Cracking new Morrissey interview - full transcript here

[Peterb]

Also, regarding the mostly very entertaining interview, Morrissey has said very few idiotic, indefensible things in his career-- I've defended almost every one of his more controversial statements-- but the line about Auschwitz was simply horrible. He can make the case against meat in very strong terms without resorting to a parallel like that. It's not only shameful in a moral sense, it doesn't even work intellectually, in the context of his own statements about animals. The idea behind it is that all living beings are "equal" in their right to life. Yet, in the past, he has justified leather. Applying his own logic, it is therefore acceptable in certain cases to kill a man and make a pair of leather shoes out of him. Maybe he imagines Johnny Rogan would make a nice pair of boots, but I doubt he's thought it through.

It's funny how the Auchwitz comment has passed virtually unnoticed. I think people are getting a weary of stuff like this. I wish he'd stop it. But as I said previously, I think it's a mistake to take anything he says seriously.

[Uncleskinny]

It's funny how the Auchwitz comment has passed virtually unnoticed. I think people are getting a weary of stuff like this. I wish he'd stop it. But as I said previously, I think it's a mistake to take anything he says seriously.

Indeed, it did kind of get swamped. He says things for effect, and must be dreadfully pissed off that it passed without comment. In any case it's a stupid analogy to draw, as Worm has expertly pointed out.

P.

[Worm]

He does say things for effect, and I've certainly forgiven him a lot over the years because of that reason. But he's now made this parallel a few times, and it's clear he genuinely believes it. As I've always said, on the subject of killing animals he's deeply irrational. His emotions dominate his intellect. With that in mind, I guess I'm willing to forgive him. I just hate that he makes these comments, because most are not as forgiving as his fans. It's a setback for the cause of animal welfare when people make these moronic comparisons. If you're a writer of Morrissey's capacities you can easily make dramatic, arresting statements about the sanctity of life and the moral imperative to prevent cruelty to animals without comparing the slaughter of chickens to one of the most appalling atrocities in history. It's a failing on almost every level. It's beneath him, frankly.

[Peterb]

He does say things for effect, and I've certainly forgiven him a lot over the years because of that reason. But he's now made this parallel a few times, and it's clear he genuinely believes it. As I've always said, on the subject of killing animals he's deeply irrational. His emotions dominate his intellect. With that in mind, I guess I'm willing to forgive him. I just hate that he makes these comments, because most are not as forgiving as his fans. It's a setback for the cause of animal welfare when people make these moronic comparisons. If you're a writer of Morrissey's capacities you can easily make dramatic, arresting statements about the sanctity of life and the moral imperative to prevent cruelty to animals without comparing the slaughter of chickens to one of the most appalling atrocities in history. It's a failing on almost every level. It's beneath him, frankly.

The device I use in forgiving Moz for these stupid comments is remembering that the reason I love him is for his songs not for his political brain.

[!Viva Hate!]

It's funny how the Auchwitz comment has passed virtually unnoticed. I think people are getting a weary of stuff like this. I wish he'd stop it. But as I said previously, I think it's a mistake to take anything he says seriously.

Indeed, it did kind of get swamped. He says things for effect, and must be dreadfully pissed off that it passed without comment. In any case it's a stupid analogy to draw, as Worm has expertly pointed out.

P.

As much as Morrissey likes to trash her, he's just like Madonna...except, instead of saying stupid things, she just flashes her tits or kisses other women. Of course, he's been on the Borderline of that kind of behavior lately with his band in speedos and the 7" records photoshoot...just waiting for him to make out with Jesse onstage.

[Skylarker]

As much as Morrissey likes to trash her, he's just like Madonna...except, instead of saying stupid things, she just flashes her tits or kisses other women. Of course, he's been on the Borderline of that kind of behavior lately with his band in speedos and the 7" records photoshoot...just waiting for him to make out with Jesse onstage.

[Worm]

The device I use in forgiving Moz for these stupid comments is remembering that the reason I love him is for his songs not for his political brain.

I don't separate the two at all. Many of the songs are political, too, in some way shape or form, even if it's not obvious.

