Gail Shea spokesperson responds to Morrissey's statement about Canadian seal hunt

A spokesperson for Gail Shea has responded to Morrissey's comments :

Morrissey attacks Fisheries Minister Gail Shea in blog post claiming ‘Canada’s sorry image is due entirely to its seal slaughter’ - National Post

Excerpt:

A spokesperson for Shea has responded to Morrissey’s statement, saying his comments “reveal a total ignorance of the Canadian seal hunt.”

Anyone who takes a careful look at the seal hunt will see that it is humane, sustainable, and well-regulated,” minister spokesperson Sophie Doucet said in an email to the Post. “In fact, the process used in the seal hunt was designed by international veterinary experts, and is the most stringent of any wild animal hunt in the world.

This is clearly just another case of a millionaire celebrity, desperate for a hobby, shamelessly regurgitating misinformation and myths that fringe animal-rights groups have been pushing for years. In the future, I would urge Mr. Morrissey to consider the impact that his ignorant and inflammatory statements have on the livelihoods of thousands of hard-working men and women in rural communities."

gail-shea.jpg


Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JamesDn

New Member
I can't accept this moral equivalence and I don't think that is irrational.

Okay. I just don't get it at all. If somebody says that Morrissey's comment was highly inconsiderate, I definitely agree. If somebody says that Morrissey had a horrible timing, I definitely agree. But if somebody claims that Morrissey's comment was factually wrong, that's just ridiculous. It's simply human irrationality to react more strongly to isolated murderers than to things like factory farming or world hunger. (McDonald's & co. are the number one reason for world hunger, so this is relevant here.)

It's a psychological fact. People do react to descriptions of the poor living conditions of millions of hungry people in the developing world, but when you tell them a detailed story about one hungry child named Thomas (poor little Thomas) that lives in the neighbourhood, they have a much stronger reaction and literally see that one hungry child as a greater problem than the living conditions of millions of hungry people in the developing world. And talking about global problems in the context of Thomas is 'inappropriate' (shut up, stop belittling the plight of Thomas!). This is insane.

I guess that's what this case is about. You can say that companies like McDonald's torture 60 billion factory-farmed animals a year, but a number like that just doesn't mean anything to people. 60 billion is such a big number that it simply doesn't exist to the human brain. (Especially when the individual feels that they're contributing to this particular crime; then this crime definitely does not exist.) In reality, to even suggest that the Norwegian massacre was a bigger crime than these industries is f***ed up. That is insulting; it literally means that we're taking away all moral value from the victims of the industries.

The second factor is that in the Western world, humans are considered inherently more valuable than any other species (because Jesus). Scientifically and logically that makes no sense. If a pig has the mental capacity of a mentally handicapped human or a child, and they all share the same ability to suffer, then saying that the suffering of the pig "matters less" than the suffering of the human is like saying that the suffering of a black man matters less than the suffering of a white man simply because "black people are black people and white people are white people, period."

Granting black people moral value does not take away the moral value of white people, and granting animals moral value does not take away the moral value of humans.

(Btw: I'm talking about suffering here. Ethically, suffering is relatively easy. Death is another thing. Comparing the death of a pig to the death of a human is problematic for several reasons.)

I do realize that I'm taking MorrisseySolo too seriously. I could be saving lives or making myself famous or doing something constructive, but I actually just wrote this post. Because my human brain is ridiculously irrational and believes that this is important. It is not. Perhaps I'll go away now.

The thing about morals Peter are that they're all subjective and entirely man made meaning no person is more correct than another.

But some morals are more coherent than others. (And I think we all agree that things like compassion or not drowning children in the lake are pretty good stuff. Most humans don't exist in a moral vacuum.)

(I realize that the vast majority of people couldn't give a crap about nerdy stuff like the coherence of their moral values, and are perfectly happy adopting the moral ideas of the prevailing culture. I like disturbing this happiness, because it makes me feel like a true badass.)
 
Last edited:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Okay. I just don't get it at all. If somebody says that Morrissey's comment was highly inconsiderate, I definitely agree. If somebody says that Morrissey had a horrible timing, I definitely agree. But if somebody claims that Morrissey's comment was factually wrong, that's just ridiculous. It's simply human irrationality to react more strongly to isolated murderers than to things like factory farming or world hunger. (McDonald's & co. are the number one reason for world hunger, so this is relevant here.)

It's a psychological fact. People do react to descriptions of the poor living conditions of millions of hungry people in the developing world, but when you tell them a detailed story about one hungry child named Thomas (poor little Thomas) that lives in the neighbourhood, they have a much stronger reaction and literally see that one hungry child as a greater problem than the living conditions of millions of hungry people in the developing world. And talking about global problems in the context of Thomas is 'inappropriate' (shut up, stop belittling the plight of Thomas!). This is insane.

