Cracking new Morrissey interview - full transcript here

[Uncleskinny]

Aparently you know better than Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Polish Jew who fled his country a few years before Hitler invaded and who lost family in the Nazi death camps

What? WHAT???

Do you have any idea what you are saying?

P.

 

[smiler]

Well, I'd say insects and bacteria fall into the non-sentient category as, yes, grass does. That whole , you know, "lack-of-central-nervous-system" thing is a bit of a give-away in my opinion. No central nervous system ( or next to none) equals no suffering.


I don't dispute subjectivity - I suppose I feel the question is : to what extent should we be biased towards "our own" ? In the industrialised West , there just isn't any longer a reasonable argument ( that I can see) for eating animals.

The "field of cows vs. life of person" is a false dichotomy ( and also another drift along to a different topic ... but I'm hardly one to talk.). Animal experimentation is increasingly unnecessary and wildly over-used - I suspect (from what I've read) its redundancy could be hastened exponentially were the appropriate incentives in place.

"to what extent should we be biased towards "our own" ?" - good question - the crux of the matter
But remember the thing is we don't have to kill anyone or anything.

 

[smiler]

What? WHAT???

Do you have any idea what you are saying?

P.

Peter you are clearly out of your depth - go and watch the Simpson or something

 

[Worm]

The point of the magpie anecdotes was really to explain part of how I came to not hold/feel the distinction "in kind" you did/do (?) when passing the dog etc. Magpies in concentration camps ? Hmm, I wonder if that makes the Australian Raven the avian Gestapo ( they include infant magpies in their diet)?

The purpose of my distinction is not to reduce animals to instruments which are to be used any way humans like. Again, I see this as the major sticking point here. I'm not devaluing the life of the dog. I'm not saying its life is worthless. You're right to dwell on the interesting ways in which the line between a magpie and a human being gets a little blurry from time to time. I'm just saying that we can treasure and protect the lives of magpies without pretending their lives, however valuable, are the same as the lives of humans.

Just very quickly , perhaps another analogy regarding the PETA/Holocaust thing is to see the animal rights movement as , metaphorically (of course), a war. The PETA/Holocaust remarks and placards and so on are the shock troops , making the initial breach in the enemy's line with maximum firepower, force and ferocity. Following them up are the more conventional units , who occupy and patrol the now cleared areas in a far more sober manner...

Mmmmm. Well, accepting your analogy for the moment, then what I said above still holds up: PETA's shock tactics might breach the defenses of a minority of people, but they're not going to breach those of the majority, and many in the majority might actually build their walls even higher, make them even tougher to assault in the future. There's plenty of evidence that songs like "Meat Is Murder" and some of the PETA campaigns achieve results. Morrissey and PETA have changed a lot of minds and saved the lives of untold numbers of animals. As far as that goes, they're heroes. The question is, could they save more animals if they tried a different approach?

As far back as 1985, Morrissey was extolling the virtue of shocking people by getting their attention in public with outrageous statements. He believed then, and I'm sure still believes, that if you're quiet, sane, and well-behaved, you'll be brushed aside. He's got a point. The trouble is that people today are bombarded with "shocking" imagery and behavior. Everything is extreme, from your soda to your underwear to your favorite political candidate. Yes, people like Morrissey are heard above the din, but their protests are easily swatted away, forgotten in the 24-hour news cycle. People are savvy, or cynical-- take your pick. Everyone-- even the people who agree with him-- understood that Morrissey's Auschwitz comment was a soundbite grenade he cooked up and tossed into the press to get attention. We all understand PR, we all understand advertising. Statements like that don't have a positive effect, or, if they do, it's overshadowed by the negative effects. Whatever his intentions, and we all know he loves animals, Morrissey's comments are received by most as publicity, not as a cry from the heart. And they're not wrong. Is that the best way to go?

 

[Uncleskinny]

Peter you are clearly out of your depth - go and watch the Simpson or something

Like f*** I am. What the hell are you talking about?

P.

 

[Worm]

Aparently you know better than Isaac Bashevis Singer, a Polish Jew who fled his country a few years before Hitler invaded and who lost family in the Nazi death camps

Do I know better than Isaac Bashevis Singer? About what? About the Holocaust?

Or about the equivalency between the suffering of a chicken and the suffering of a man?

