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 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Sir Paul's divorce settlement
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I think it is very clear that McCartney believes in the animal rights cause, and didn't buy into it as a fad. He has a long track record.

And why should he not be free to choose what cause he expends his time, energy and probably money on? And why should he not be free to adopt a view on the invasion of Iraq, for whatever reason?

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Of course he's free to, just as we're free to think ill of him for doing so.

Claims for tolerance are passing over far too easily into claims that anything goes, I think.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, to think ill of him for defending that invasion is fair. But I don't see why his deplorable views on the legitimacy of the war should have any relation to his animal rights activism. Separate issues entirely.

I would see a relation if he would endorse torture in Guantanamo Bay, for example.

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | 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 
quote:
But I don't see why his deplorable views on the legitimacy of the war should have any relation to his animal rights activism. Separate issues entirely.
Well, linus' line is that to care about seals but not Iraqis is suspect, and rather taints the good-egg credentials that the seal photo-op might otherwise earn him.

It's a fair point about McCartney's animal-rights campaigning not being a fad, though.

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
On animal rights, he's a good (or at least well-intentioned) egg. On Iraq he's a rotten (or at least deluded) egg. Separate issues, in my view.
Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | 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 
But you're just asserting that without engaging with linus' argument (that one makes a mockery of the other).
Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 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 
quote:
But I don't see why his deplorable views on the legitimacy of the war should have any relation to his animal rights activism. Separate issues entirely.
Oh, I don't know, don't they still kill livestock in Muslim countries by slitting their throats (gulp) while they're still alive, instead of after the humane western way of sticking a bolt through their skulls then slitting the throat while the animal is still too stunned to wonder the fuck has just happened?

Maybe Sir Paul felt the removal of any Muslim regime would ensure the introduction of the bolt-gun system throughout the area (even though, ironically, it has only really been introduced by the Coalition Armed Forces as an interrogation technique)?

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
Wyatt Earp
Member
Member # 108

 - posted      Profile for Wyatt Earp     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It's a fair point about McCartney's animal-rights campaigning not being a fad, though.
It is. But celeb single-issue campaigners are mostly an unlikeable bunch, and I think questions do arise about why they do it.
Posts: 19927 | From: the Cryptic Cabal | 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 
Yes, I don't think it defeats linus' argument at all, but it's worth noting.
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 
OK, right, look. There's an argument that to invade Iraq was likely to cause less bloodshed and suffering than to not invade Iraq, and was therefore justifiable. It's an argument with which I happen to passionately disagree, but it's an argument. And if that's the view McCartney takes, then it's perfectly reasonable that he should hold it alongside his views on animal rights.
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
The Horse
Member
Member # 27

 - posted      Profile for The Horse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
No, come on. It's not a reasonable argument, so what flows from it isn't reasonable either. Lots of things are technically "an argument", but if we respect them on those grounds no matter how wrong-headed they are, we're hamstrung. And the objections to McCartney's stand on Iraq were a bit more sophisticated than that anyway:

quote:
Still, the hypocrisy: he's quoted as saying "I'm a pacifist usually, but I couldn't say that while the war was on". As someone said - don't remember who it was - being a pacifist except when there's a war on is like being a vegetarian except at mealtimes.

quote:
McCartney essentially said that the invasion of Iraq was a proper response to 9/11, saying "I'd be angry like I think anyone would be, so I could see America and Britain being angry" on the subject of the Iraq war, basically adopting the Friedman line of "someone has to pay for it".

Posts: 8111 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taylor
Member
Member # 71

 - posted      Profile for Taylor     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Nah, he's a "pacifist", remember. He just couldn't say so while the war was on. He's also an animal rights campaigner, but for some reason doesn't feel the same need to suddenly shut up about it when Canada plays Whack-A-Mole with baby seals. That'll be where people are smelling hypocrisy, and suggesting that his concern for animals outweighs his concern for human beings, or whatever. Perhaps Macca could ease his conscience with a bumper sticker saying "Against The Cull - Support The Cullers".

Anyway, he's just a lazy thinker. He's a naturally intelligent bloke, but not formally educated, possessed of a huge ego and living a very easy, isolated life where everyone kow-tows to him: a dangerous combination, intellectually. Dumb rock stars just get drunk and entertain us all with their undignified behaviour; clever but undisciplined ones get intellectually complacent and start to think they really know about stuff, without bothering to read much.