I guess that's what this case is about. You can say that companies like McDonald's torture 60 billion factory-farmed animals a year, but a number like that just doesn't mean anything to people. 60 billion is such a big number that it simply doesn't exist to the human brain. (Especially when the individual feels that they're contributing to this particular crime; then this crime definitely does not exist.) In reality, to even suggest that the Norwegian massacre was a bigger crime than these industries is f***ed up. That is insulting; it literally means that we're taking away all moral value from the victims of the industries.

The second factor is that in the Western world, humans are considered inherently more valuable than any other species (because Jesus). Scientifically and logically that makes no sense. If a pig has the mental capacity of a mentally handicapped human or a child, and they all share the same ability to suffer, then saying that the suffering of the pig "matters less" than the suffering of the human is like saying that the suffering of a black man matters less than the suffering of a white man simply because "black people are black people and white people are white people, period."

Granting black people moral value does not take away the moral value of white people, and granting animals moral value does not take away the moral value of humans.

(Btw: I'm talking about suffering here. Ethically, suffering is relatively easy. Death is another thing. Comparing the death of a pig to the death of a human is problematic for several reasons.)

I do realize that I'm taking MorrisseySolo too seriously. I could be saving lives or making myself famous or doing something constructive, but I actually just wrote this post. Because my human brain is ridiculously irrational and believes that this is important. It is not. Perhaps I'll go away now.



But some morals are more coherent than others. (And I think we all agree that things like compassion or not drowning children in the lake are pretty good stuff. Most humans don't exist in a moral vacuum.)

(I realize that the vast majority of people couldn't give a crap about nerdy stuff like the coherence of their moral values, and are perfectly happy adopting the moral ideas of the prevailing culture. I like disturbing this happiness, because it makes me feel like a true badass.)
All of this is very logical and fine for a school debating society. Charlie is right too, morals are subjective.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, consider this this:
A burning building with a person, any person, and an animal (or even a bucn of animals) in danger. You can only save the human or the animals, not both. In every case surely you have to save the person.
If you don't then you're a nut or a bastard.
Humans are always more important.
 

Carly

Active Member
All of this is very logical and fine for a school debating society. Charlie is right too, morals are subjective.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, consider this this:
A burning building with a person, any person, and an animal (or even a bucn of animals) in danger. You can only save the human or the animals, not both. In every case surely you have to save the person.
If you don't then you're a nut or a bastard.
Humans are always more important.
Nobody is arguing with that, that is irrelevant to slaughtering the animals.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
Nobody is arguing with that, that is irrelevant to slaughtering the animals.

Yes, but if you aren't for slaughtering animals that means that you don't have any compassion for humans as one always equals the other. And if you save some animals but not others then you're a hypocrite for not saving all of them.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Yes, but if you aren't for slaughtering animals that means that you don't have any compassion for humans as one always equals the other. And if you save some animals but not others then you're a hypocrite for not saving all of them.

100% Strawman bullshit.

P.
 

Oh my god. it's Robby!

spontaneously luminescent
The thing about morals Peter are that they're all subjective and entirely man made meaning no person is more correct than another.

I beg to differ, people with morals are far preferable to the already ultra powerful few who often have none once achieving their mastery over so many :straightface:
and the now growing in numbers among us regular folk of those who have no morals either :crazy:
you see it everyday, especially at this place, where the thin veneer of humanity they have falls away and they show their true selves :eek:
 
S

Skylarker

Guest
I beg to differ, people with morals are far preferable to the already ultra powerful few who often have none once achieving their mastery over so many :straightface:
and the now growing in numbers among us regular folk of those who have no morals either :crazy:
you see it everyday, especially at this place, where the thin veneer of humanity they have falls away and they show their true selves :eek:

So in your estimation, and following the irrefutable shaming Viva Hate just handed you in the Pigsty which prompted your likening of this place to the seal hunt, would you describe yourself as the poor defenseless baby seal in this metaphor?
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
100% Strawman bullshit.

P.

Just commenting on the way the debate goes every single time an issue of animal welfare is brought up. There's no point in even trying to put up reason when those are the ground rules.

On the issue in hand there probably aren't many people who think it's a great idea to kill a few thousand seals in order to help out the Canadian fishing industry but because that debate is a difficult one in which to attack Morrissey with people move the goalposts. It's the work of shysters.
 