Are novels, stories, and essays written by a Holocaust survivor the same as a poster crassly juxtaposing Holocaust victims and chickens? Are the carefully-written thoughts of a great writer the same as a soundbite cooked up by a pop star to cause a stir?

By the way, do you happen to know at what age Singer first developed his sensitivity for the suffering of animals?

 

[smiler]

Do I know better than Isaac Bashevis Singer? About what? About the Holocaust?

Or about the equivalency between the suffering of a chicken and the suffering of a man?

Are novels, stories, and essays written by a Holocaust survivor the same as a poster crassly juxtaposing Holocaust victims and chickens? Are the carefully-written thoughts of a great writer the same as a soundbite cooked up by a pop star to cause a stir?

about the appropriateness of the analogy.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

about the appropriateness of the analogy.

honestly? I have always assumed that the entire point to making "chicken factories" analogous to "death camps" is its inappropriateness
the whole point is to get an emotional reaction out of people, and it is not surprising that such an emotive person as Morrissey would go to this well over and over again
but its not rational
however, I forgive him for this because I believe it comes from a good place

 

[Worm]

about the appropriateness of the analogy.

Then you know my answer. I've discussed the analogy, and the way it has been used, at length.

You will no doubt try and twist what I've said into some kind of claim of mine that I know more about suffering and death than a Holocaust survivor. If you think that's the case, then go back and read my posts again.

 

[123xyz]

Mmmmm. Well, accepting your analogy for the moment, then what I said above still holds up: PETA's shock tactics might breach the defenses of a minority of people, but they're not going to breach those of the majority, and many in the majority might actually build their walls even higher, make them even tougher to assault in the future. There's plenty of evidence that songs like "Meat Is Murder" and some of the PETA campaigns achieve results. Morrissey and PETA have changed a lot of minds and saved the lives of untold numbers of animals. As far as that goes, they're heroes. The question is, could they save more animals if they tried a different approach?

As far back as 1985, Morrissey was extolling the virtue of shocking people by getting their attention in public with outrageous statements. He believed then, and I'm sure still believes, that if you're quiet, sane, and well-behaved, you'll be brushed aside. He's got a point. The trouble is that people today are bombarded with "shocking" imagery and behavior. Everything is extreme, from your soda to your underwear to your favorite political candidate. Yes, people like Morrissey are heard above the din, but their protests are easily swatted away, forgotten in the 24-hour news cycle. People are savvy, or cynical-- take your pick. Everyone-- even the people who agree with him-- understood that Morrissey's Auschwitz comment was a soundbite grenade he cooked up and tossed into the press to get attention. We all understand PR, we all understand advertising. Statements like that don't have a positive effect, or, if they do, it's overshadowed by the negative effects. Whatever his intentions, and we all know he loves animals, Morrissey's comments are received by most as publicity, not as a cry from the heart. And they're not wrong. Is that the best way to go?

I'm embarrassed to say I only just read through this whole thread a minute or two ago. Apologies all for inadvertent repetition.


Hmm, I guess our point of disagreement here is that I don't see Morrissey's/PETAs actions as existing in isolation. Could they save more animals if they tried a different approach ? Others are. I really couldn't be certain that the absence of the Auschwitz-type analogy would help overall. Perhaps the diabolical seriousness of the current animal situation warrants throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks ?

Yes, I'm resisting the urge to grope about for another analogy...

 

[smiler]

Then you know my answer. I've discussed the analogy, and the way it has been used, at length.

You will no doubt try and twist what I've said into some kind of claim of mine that I know more about suffering and death than a Holocaust survivor. If you think that's the case, then go back and read my posts again.

No not at all
I just think you think you know more about the appropriateness of the analogy than a Polish Jew who fled his country a few years before Hitler invaded and who lost family in the Nazi death camps and who was also a Nobel prize-winning author, a humanitarian and a supporter of the notion of animals rights, thats all.

 

[Worm]

Hmm, I guess our point of disagreement here is that I don't see Morrissey's/PETAs actions as existing in isolation. Could they save more animals if they tried a different approach ? Others are. I really couldn't be certain that the absence of the Auschwitz-type analogy would help overall. Perhaps the diabolical seriousness of the current animal situation warrants throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks?