Mostly I support the things Morrissey has stood for in the past. Mostly his opinions align with my own. But on the subject of animals, I've always dismissed him. When I was 14 I listened to "Meat Is Murder" and, believe me, I desperately wanted to agree with the logic in the song. I really did. I wanted to make that song into a banner under which I could march on a crusade. It took all of five minutes for my adolescent mind to puzzle out the logic, though, and it didn't hold water. Meat is not murder. The slaughter of animals for meat might be cruel, unnecessary, morally repugnant, barbaric, catastrophic for the environment, and produce unhealthy food for humans to consume. It isn't murder; "a death for no reason" is laughably inadequate as a definition of murder. It's obvious what he means, but it falls apart under scrutiny. So even back in the day I just said, "Okay, he feels this way at a level beneath, or perhaps superior to, logic or rational thought". Which is fine, in the end, but he's never going to convince me with his arguments. Now, showing seal pups with their heads bashed in, thrown into the middle of a video ("Interesting Drug"), that might do some good.

[smiler]

He does say things for effect, and I've certainly forgiven him a lot over the years because of that reason. But he's now made this parallel a few times, and it's clear he genuinely believes it. As I've always said, on the subject of killing animals he's deeply irrational. His emotions dominate his intellect. With that in mind, I guess I'm willing to forgive him. I just hate that he makes these comments, because most are not as forgiving as his fans. It's a setback for the cause of animal welfare when people make these moronic comparisons. If you're a writer of Morrissey's capacities you can easily make dramatic, arresting statements about the sanctity of life and the moral imperative to prevent cruelty to animals without comparing the slaughter of chickens to one of the most appalling atrocities in history. It's a failing on almost every level. It's beneath him, frankly.

Isn't the comparison that the Nazi camps were factories of death in the same way that slaughterhouses have turned killing into a factory industry. Obviously Morrissey has strong views about animal rights and he believes that an animal values its own life as much as we value our own.

[smiler]

I don't separate the two at all. Many of the songs are political, too, in some way shape or form, even if it's not obvious.

Mostly I support the things Morrissey has stood for in the past. Mostly his opinions align with my own. But on the subject of animals, I've always dismissed him. When I was 14 I listened to "Meat Is Murder" and, believe me, I desperately wanted to agree with the logic in the song. I really did. I wanted to make that song into a banner under which I could march on a crusade. It took all of five minutes for my adolescent mind to puzzle out the logic, though, and it didn't hold water. Meat is not murder. The slaughter of animals for meat might be cruel, unnecessary, morally repugnant, barbaric, catastrophic for the environment, and produce unhealthy food for humans to consume. It isn't murder; "a death for no reason" is laughably inadequate as a definition of murder. It's obvious what he means, but it falls apart under scrutiny. So even back in the day I just said, "Okay, he feels this way at a level beneath, or perhaps superior to, logic or rational thought". Which is fine, in the end, but he's never going to convince me with his arguments. Now, showing seal pups with their heads bashed in, thrown into the middle of a video ("Interesting Drug"), that might do some good.

why doesn't it hold water?

[Uncleskinny]

Isn't the comparison that the Nazi camps were factories of death in the same way that slaughterhouses have turned killing into a factory industry. Obviously Morrissey has strong views about animal rights and he believes that an animal values its own life as much as we value our own.

In an effort to defend Morrissey's cretinous statement you are making yourself look utterly stupid.

P.

[Worm]

Isn't the comparison that the Nazi camps were factories of death in the same way that slaughterhouses have turned killing into a factory industry. Obviously Morrissey has strong views about animal rights and he believes that an animal values its own life as much as we value our own.

Chickens may indeed value their own lives in some way, as animal rights activists like to argue, but there is no equivalency between chickens and people. None. Anyone who would equate the killing of a chicken to the killing of a human being knows nothing about the lives of either chickens or humans.

That isn't to say abattoirs aren't awful places. I'm not arguing that animals need to be slaughtered, humanely or otherwise. Morrissey has every right to speak out about the horrible treatment chickens and other animals receive at the hands of greedy humans. I support the basic idea. I would hope we all agree with him on some level, even if we happen to eat meat. I'm simply saying that his argument, equating chickens to humans, is deeply insulting and painfully unworthy of a great artist.

[Worm]

why doesn't it hold water?

Let's ask a simple logical question. There are a few suggested by the song's lyrics, but let's go with the easy one, the one that springs to mind first. Is killing a cow to eat its flesh a death for no reason?

Hurdle one: not cleared.

Another. Is every death lacking a reason definitely a murder? What's a car accident?

Hurdle two: not cleared.