JamesDn

New Member
All of this is very logical and fine for a school debating society. Charlie is right too, morals are subjective.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, consider this this:
A burning building with a person, any person, and an animal (or even a bucn of animals) in danger. You can only save the human or the animals, not both. In every case surely you have to save the person.

Well, I hope that these debates will get out of school debating socities and become serious social questions in the coming decades. It would make sense. The basis of animal rights is the same as the basis of human rights, after all. ("If you hurt us, we suffer.")

Death is a very difficult topic. Boring even. Like I said, I'm more interested in suffering. Biologically, a human and a pig have the same capacity for suffering, so logically, hurting a pig should be just as bad as hurting a human being. We shouldn't hurt humans, we shouldn't hurt pigs. The moral difference between a pig and a human child is cultural, not really based on any biological fact. Both matter.

Your scenario is mainly a question of death. There is suffering involved, but more than anything, this is a question of whether the death of the human is morally more problematic than the death of an individual of some other species.

In most cases, the death of a human will likely cause more suffering to other individuals (the person's family and friends, for example), so in this sense, I would of course save the human. (This logic is a bit strange, however, as there are humans with no family or friends whatsoever.) In a real situation, I'd probably try to save everybody.

If you don't then you're a nut or a bastard.
Humans are always more important.

Well, this is completely cultural. There's no rational basis. In the Western culture we've simply adopted this sort of philosophy. There are cultures where humans are considered just one species among others. (Btw: I saw a poll on an internet forum that's popular with Finnish teenagers: "Would you rather save a dog or a human from a burning building?" There were a lot of people pointing out that fire hurts dogs and humans equally. Interesting.)

The idea that the moral value of humans means that animals shouldn't have moral value is cultural nonsense. If you ask for the reasoning behind it, you'll get mush. Ask for the reasoning behind cultural nonsense, and you'll always, always get mush.

When it comes to Morrissey's Norway comments, I do think that his wording and timing (and everything really) was shit. But the reason that people feel so offended by it is simply that they themselves have learned to see other animals as something so worthless that they incorrectly assume that by comparing animal suffering to human suffering, Morrissey is belittling human suffering. Actually, Morrissey is the one who cares about the suffering of all, while the offended people are the belittling bastards.

And what am I doing? All this is so very pointless. I could keep demanding to hear Johnny Barleycorn's reasoning, and then I'd get mush, and then I'd have mush. Pointless.

Curiously, the revolution is not going to happen on MorrisseySolo. Cultural values change with time. The mush changes form. Maybe 90 years from now people will care about animal suffering, and that will be a cultural no-brainer. Maybe we'll get there, but this conversation isn't making the change any faster. I should stop typing. Right now. I'll stop. Now.
 

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Well, I hope that these debates will get out of school debating socities and become serious social questions in the coming decades. It would make sense. The basis of animal rights is the same as the basis of human rights, after all. ("If you hurt us, we suffer.")

Death is a very difficult topic. Boring even. Like I said, I'm more interested in suffering. Biologically, a human and a pig have the same capacity for suffering, so logically, hurting a pig should be just as bad as hurting a human being. We shouldn't hurt humans, we shouldn't hurt pigs. The moral difference between a pig and a human child is cultural, not really based on any biological fact. Both matter.

Your scenario is mainly a question of death. There is suffering involved, but more than anything, this is a question of whether the death of the human is morally more problematic than the death of an individual of some other species.

In most cases, the death of a human will likely cause more suffering to other individuals (the person's family and friends, for example), so in this sense, I would of course save the human. (This logic is a bit strange, however, as there are humans with no family or friends whatsoever.) In a real situation, I'd probably try to save everybody.



Well, this is completely cultural. There's no rational basis. In the Western culture we've simply adopted this sort of philosophy. There are cultures where humans are considered just one species among others. (Btw: I saw a poll on an internet forum that's popular with Finnish teenagers: "Would you rather save a dog or a human from a burning building?" There were a lot of people pointing out that fire hurts dogs and humans equally. Interesting.)

The idea that the moral value of humans means that animals shouldn't have moral value is cultural nonsense. If you ask for the reasoning behind it, you'll get mush. Ask for the reasoning behind cultural nonsense, and you'll always, always get mush.

When it comes to Morrissey's Norway comments, I do think that his wording and timing (and everything really) was shit. But the reason that people feel so offended by it is simply that they themselves have learned to see other animals as something so worthless that they incorrectly assume that by comparing animal suffering to human suffering, Morrissey is belittling human suffering. Actually, Morrissey is the one who cares about the suffering of all, while the offended people are the belittling bastards.