I don't necessarily have a problem with that. I mean, as you can tell, it's not how I'd run the show if I were Ingrid Newkirk. But agitprop can be good. Let's agree for the moment that agitprop is the way to go. Maybe it will help boil this down to its essence if I say that it would be just as horrifying and shocking to drive the point home using a picture of a clubbed baby seal, a tortured chicken, or an abused cow. There's no need to go for the Auschwitz parallel. Morrissey said, years ago, that half the battle can be won simply by putting a face to the butchered animals. Hamburgers don't have faces. Well, why not put a face on people's plate? It's true most people don't see where their meat comes from, but most of us have pets and aren't totally desensitized at all. The message conveyed by a suffering or slaughtered animal is quite enough.

I remember being greatly disturbed by the image of the clubbed seal in "Interesting Drug". It was horrifying and just...I mean, once I knew when the picture was going to come up in the video, I had to close my eyes. Even then it stayed burned in my retina from the first time I came upon it unawares. I don't really mind that. It's slightly irritating, because Tim Broad and Morrissey clearly wanted to ambush their audience, but ultimately I thought it was fine. It was merely a jolt. It didn't insult my intelligence. My first reaction wasn't anger at Tim and Morrissey's exploitation of a dead baby seal. Instead, my first reaction was acid contempt for the butchers responsible for its brutal slaughter. I'm afraid I can't look at the PETA Holocaust poster the same way.

Since you're out of analogies, I'll make one. From my extensive courtroom experience watching TV, sometimes a D.A. will prosecute a wrongdoer on a lesser charge in order to secure a conviction when she knows she cannot prove the greater charge. It's not a question of truth. It's a question of the law, of courtrooms, of what you can prove and how you can achieve your goal. Pick the right target and choose the correct means of nailing it-- that's what these people simply aren't doing, in my view.

 

[Anonymous]

You're confusing a difference in kind with a difference in degree. I never said those with higher IQs have a right to kill those with lower IQs, which is a difference in degree. In fact, when smiler brought up the hypothetical case of a human being with a severe mental handicap, I said that person's life was equally as important as mine. However, I've stated that human beings are a higher form of life than animals, which is a difference in kind.

The sticking point seems to be that you're taking my argument as all-or-nothing. Is it impossible to imagine a person who considers humans a higher form life than animals, and, at the same time, looks upon animals with great sensitivity and compassion, and tries to do as little harm to them as possible?

The reply will be that as soon as a dividing line is drawn between humans and animals, it's only a matter of time before similar lines are drawn between different kinds of humans. That of course is a distinct possibility, but in my view it presupposes that most human beings are incredibly weak-minded and can't be trusted to think for themselves. Which may well be the case, though I'm foolish enough to give people more credit than that.

These matters are interesting, but ultimately fall outside of the original topic. Equating the Holocaust with the meat industry is outrageous. It's a false parallel which obscures the subject. Moreover, there is a difference between an imaginative, thoughtful, sober, carefully-constructed comparison between the suffering of animals and the Holocaust, done to foster greater sensitivity to suffering in people who are otherwise desensitized to slaughter, and the cheap exploitation and shock tactics of PETA's ad campaign. Those are the issues in play here.

You were talking about animals not being self-aware and saying that because they are not self-aware (or whatever way you want to say it) that they can't be murdered. I say they can, because the intent, the part of the killing that makes it "murder" is based on the thoughts and intentions of the one doing the killing.

The holocaust comparison is one issue and "meat is murder" is another. I'm saying that your answers about murder are flawed being based on the intelligence of the one being murdered, when it's obviously the intelligence of the one doing the killing that determines the ability to murder.

The holocaust comparison is clearly flawed and we probably wouldn't even agree on the main reasons why, but I really wanted to address the "meat is murder" argument.

 

[Worm]

No not at all
I just think you think you know more about the appropriateness of the analogy than a Polish Jew who fled his country a few years before Hitler invaded and who lost family in the Nazi death camps and who was also a Nobel prize-winning author, a humanitarian and a supporter of the notion of animals rights, thats all.

LOL

Like I said, I knew that was coming. I've been civil to you long after I had any call to be, and you come back at me with this cheap shot.

You've understood nothing I've said. Nothing. Take the time to read and understand, or don't bother posting. It is the ultimate mark of disrespect to ignore what I've written so you can pistol-whip me with the cut-and-pasted biography of a man you never heard of until Anaesthesine chimed in. Way to use the prop nearest at hand.