Again, these are logical objections. I'm objecting to the terms of his argument. Do I know what he means? Sure I do. I get it. My point is that his argument qua argument was a bloody mess. "Meat Is Murder" inspired me to visit the local library, where I discovered three or four solid, intelligent, airtight arguments against the eating of meat and the cultivation of animals for the restaurant industry. So it worked in that sense. But I could never, ever buy into the reasoning he put into the song. I might have a dozen deep moral objections to meat but one of them will never be that it's "murder". Brilliant slogan, though-- it works beautifully on record covers and T-shirts.

[Uncleskinny]

Let's ask a simple logical question. There are a few suggested by the song's lyrics, but let's go with the easy one, the one that springs to mind first. Is killing a cow to eat its flesh a death for no reason?

Hurdle one: not cleared.

Another. Is every death lacking a reason definitely a murder? What's a car accident?

Hurdle two: not cleared.

Again, these are logical objections. I'm objecting to the terms of his argument. Do I know what he means? Sure I do. I get it. My point is that his argument qua argument was a bloody mess. "Meat Is Murder" inspired me to visit the local library, where I discovered three or four solid, intelligent, airtight arguments against the eating of meat and the cultivation of animals for the restaurant industry. So it worked in that sense. But I could never, ever buy into the reasoning he put into the song. I might have a dozen deep moral objections to meat but one of them will never be that it's "murder". Brilliant slogan, though-- it works beautifully on record covers and T-shirts.

On this point - I do agree that the way that meat gets to consumers' plates is an absolute disgrace. The factory method of production is deeply unpleasant and has many flaws. I always like this clip from The Simpsons:



On a wider point - you will never, ever, stop people eating animals. Never. The best we can do is give them a decent, happy life and a swift painless death. It doesn't always happen, but you will never stop people eating meat. Personally, I donate to Compassion In World Farming, whose views and aims most closely match mine.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/

P.

[Amy]

Indeed, it did kind of get swamped. He says things for effect, and must be dreadfully pissed off that it passed without comment. In any case it's a stupid analogy to draw, as Worm has expertly pointed out.

P.

Agreed. He has made the meat industry/Holocaust comparison on at least 3 separate occasions now. It's obvious that he's just doing it for publicity, and I think the fans (and most of the public) have wised up enough by now to realise that such statements aren't worthy of any attention - they make him look not only stupid but desperate as well. The best thing to do is ignore them.

[Amy]

Let's ask a simple logical question. There are a few suggested by the song's lyrics, but let's go with the easy one, the one that springs to mind first. Is killing a cow to eat its flesh a death for no reason?

Hurdle one: not cleared.

Another. Is every death lacking a reason definitely a murder? What's a car accident?

Hurdle two: not cleared.

Again, these are logical objections. I'm objecting to the terms of his argument. Do I know what he means? Sure I do. I get it. My point is that his argument qua argument was a bloody mess. "Meat Is Murder" inspired me to visit the local library, where I discovered three or four solid, intelligent, airtight arguments against the eating of meat and the cultivation of animals for the restaurant industry. So it worked in that sense. But I could never, ever buy into the reasoning he put into the song. I might have a dozen deep moral objections to meat but one of them will never be that it's "murder". Brilliant slogan, though-- it works beautifully on record covers and T-shirts.

It worked a miracle on Johnny Marr!

[smiler]

Chickens may indeed value their own lives in some way, as animal rights activists like to argue, but there is no equivalency between chickens and people. None. Anyone who would equate the killing of a chicken to the killing of a human being knows nothing about the lives of either chickens or humans.

That isn't to say abattoirs aren't awful places. I'm not arguing that animals need to be slaughtered, humanely or otherwise. Morrissey has every right to speak out about the horrible treatment chickens and other animals receive at the hands of greedy humans. I support the basic idea. I would hope we all agree with him on some level, even if we happen to eat meat. I'm simply saying that his argument, equating chickens to humans, is deeply insulting and painfully unworthy of a great artist.

obviously given the scenario whereby a human's life and a chicken's life are at risk and only one can be saved than any sane person would save the human. That is clear and pretty much impossible to argue against. In that sense the value we place on human life is much greater, but why? I think thats to do with a kinship that humans share and a perception that some animals are "less alive" or less sentient. However it may help if you try and take a step back from that and consider this decision making process from a different perspective. Lets say somekind of advanced alien life makes contact with us. Does that advanced creature have the moral right to place less value on human life (compare to their own) due to their own perception that they are "more alive" "more advanced". You quickly get onto very dodgy ground when you start to actually articulate why you are putting more value on some lives at the expense of others. It would certainly appear that animals value their lives in a simlar way to the way we value our own. Animals however certainly don't seem to have a moral code under which they live their lives, they are much more govern by instinct and the satifaction of basic needs but I don't see how that makes their lives of less value intrinsically.

