Discussion (43)¬

  1. paradoctor says:

    The term “antisemitism” was invented by 19th-century religious bigots who wanted to sound with-it. Religious bigotry had gone out of fashion, but all the cool kids were doing racial pseudo-science, so they invented a fake race – the “Semites” – to be ‘anti’, which somehow is hate without hatred.

    I recommend that we retire that obsolete, imprecise, and bad-faith term with something more fitting. I propose “Jew-hatred” if you don’t mind the term’s rawness, or “Judenhass” for historical rizz. My favorite is “Judeophobia”, which politely echoes “Islamophobia”.

  2. Succubus ov Satan says:

    given that islamic nations have a death penalty for atheism (inter alia) we can fairly safly state that muslims are atheiphobic

  3. M27Holts says:

    It just pisses me off that both muslim and Jewish religions can ride rough shod over the rights of women, children and livestock, without recourse to UK law. The get out of Jail free card of religion should be removed from the table and the archaic religious rights should be prosecuted with the full force of the law, starting with ABH for male circumcision with a minimum jail sentence of 18 months…if thats islamophobic or anti-semitic then guilty as charged…

  4. Bvereshagen says:

    M27Holts: FFS! There you go being morally consistent again!

  5. Gargleblaster says:

    I always wondered why, if the Imaginary Friend In the Sky was so perfect and all, he would have boys being born with a foreskin if that thing would not be necessary. Unless, of course, he would want to treat the penis as an entrance ticket for heaven: not valid if there isn’t a part ripped off.

  6. jb says:

    Livestock? How so? Both Jews and Muslims slaughter their livestock by cutting their throats with a very shape knife. This is a quick death, and far less painful than, say, being torn apart by wolves, or the various other ways that animals in the state of nature typically die.

    (No argument about women and children though).

  7. jb says:


  8. chigau says:

    Bleeding to death is not quick nor painless nor lacking distress.

  9. Choirboy says:

    Well that’s an interesting yardstick for moral behaviour. It’s not quite as bad that of wild animals!

  10. jb says:

    Severing the carotid artery and jugular vein is a very quick death. Not a quick as a bolt to the head perhaps, but consciousness is lost in 15 seconds or so. If you eat meat from factory farms (no, I’m not a vegetarian) you have no grounds to be making accusations of abuse.

  11. M27Holts says:

    It is still a barbaric and needless process to kill an animal, when modern abatoires are designed to kill as painlessly as is possible within financial tolerences. The jewish/muslim insistance on obeying clearly man made archaic rules is surely in breach of modern laws that are there for the least pain suffered by livestock. Why anybody respects religious lunacy is beyond me.

  12. paradoctor says:


    Jewish, Moslem, Christian, and atheist butchers vary in their methods, some more humane, some less. It is unwise to generalize without investigation. Also, moral condemnation is a drug more addictive than cocaine. For your own sake, beware!

    Consider this moral dilemma: lab-grown meat. At present it is an expensive niche product, of untested taste, texture, purity, health, and environmental impact, whose main selling point is that it causes little animal suffering. I am moderately confident that scientific research, funded by free-market competition, regulated by democratic law, will eventually produce artificial meat that is cheap, abundant, pure, healthy, small-footprint, with excellent taste and texture, and that causes zero animal suffering. I’d gladly dine on it, but with a small worry: what will happen to the farm animals no longer needed? Will we allow them to go extinct? Would that be kind of us, or cruel?

  13. paradoctor says:

    “More moral than Nature” is a high standard, given we come from Nature. Criticize wild beasts all you want to, but the wolves and lions kill fewer than do we. I love Mother Nature, but I love Nature with open eyes, I love her for the ruthless amoral opportunist that she is!

  14. postdoggerel says:

    This discussion brought to mind the Jains, of India, who use a peacock feather to brush aside any insects along their path to avoid injuring them. They also believe that women must be reincarnated as men to achieve spiritual liberation. The link also has an illustration of the Jain symbol that was agreed upon by all Jain sects in 1974. It also acts as a “Stop Nazism” sign.

  15. Shaughn says:

    Paradoctor, a few weeks ago lab-grown meat was actually tested and tasted. At least taste and texture were indistinguishable from a common sausage. In some countries (Singapore and Israel) it is already allowed on the market.

    I share your confidence in its future and also your worries about the obsolete cattle and livestock. But I’ll silently rejoice vegans going extinct.

  16. M27Holts says:

    I have no objection to artificially constructed protein and would gladly pay good money for protein steaks if they taste as good as the best steak cuts. However, would they be kosher or halal? Clearly not since their creation was not predicted by the numb nuts who invented judaism and Islam. The need for genuine flesh would be negated…so what would we do with the meat when the wool and leather beasts are dead? Dog/catfood?

  17. Shaughn says:

    M27Holts, I suppose the next step is artificially grown wool and leather. Until after 50 or 75 years some wisecrack discovers that cattle provides the same much easier.

    But perhaps I’ve read Asimov’s “The feeling of power’ once too often.

  18. Choirboy says:

    Paradoctor, I’m not sure how my comment could be seen to ‘criticise’ wild beasts, which would be pretty pointless.
    Of course we come from nature but I hope that in matters of morality our judgments are governed rather less by the ‘id’ than by the ‘superego’.

