spearmint Rhino     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Horse, Linus initially referred to the McCartneys' "retarded millionaire causes". He's free to believe that the McCartneys are "retarded millionaires" if he wishes, but but that's not what he said. He referred to the causes themselves in that way. I'm sure I'm not the only OTFer who finds that extremely insulting, and Linus' subsequent elaboration (the old one about animal rights supporters not caring about humans) only made matters worse.
Posts: 23907 | From: the Naughty North to the Sexy South, we're all singing 'I HAVE THE MOUTH!' | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Linus' point was that:

A) Given that a lot of people need to eat seals to survive, to tell them they shouldn't would appear to be misanthropic and perhaps a bit "retarded." That doesn't imply that all animal rights people are misanthropic or stupid or care more about animals than people (althoug some do, it can't be denied.)

He also points out that celebrities tend to get on their high horse about so-called charismatic megafauna - dolphins, seals, etc. I wonder if Morrissey or whomever would be boycotting Canada over squirrel hunting. Indeed, lots of deer and grouse and other beasts that crawl upon the earth are hunted for sport every year in the UK, France and, of course, the USA, but I'm not aware of any boycotts over that.

This suggests that the people taking this stand on seals are not either not thinking it through completely, or don't really want to think it through to completely, because it would either mean that they couldn't tour at all or it would mean that they'd have to care as much about the lowly channel catfish (to name one widely hunted animal) as cute seals.

B) To be a big famous celebrity and make a big fuss about animal rights, but not willing to risk a loss of sales by sticking up for controversial human rights issues is a bit cuntish.

[ 18.03.2008, 20:45: Message edited by: Reed ]

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
SR, sure but you haven't answered my/his (subsequent) point. Why does his elaboration make matters worse?

[ 18.03.2008, 20:49: Message edited by: The Horse ]

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Spearmint Rhino
Member
Member # 189

 - posted      Profile for Spearmint Rhino     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, Horse. First of all he said that animal rights supporters were retards. That was bad. Then he said animal rights supporters don't care about humans. That made it worse. Anyway, look, I'm watching a Muse DVD so I have to go. But I'm really not happy.
Posts: 23907 | From: the Naughty North to the Sexy South, we're all singing 'I HAVE THE MOUTH!' | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rogin the Armchair fan
Member
Member # 683

 - posted      Profile for Rogin the Armchair fan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm amazed - given the examples of the Beckhams, the Bush Family, or Jade Goody - that anyone still assumes that there is any link whatsoever between intelligence and wealth in modern society. Rich people are just as likely to be nasty, horrid, thick and cuntish individuals as people living in crime-ridden council estates. I think we glorify the wealthy in the UK because of some deep, inbred kow-towing to the Lords of the Manor, who in the Victorian era probably did have some claim to be "cleverer" than the rest of us poor proles, mainly on the basis that they were the only ones who could could afford to go to school and then University, and subsequently sail round the globe studying chaffinches and what have you.

In the twenty-first century it's clearly bollocks. The richest bloke in our village by far is a self-made multi-millionaire builder, who's a right nasty piece of work - openly racist and homophobic ("The wife wanted to go and see that Lion King, but I said I won't watch anything to do with that Elton John, he's a fucking poof, ain't he", is a quote I once directly overheard him making), and he's as thick as Bernard Manning's shit on Boxing Day.

[ 18.03.2008, 20:50: Message edited by: Rogin the Armchair fan ]

Posts: 15858 | From: this corner of the bar you can only see half of the big screen | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Well, Horse. First of all he said that animal rights supporters were retards. That was bad. Then he said animal rights supporters don't care about humans. That made it worse. Anyway, look, I'm watching a Muse DVD so I have to go. But I'm really not happy.
I dunno, it looks to me as if you've reacted to the original "retarded" thing, justifiably perhaps, but now he's clarified it and made a lot of good points you're still arguing against the original post and not his subsequent arguments. I mean, you asked him what he meant and he told you, but you're not engaging with it. He didn't say that animal rights supporters don't care about humans at all. He said that some celebrities choose animal rights as a cause for selfish reasons, and that this is abhorrent if they do so in place of human rights.