 

[123xyz]

No not at all
I just think you think you know more about the appropriateness of the analogy than a Polish Jew who fled his country a few years before Hitler invaded and who lost family in the Nazi death camps and who was also a Nobel prize-winning author, a humanitarian and a supporter of the notion of animals rights, thats all.

You'll find its enormously helpful to play the ball, not the man.

 

[Deleted member 1074]

LOL

Like I said, I knew that was coming. I've been civil to you long after I had any call to be, and you come back at me with this cheap shot.

You've understood nothing I've said. Nothing. Take the time to read and understand, or don't bother posting. It is the ultimate mark of disrespect to ignore what I've written so you can pistol-whip me with the cut-and-pasted biography of a man you never heard of until Anaesthesine chimed in. Way to use the prop nearest at hand.

He's done this to everyone he's been arguing with...

 

[Worm]

You were talking about animals not being self-aware and saying that because they are not self-aware (or whatever way you want to say it) that they can't be murdered. I say they can, because the intent, the part of the killing that makes it "murder" is based on the thoughts and intentions of the one doing the killing.

The holocaust comparison is one issue and "meat is murder" is another. I'm saying that your answers about murder are flawed being based on the intelligence of the one being murdered, when it's obviously the intelligence of the one doing the killing that determines the ability to murder.

The holocaust comparison is clearly flawed and we probably wouldn't even agree on the main reasons why, but I really wanted to address the "meat is murder" argument.

Ah, okay. I see.

Um...I suppose you can make the case that meat is murder if you limit the matter to just that phrase.

If you check out my first post, I was trying to make it clear that I liked the phrase "meat is murder" when I first heard it, believed it intuitively, and actually desired to embrace the idea fully. It was the logic Morrissey used in the song which I found wanting. The song works emotionally. It wasn't satisfying to me otherwise.

I went off in search of reasons to believe meat is murder. I found lots of reasons meat is harmful, but murder wasn't one of them. I still don't like applying the term "murder". I think it has an anthropomorphic sense which doesn't apply. Again, it's not that I condone senseless killing, I just want to clarify terms. There's at least one other controversial subject I can think of in which one side tosses around the word "murder" and it's absolutely freighted with extra meaning-- I think we ought to avoid using it, for reasons I've stated.

Anyway, if my thinking is flawed, you've exposed it.

EDIT: Sorry, just wanted to add another clarification.

I talked about the difference in consciousness between animals and humans not as a justification for killing them but as a point of distinction between the suffering a human feels in a concentration camp and the suffering a chicken feels in an industrial processing plant. This gets to the heart of why PETA's image, and Morrissey's comment, are so offensive. The greater and more expansive the organism's consciousness, the keener the suffering when it is deprived of life. The fact that I think this doesn't mean I condone the worst aspects of the meat industry. I just think of the problem in different terms, and as I've tried to say, terminology is important.

 

[smiler]

Ah, okay. I see.

Um...I suppose you can make the case that meat is murder if you limit the matter to just that phrase.

If you check out my first post, I was trying to make it clear that I liked the phrase "meat is murder" when I first heard it, believed it intuitively, and actually desired to embrace the idea fully. It was the logic Morrissey used in the song which I found wanting. The song works emotionally. It wasn't satisfying to me otherwise.

I went off in search of reasons to believe meat is murder. I found lots of reasons meat is harmful, but murder wasn't one of them. I still don't like applying the term "murder". I think it has an anthropomorphic sense which doesn't apply. Again, it's not that I condone senseless killing, I just want to clarify terms. There's at least one other controversial subject I can think of in which one side tosses around the word "murder" and it's absolutely freighted with extra meaning-- I think we ought to avoid using it, for reasons I've stated.

Anyway, if my thinking is flawed, you've exposed it.

The word "Murder" can only be used correctly in relation to a human death. Morrissey is extending its meaning with poetic license to include animals.

 

[Uncleskinny]

The word "Murder" can only be used correctly in relation to a human death. Morrissey is extending its meaning with poetic license to include animals.

Utter, utter bollocks.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/21/chimpanzees-murder-for-land/

P.

 

[Worm]

He's done this to everyone he's been arguing with...

I know. I'm a glutton for punishment.