And what am I doing? All this is so very pointless. I could keep demanding to hear Johnny Barleycorn's reasoning, and then I'd get mush, and then I'd have mush. Pointless.

Curiously, the revolution is not going to happen on MorrisseySolo. Cultural values change with time. The mush changes form. Maybe 90 years from now people will care about animal suffering, and that will be a cultural no-brainer. Maybe we'll get there, but this conversation isn't making the change any faster. I should stop typing. Right now. I'll stop. Now.
James, your probably a lovely young child but you are driving me nuts.
We all think bad things are terrible OK?
Most of us think humans are more important. Probably because we are humans but what're you gonna do?
My burning building question stated 'anyone' with family or not and saving everyone is not an option.
Please just post some long self aggrandising essay so you can have the last word.
You're vagueness and self righteousness has pummelled me into submission.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
All of this is very logical and fine for a school debating society. Charlie is right too, morals are subjective.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, consider this this:
A burning building with a person, any person, and an animal (or even a bucn of animals) in danger. You can only save the human or the animals, not both. In every case surely you have to save the person.
If you don't then you're a nut or a bastard.
Humans are always more important.

First up I would have to do a risk assessment

Is it safe to enter the building
Could the building fall on me
If I enter should I inform someone of my actions and rescue plan
Will I be putting others at risk with my actions
Have I got the right type of clothing on
Have I had all the correct training needed to see it through
Can I do first aid
Can I sue or be sued if it all goes pear shaped

Having then assessed the situation using the above criteria I would hang around and direct the fire brigade in the right direction and there is a good chance the human will be badly burned or die the animal will definitely die I know that for sure.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 

Johnny Barleycorn

Well-Known Member
And what am I doing? All this is so very pointless. I could keep demanding to hear Johnny Barleycorn's reasoning, and then I'd get mush, and then I'd have mush. Pointless.

James, I've not been following this thread closely, so I'm not sure which part of my previous post exercises you to seek further clarification. My previous comment uses standard English words and I am unable to help you further with their meanings. I will say that if a baby seal looked like a tarantula none of this would be considered important, and the queue to beat the f***ers over the head with a big stick would start in Tegucigalpa High Street.

Morrissey is the one who cares about the suffering of all, while the offended people are the belittling bastards.

No, Morrissey would see you, me, anybody, financially ruined, homeless and destroyed if it meant an extra florin in his pocket. He cares about himself, and only himself. This has been apparent for the thick end of three decades and the tales of his deeply unpleasant nature have followed him around like a bad smell since the mid-eighties. His public persona, channeled through his music, his writings and his interviews reveal him to be a sociopath at best. He may be the finest human being who ever walked the Earth - I have little doubt his vaulting ego believes that to be the case - but if he is, he is also a very, very fine actor indeed, because frankly, he is increasingly looking like one of those triangular things ladies keep in their underwear.
 
Last edited:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
First up I would have to do a risk assessment

Is it safe to enter the building
Could the building fall on me
If I enter should I inform someone of my actions and rescue plan
Will I be putting others at risk with my actions
Have I got the right type of clothing on
Have I had all the correct training needed to see it through
Can I do first aid
Can I sue or be sued if it all goes pear shaped

Having then assessed the situation using the above criteria I would hang around and direct the fire brigade in the right direction and there is a good chance the human will be badly burned or die the animal will definitely die I know that for sure.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
Oh Benjamin, you are such a tease.
 

Charlie Cheswick

Well-Known Member
James, I've not been following this thread closely, so I'm not sure which part of my previous post exercises you to seek further clarification. My previous comment uses standard English words and I am unable to help you further with their meanings. I will say that if a baby seal looked like a tarantula none of this would be considered important, and the queue to beat the f***ers over the head with a big stick would start in Tegucigalpa High Street.



No, Morrissey would see you, me, anybody, financially ruined, homeless and destroyed if it meant an extra florin in his pocket. He cares about himself, and only himself. This has been apparent for the thick end of three decades and the tales of his deeply unpleasant nature have followed him around like a bad smell since the mid-eighties. His public persona, channeled through his music, his writings and his interviews reveal him to be a sociopath at best. He may be the finest human being who ever walked the Earth - I have little doubt his vaulting ego believes that to be the case - but if he is, he is also a very, very fine actor indeed, because frankly, he is increasingly looking like one of those triangular things ladies keep in their underwear.


This is a confusing message. I like those triangular things ladies keep in their underwear.
 

JamesDn

New Member
James, your probably a lovely young child but you are driving me nuts.

Yeah, that's how I roll.

Please just post some long self aggrandising essay so you can have the last word.

Okay. Yay!