What I'm saying is, the 26-year-old McCartney was a bit of a dick in many ways, but he was very, very sharp. The 60-something McCartney still has an image of himself as a smart guy who can more or less make it up as he goes along and be right, but his brain has atrophied, the world has moved on while he wasn't looking, and he doesn't have the right sort of mental discipline to keep up. This man did, after all, cut his teeth intellectually in an environment where being stoned all the time was de rigeur, and feelings were prioritised over facts - it just so happens that (unlike John Lennon) he was smart enough to spot bullshit. But he's still got that rather woolly way of thinking about things, and now that the world is slightly less simple and he's slightly less active, I'd imagine his position on most issues is muddled at best.

I'm all for animal rights, up to a point (I'm respectful rather than sentimental), but it's pretty clear where people's cynicism comes from. You read about what's going on in Burma, or Tibet, or Iraq, or Palestine, or Darfur, or wherever, look up from the book and see a bunch of people who don't seem to give a shit about these subjects (at least not in public), but are terribly concerned about seals. It's unfair really, but it's easy to see why this sort of thing winds people up when the contrast is as startling as it is in the case of Paul McCartney (lest we forget, a pacifist who did not oppose the Iraq war, because... the Iraq war was happening).

The "you care more about animals than people" stuff is often a bit silly, but again it's obvious where it comes from: people who genuinely do, like those megaphone-wielding morons who think animal experimentation in cancer research is morally equivalent to torturing other people's children, etc. Those of us who opposed the Iraq war can sometimes be too tolerant of hippy-dippy kids shouting that Bush is like Hitler, carrying preposterous placards and being generally obnoxious and stupid. I'd imagine it's the same for intelligent people who care very passionately about animal rights, this idea that the sentimental half-wits and destructive, mink-into-the-wild-releasing imbeciles are a bit embarrassing, but hey, don't knock them, at least they're on the right side. Well, they should be knocked. They're the people going out and queering the pitch. It's their fault that everything is being misrepresented, or simplified to the point of idiocy. That has a knock-on effect which harms, y'know, the cause. You shouldn't be defending Macca here, you should be attacking him louder than anyone else, if you really care about winning the argument, especially in the long term.

Posts: 3395 | From: further over there | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Taylor
Member
Member # 71

 - posted      Profile for Taylor     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jesus, what a long post on such a silly subject. I made the Paul McCartney mistake, you see - smoking a joint before opening my mouth.
Posts: 3395 | From: further over there | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amor de Cosmos
Member
Member # 87

 - posted      Profile for Amor de Cosmos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'd imagine it's the same for intelligent people who care very passionately about animal rights, this idea that the sentimental half-wits ... are a bit embarrassing, but hey, don't knock them, at least they're on the right side. Well, they should be knocked. They're the people going out and queering the pitch. It's their fault that everything is being misrepresented, or simplified to the point of idiocy. That has a knock-on effect which harms, y'know, the cause.

I'm not sure it does though. Baby seals are perceived as cute. It naturally attracts attention, including that of celebrities, when big men with sticks are photographed clubbing them over the head. Right or wrong people imagine their own puppies and kittens in their place. The campaign against the whitecoat cull was the most successful Greenpeace has ever undertaken and it was won with pictures of doe-eyed seal pups and the tears of Brigitte Bardot, rather than dispassionate reasoned argument. The very same imagery is being utilized again by the IFAW in its current campaign, and there's no reason to suppose it won't be just as successful this time.

At least I hope so.

Posts: 7138 | From: here you can't get there | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Great post, Taylor. Fantastic.

AdC, obviously, stopping the clubbing of baby seals for fur is a success, but a pretty small one in the grand scheme of things. I don't know if it matters much if they manage to stop the Canadian seal hunt. They'll save some seals and make life difficult for some Inuit, but that's about it. The plight of the seals are pissing into the wind compared to all the animals out there being killed for meat, fur, sport, accident, etc. And in the grand scheme of environment, the seal hunt is, at worst, a very small minues, and possibly a slight plus.

However, the environmental groups do seem to be making some headway with the argument that the fate of the charismatic megafauna is tied to the fate of the entire system. If the polar bears (or the sharks, or the wolves, or the lions, or the tigers) are disappearing, then the whole ecosystem is in trouble. That seems to be the best way to take advantage of the emotional appeal of certain animals and put it in a greater context.

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  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