[ 18.03.2008, 20:52: Message edited by: The Horse ]

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
linus
Member
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for linus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
celebrities choose animal rights as a cause for selfish reasons, and that this is abhorrent if they do so in place of human rights.
Precisely.

As far as my using "retarded millionaire causes" in the first post, I was referring in part to the fact that many rich celebrities tend to be socially retarded, due to their social isolation and the constraints in their interactions with others. Think Michael Jackson, Brigitte Bardot, Pamela Anderson and the host of current and former supermodels for whom this is a pet cause. In the case of Badot and co, part of that misanthropic feeling might be bourne out of years at the casting couch, they've been exposed to the more repulsive aspects of the business and might have been embittered.

I do think there is a most definite misanthropic edge to statements like these:

http://defamer.com/hollywood/pamela-anderson/pamela-anderson-likens-canadas-seal-hunt-to-war-in-iraq-163529.php

SR, no, I don't think that supporting animal rights in general is retarded, nor did I mean to offend you personally with my rant. I think things like minimum standards for raising veals like those imposed in Sweden are a good thing. But i also think the argument against hunting seals is at best very shallow and misguided.

I do find McCartney's stance particularly repulsive though, especially in light of his tacit support for the Iraq war in its early stages. I think it's extremely misguided and quite repulsive of him to lead an effort to impose economic sanctions on Canada for hunting seals in light of the latter. Glass houses, so to speak, though I am also arguing that Canada isn't breaking any glass with its seal hunt.

[ 18.03.2008, 21:45: Message edited by: linus ]

Posts: 1376 | From: afar | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It is often motivated in a shallow kawai ethos, the cult of cuteness. Harping on the seal hunt is a perfect embodiment of that idiotic impulse. It's also partially rooted in a misanthropic vision of the world, in which animals are more important than human beings (or as important.)
I'm sorry, but this is vile. Ludicrous, spiteful, sneering speculation and as everyone else has pointed out, a false binary.

I would like to ask though why on earth you think your status as an animal on this earth is privileged above that of any other. Any argument that doesn't boil down to a load of anthropocentric subjective "well we have power so we have a divine right to use it" would be of interest as I've yet to hear a sensible one.

Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lyra
Member
Member # 1669

 - posted      Profile for lyra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
celebrities choose animal rights as a cause for selfish reasons, and that this is abhorrent if they do so in place of human rights.
Oh go bollocks. Jugemental nonsense. Why should everyone be forced to share your value judgements?
Posts: 2387 | From: Arcadia | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raskolnikov
Member
Member # 751

 - posted      Profile for Raskolnikov     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Why on earth do you think your status as an animal on this earth isn't privileged above that of any other species? Why insist on parity of rights between species? Any argument at all would be of interest because I've yet to hear a sensible one.
Posts: 651 | From: London, England | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Oh go bollocks. Jugemental nonsense. Why should everyone be forced to share your value judgements?
I'm not sure they should. I haven't made any judgements.
Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Etienne
Member
Member # 95

 - posted      Profile for Etienne     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm slightly surprised at the tone of SR and lyra's objections to linus' argument. I raised my eyebrows at the original quote, but his subsequent posts have been cogent and thoughtful. Of course they are somewhat sneery and speculative about celebrities, but that could be said for about 30% of OTF posts!

I'm a vegetarian and firm believer in plenty of animal rights issues. And I don't think anything linus posted was personally insulting to me or my beliefs.

Posts: 7411 | From: some place more ... you know. | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
linus
Member
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for linus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I would like to ask though why on earth you think your status as an animal on this earth is privileged above that of any other.
I wouldn't kill a human being, boil him and eat him, the way I would eat a lobster. I wouldn't consume human flesh if that were (somehow) an option. This behavior is one manifestation inherently embodying the notion that humans are superior to lobsters or others animals most human beings consume.

Superior not because of power, but because of deep-rooted cultural and ethical norms that have traditionally been part of humanity and defined it. So there is indeed a hierarchy of sorts here. (Note that this wouldn't preclude treating animals in a humane way.)

quote:
Any argument that doesn't boil down to a load of anthropocentric subjective "well we have power so we have a divine right to use it" would be of interest
I believe that the notion of "anthropocentrism" is inherently misanthropic, if that entailed equating human life to animal life.
Posts: 1376 | From: afar | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  12  13  14   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there