The thing is: we’ve decided that it’s okay to treat certain animals (or most animals) like crap. It’s okay to produce pigs and chickens on factory farms, it’s okay to keep them in little shitty crates and dismember them in slaughterhouses. At the same time, we’ve come up with this very cool and ‘unnatural’ concept of ‘human rights’. All of this is vague as Satan. I could get hit by a car tomorrow and become less than an average pig in terms of mental abilities. And my moral value wouldn’t decrease at all. Why? Because my ability to suffer remains. It’s not okay to hurt me, because if you hurt me, I suffer. And this applies to other vertebrates just as well, so isn’t it true that we have some stuff to re-evaluate?

After all, scenarios like “Which individual would you save from a burning building…” are irrelevant, because in real life situations we very rarely need to make decisions like that. If we choose to start believing in animal rights, we won’t stop believing in human rights. We’ll simply believe that everybody matters. I think that would be nice.

Based on several of Morrissey’s statements and decisions, I do believe that he’s relatively insane (personally, I love the fact that he’s relatively insane). But this particular statement is not a sign of this insanity; actually, the fact that we’re ‘offended’ by it is a sign of our collective insanity:

Despite the love, we do live on a murderous planet,
as you will have seen in the last few days in Norway.
Murder, murder, murder.
Really, every single day worse things happen in Kentucky Fried Shit and McDonald's.
Murder, murder, murder, murder, murder.


This is the original poem. I don’t think it lacks compassion at all. I think he’s genuinely horrified by what happened in Norway. At the same time, he’s frustrated that people keep ignoring the more systematic forms of violence. He was sad and frustrated and this came out of his mouth. Now, I may be projecting, but I’m pretty sure this is how he felt and I can relate to that (because that's how I felt.)

He cares about himself, and only himself.

Are you sure?

I don't think that 'sociopathic' is the right word to decribe Morrissey. 'Autistic' would suit better. I think that there are quite a lot of humans that he likes quite a lot. And I do think that he genuinely cares about people that he likes. I also think that he cares about people that he has no reason to hate. But yes, he is not the most emotionally stable person on the planet. (I'd love to meet the most emotionally stable person on the planet. That would be fabulous.)
 
Last edited:

Peterb

Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's how I roll.



Okay. Yay!

The thing is: we’ve decided that it’s okay to treat certain animals (or most animals) like crap. It’s okay to produce pigs and chickens on factory farms, it’s okay to keep them in little shitty crates and dismember them in slaughterhouses. At the same time, we’ve come up with this very cool and ‘unnatural’ concept of ‘human rights’. All of this is vague as Satan. I could get hit by a car tomorrow and become less than an average pig in terms of mental abilities. And my moral value wouldn’t decrease at all. Why? Because my ability to suffer remains. It’s not okay to hurt me, because if you hurt me, I suffer. And this applies to other vertebrates just as well, so isn’t it true that we have some stuff to re-evaluate?

After all, scenarios like “Which individual would you save from a burning building…” are irrelevant, because in real life situations we very rarely need to make decisions like that. If we choose to start believing in animal rights, we won’t stop believing in human rights. We’ll simply believe that everybody matters. I think that would be nice.

Based on several of Morrissey’s statements and decisions, I do believe that he’s relatively insane (personally, I love the fact that he’s relatively insane). But this particular statement is not a sign of this insanity; actually, the fact that we’re ‘offended’ by it is a sign of our collective insanity:

Despite the love, we do live on a murderous planet,
as you will have seen in the last few days in Norway.
Murder, murder, murder.
Really, every single day worse things happen in Kentucky Fried Shit and McDonald's.
Murder, murder, murder, murder, murder.


This is the original poem. I don’t think it lacks compassion at all. I think he’s genuinely horrified by what happened in Norway. At the same time, he’s frustrated that people keep ignoring the more systematic forms of violence. He was sad and frustrated and this came out of his mouth. Now, I may be projecting, but I’m pretty sure this is how he felt and I can relate to that (because that's how I felt.)



Are you sure?

I don't think that 'sociopathic' is the right word to decribe Morrissey. 'Autistic' would suit better. I think that there are quite a lot of humans that he likes quite a lot. And I do think that he genuinely cares about people that he likes. I also think that he cares about people that he has no reason to hate. But yes, he is not the most emotionally stable person on the planet. (I'd love to meet the most emotionally stable person on the planet. That would be fabulous.)
Well done James, you've exceeded my expectations.
A little bit of advice. If you want to be taken seriously you should listen to the people you're debating with.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not trying to be mean, but doesn't the woman in this photo look a lot like Benny Hill?
 
Top Bottom