[smiler]

In an effort to defend Morrissey's cretinous statement you are making yourself look utterly stupid.

P.

oh dear peter

[Uncleskinny]

oh dear peter

The statement was cretinous and it's stupid to defend it. I stand by what I said.

P.

*EDIT* I bow to Worm's ability to crystallise thoughts into words far better than I am able to. He's said a lot of what I wanted to say but couldn't articulate.

[Worm]

obviously given the scenario whereby a human's life and a chicken's life are at risk and only one can be saved than any sane person would save the human. That is clear and pretty much impossible to argue against. In that sense the value we place on human life is much greater, but why? I think thats to do with a kinship that humans share and a perception that some animals are "less alive" or less sentient. However it may help if you try and take a step back from that and consider this decision making process from a different perspective. Lets say somekind of advanced alien life makes contact with us. Does that advanced creature have the moral right to place less value on human life (compare to their own) due to their own perception that they are "more alive" "more advanced". You quickly get onto very dodgy ground when you start to actually articulate why you are putting more value on some lives at the expense of others. It would certainly appear that animals value their lives in a simlar way to the way we value our own. Animals however certainly don't seem to have a moral code under which they live their lives, they are much more govern by instinct and the satifaction of basic needs but I don't see how that makes their lives of less value intrinsically.

You make a valid case, but there's a flaw: a chicken is not a self-aware, sentient being in the same way a human being is. A chicken has a will to live. A person has a will to live. Both are animals, after all. Both have a brute will to go on existing.

However, a person possesses a higher consciousness. (I'm not talking about anything metaphysical, like a soul; science accounts for higher consciousness in evolutionary theory.) The alien species which visits Earth would see this; in fact, your alien analogy would prove my point, because an alien race would see that a cow and a chicken are nothing like a human from the perspective of a higher consciousness. An itinerant alien vessel, full of curious scientists (like "E.T."), would have visited many planets in many galaxies and would well understand the difference between living things which possess a higher consciousness and living things which do not. If you'll excuse the expression, for our hypothetical aliens the pecking order would be obvious: chickens at the bottom, then humans, then their advanced alien race. They would see this just as we see both grass and chickens as alive, but alive on different planes of existence. Our aliens might choose to colonize us anyway, since our species is stupid, barbaric and primitive, not to mention suicidal, but I doubt they'd see it as equal to harvesting chicken nuggets.

You can argue that I have no knowledge of what a chicken thinks about its own life. Get back to me when a chicken writes "Anna Karenin" or the Fifth Symphony.

Now, I think it's perfectly possible to argue that all life is sacred, as Buddhists do. I don't happen to agree, completely, but that line of thought, to me, is perfectly valid. But to say "all life is sacred, we must not wantonly kill" is much, much different than "KFC is the Holocaust".

[Worm]

On this point - I do agree that the way that meat gets to consumers' plates is an absolute disgrace. The factory method of production is deeply unpleasant and has many flaws. I always like this clip from The Simpsons:

On a wider point - you will never, ever, stop people eating animals. Never. The best we can do is give them a decent, happy life and a swift painless death. It doesn't always happen, but you will never stop people eating meat. Personally, I donate to Compassion In World Farming, whose views and aims most closely match mine.

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/

P.

Ha ha, that's a great clip.

I'm like you. I'm in the middle. I hate animal cruelty of any kind. I eat meat, but I minimize the amount I consume, as much as possible, and I do care about where it comes from. At the end of the day, I'm glad Morrissey is as outspoken as he is. PETA, too. More compassion in the world is always better than less, and there are precious few voices adding to it. But yeah, I agree, there's a middle ground between radical veganism and McDonald's. We can all help move the world toward that goal. Ultimately I think the strongest argument in favor of veggies is one of land and climate: as the world shrinks, and climate change starts to devastate global harvests, we simply won't have the luxury of wasting so much valuable soil on cows. Meat may then equal murder, murder of humans by starvation. Not to mention the problem of deforestation and what that means to the planet.