In the news

Can't miss the chance to stick the knife into Morrissey.

Meat-eaters view flesh as a necessity - vegetarians as a cruel luxury. The problem with the radical vegetarians is their militancy. It's all they see. On no scale can the life of, let's pick a chicken, measure up against that of a human. We're the superior species, like it or not. As a result of that anything is fair game, which is not the same as to exempt the remainder of living creatures from any rights of their own, within reason.

Senseless slaughter is precisely that, but slaughter for the fulfilment of the natural state of things is to edify further a social and cultural fact. In short, meat is to be eaten, which is not the same as to say it must be exploited/mistreated.

Morrissey has more than one eye on a quote as per usual, though I don't doubt his conviction is probably true, but he can't get beyond his own crusade. His choosing to not eat animals is no more profound than my decision to enjoy it, but still he can't get over it. Plus his music's shit so I don't rate him one measly bit.

There's no comparing the capitalist hunger for what is no more or less than food against that of a lunatic with a gun and a triviality of human life as his motivation, and only an idiot would claim otherwise.

How do you come to this conlcusion? And what do you mean by natural order? The strongest humans ruling over the weakest is natural order, but we as a society ahve decided that we can go beyond this, so why can't the same be said for animals?