  19. dr John the Wipper says:


    Thanks for that!

    I have been an Asimov fan from my early student days, but to me that wa a new gem.

  20. paradoctor says:


    In practice, arguments from moral stature do not track well with diet. Consider these four arguments:

    1. We are morally superior to animals, therefore we may eat them.
    2. We are morally superior to animals, therefore we may not eat them.
    3. We are not morally superior to animals, therefore we may eat them.
    4. We are not morally superior to animals, therefore we may not eat them.

    #1 is the argument from superiority. Rank Hath Its Privileges. #2 is the moral standards argument; we’re too good for that. #3 is the naturalistic argument; they do it, so we may too. #4 is the revulsion argument; that would be cannibalism.

    All four have been used successfully. I say that they are equally compelling; that is, mutually refuting.

  21. paradoctor says:


    Yum, yum!

    As an intellectual exercise in one-upping vegans, imagine “Abiotarians”, who eat only food-like substances produced by machines from entirely nonliving inputs: rock, air, water, nuclear power. I imagine them as Space Marines fed from such machines, for their commanding officers did not want their life support system to itself need life support. Or else they are the first wave of colonists on Mars, who use their own excreta as fertilizer to grow crops for non-abiotarian colonists, whom the abiotarians look down upon.

  22. paradoctor says:


    I have faith that lab-meat-makers can find rabbis and imams willing to give their product a thumbs-up, for the right price.

  23. Choirboy says:

    As far as I know there are few concerns for morality amongst even our nearest most developed animal relatives, which makes comparisons of superiority or otherwise irrelevant.

  24. Shaughn says:

    At the remains of the day, we’re all just a link of the very amoral food chain. If there is any morality in it, it’s the responsibility not to break the chain. Eat and get eaten, that’s all there is.

  25. Choirboy says:

    Well that’s going to be a rather different way of life for some of us, taking seriously our ‘responsibility’ to ‘amoral nature’.
    I’m not sure how well my neighbours, who are rather smaller than me, are going to take to me stealing their food because I can.
    My mate’s new partner might also be a bit put out when he kills her kids from a previous marriage to preserve his natural ’responsibility’ to keep his DNA dominant in the gene pool. Exciting times ahead!

  26. Shaughn says:

    Choirboy, unless and until something bigger eats you:
    Never mind how the smaller neighbours take to you. Eat them first, then empty their larder.

  27. Choirboy says:

    Oh dear, and here’s me thinking that everyone on here made serious and intelligent contributions!

  28. paradoctor says:

    Your perplexity is easily answered. There are two moralities: one for those within the family/group/flock/tribe/hive/species, and another for those outside.

  29. paradoctor says:

    Hey, how about we talk about the strip?

  30. M27Holts says:

    Aye. Thus the strip is casting a light on the fact that the morons in the islamic group are allowed to justify murder of all outsiders because their warlord claims that an invisible entity talked in his head and told him to murder his “enemies”…..and to point that out is…Islamaphobia….

  31. Shaughn says:

    Choirboy, I’ll not pretend to be sorry having nibbled at your sincere and dearly held belief on our contributions. That’s what the Cock & Bull is about, isn’t it? Beliefs are on the menu.

  32. M27Holts says:

    See there you go again…on the menu? Eat the Rich? Well they are most likely be the tastiest surely?

  33. Shaughn says:

    M27Holts – Frankly, I wouldn’t know about taste. There is some mutual understanding that we won’t taste each other, unless under extraordinary circumstances, Such as, say, being crashes by plane high in the Andes.

    Perhaps we should ask christians – they devour their christ’s blood and meat on a regular basis. Or so they bleieve. Or am I now on the verge of xtianphobia?

  34. postdoggerel says:

    “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

  35. Choirboy says:

    Shaughn, to refer to my statement as in any way to do with a ‘belief’ to be challenged is a gross and vainglorious misreading. I was simply referring to my experience of many years of reading comments here which hitherto have been largely sensible and not simple wind ups masquerading as serious comment.

  36. M27Holts says:

    Our chief weapons are….

  37. Shaughn says:

    M27Holts: … mere words.

    Temper, temper, Choirboy! A wee bit touchy?

    It’s so obvious and exaggerated ‘gross and vainglorious misread’ that one can hardly miss that it is done so deliberate, intentional and on purpose. Just making fun of your ‘everyone on here [making] serious and intelligent contributions!’ Don’t take things too serious around here. I don’t, not even myself

  38. M27Holts says:


  39. Choirboy says:

    Shaughn, from vainglorious to patronising, eh? A bit of an overreaction? Surely it was obvious that I was being ironic and just having a little dig at your attempts (sic) at being amusing. I do hope you get the money back from the clown school.

  40. M27Holts says:

    and fear…..

  41. Shaughn says:

    Funny you should say that, Choirboy. Actually I did ask my money back and guess what? They said: “Hahaha, you’re sooo funny asking that! See? No reason at all for a refund.”

  42. M27Holts says:

    Refundity is not the same as profundity!


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.