|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United States43529 Posts
On May 10 2017 03:03 Reaps wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 02:48 Reaps wrote:
The welfare of animals is a huge issue for a lot of people, out of all the problems we face at the moment the Tories want to spend effort on overturning a 2004 ban that was backed by 84% of the British public. It's not really about animal welfare at all though. The foxes are getting shot, often not immediately fatally, and then being left to die. They're still killing foxes and even if they weren't, it's not like we're a nation of vegetarians, the British people aren't especially interested in animal welfare. The problem is the idea that someone might enjoy killing the animal for sport, not that the animal is tortured or killed. I'm a meat eater, there is a difference between killing animals humanely for food and for sport though, there is nothing humane about fox hunting, the animals are literally being ripped apart by other animals, its a blood sport. As for British people not being interested in animal welfare, i'd have to disagree, i will look into it a bit more but there has been a big increase in animal charity's and just support in general from my experience.
I'd be amazed if taking potshots at foxes with shotguns and hoping they die of whatever damage you were able to do was more humane than dogs. The dogs are at least fast. The problem is the moral aversion to someone enjoying killing, not to the killing itself.
And as long as we're still eating factory farmed meat and eggs we're not especially interested in animal welfare. Mandating that eggs be from free range chickens would have been far, far more important for animal welfare than fox hunting. Fox hunting is a visible but essentially irrelevant animal welfare issue, like focusing on bull fighting while ignoring dairy farming.
This is a stupid fight for Theresa May to pick precisely because it's so incredibly irrelevant.
|
Hmm I'm gonna go out there and side with eating meats and drinking milk from animals farmed in regulated conditions, killed quickly / damn near instantly is more morally acceptable than sitting on a horse and shooting foxes for "LOL BANTS ONLY BECAUSE WE CAN'T HUNT THE POORS" without even having the deceny to check they're actually even dead. Unless the foxes also have horses, dogs and guns, then it's fair game.
I see the fox hunting thing as May taking advantage of the free win she had thanks to the state Labour are in right now to do her party donors a favour, because she can. As a bonus also rubbing it in the face of everyone else with a lot of "HAHA LOOK WHAT KIND OF RANDOM SHIT I CAN GET AWAY WITH BECAUSE ALL THE OPPOSITION ARE HOPELESS. TROLOLOLOL"
|
Renew a pledge for a free vote. Which part of that do you not understand? Cameron was going to lose the free vote anyway, and I think public pressure would ensure the ban remained now, too. I'm curious though - do you also oppose hunting corvids with hawks? Rats with terriers?
Or is it just foxes because rich people ride around on horses in fancy red coats?
|
United States43529 Posts
Regulated conditions doesn't mean humane conditions. A fox's brutal death by hounds is far more merciful than the life of a battery hen. And again, we're talking a tiny number of foxes vs a huge number of hens. Even if foxes were treated less humanely than hens, and again, they're not, we'd be wasting our time trying to talk about it. It's not an animal welfare issue, it's a moral issue. Fox hunting isn't morally objectionable because it hurts animals, it's morally objectionable because it hurts animals for pleasure. As a society the British public have come down firmly in favour of hurting animals for food, they vote with their wallets daily.
There is simply no case for banning things for being contrary to animal welfare while factory livestock farming is still legal. Thinking otherwise is nothing more than ignorance of how food gets on your plate. It's not like they give the cows a bolt gun to make steak fair game.
|
There's another level to this though KwarK. Buying meat is very removed from participating in animal cruelty. The act of buying meat itself is not cruel to animals, and it isn't directly showing support to cruel farming conditions. Its a massive oversimplification to suggest that the two are the same. 'Voting with wallets' is not the same as voting.
For example, if there was a referendum on improving farming conditions, how do you think it would turn out? It would inevitably end up with less harmful, tortuous conditions for livestock. However, there are monetary gains to be made from this cruelty to animals that passes on benefits to the entire population.
The situation is not remotely analogous to a few of the tories' mates going out killing animals for fun, and then using their money to pressure the party into making it legal and free as much as possible. That doesn't benefit anyone, except a few psychopaths.
I'm not arguing with the point that its a contradiction to ban hunting purely on the grounds of animal welfare, but that's pedantry.
|
United States43529 Posts
On May 10 2017 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's another level to this though KwarK. Buying meat is very removed from participating in animal cruelty. The act of buying meat itself is not cruel to animals, and it isn't directly showing support to cruel farming conditions. Its a massive oversimplification to suggest that the two are the same. 'Voting with wallets' is not the same as voting.
For example, if there was a referendum on improving farming conditions, how do you think it would turn out? It would inevitably end up with less harmful, tortuous conditions for livestock. However, there are monetary gains to be made from this cruelty to animals that passes on benefits to the entire population.
The situation is not remotely analogous to a few of the tories' mates going out killing animals for fun, and then using their money to pressure the party into making it legal and free as much as possible. That doesn't benefit anyone, except a few psychopaths.
I'm not arguing with the point that its a contradiction to ban hunting purely on the grounds of animal welfare, but that's pedantry.
On the contrary, I think the wallet is by far the most direct representation of the democratic will of the public you will find. Actions speak louder than words. We don't need to hold a referendum to ask whether people would rather pay more for humanely farmed food or pay less for inhumanely farmed food and holding one would be both redundant and vulnerable to errors introduced by people who think they prefer one but actually prefer the other. All we need to is stock both on the shelves side by side and people will tell you, day after day, which they prefer. Every single day a referendum is held on the specific issue of battery farmed hens and every day we vote to support them.
You're right that voting with wallets isn't the same as voting. It's more honest. People like to vote to signal the kind of person they want others to think they are. People vote with their wallets because of the kind of person they actually are.
Also the argument that buying meat is not cruel to animals is the same one that people who pay for child porn use to explain that nobody got hurt. You can't pay for someone else to do it on your behalf and then say that technically the act of paying is a separate act.
My argument is not, and never was, that inhumane farming discredits the case against fox hunting, only that it discredits the animal welfare argument against fox hunting. The fox hunting issue comes down to whether people should be allowed to hurt animals for pleasure. As a society we're already very agreed that you're allowed to hurt animals because it'd cost a quid to not hurt them and you'd rather not spend it. I'm fine with fox hunting being banned, what gets me is the hypocritical moralists whining about the poor foxes.
|
It probably won't happen anyway and I think it just stregthens her vote all round. The animal rights groups are going to kick up a massive stink getting libs/labour/greens to comment and ordinary people are going to think we've got Brexit to deal with why are the Greens/Labour/Lib dems making a fuss over fox hunting the foxes can wait. Meanwhile the countryside is massively pro fox hunting and gives them something extra to get out and vote conservative.
|
On May 10 2017 06:16 bardtown wrote:
Renew a pledge for a free vote. Which part of that do you not understand? Cameron was going to lose the free vote anyway, and I think public pressure would ensure the ban remained now, too. I'm curious though - do you also oppose hunting corvids with hawks? Rats with terriers?
Or is it just foxes because rich people ride around on horses in fancy red coats?
Personally I oppose anyone that hunts animals for fun.
In other Brexit related news, has there actually been any in terms of even trying to guess what a EU free Britain would look like from the point of view of policies etc?
|
On May 10 2017 06:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's another level to this though KwarK. Buying meat is very removed from participating in animal cruelty. The act of buying meat itself is not cruel to animals, and it isn't directly showing support to cruel farming conditions. Its a massive oversimplification to suggest that the two are the same. 'Voting with wallets' is not the same as voting.
For example, if there was a referendum on improving farming conditions, how do you think it would turn out? It would inevitably end up with less harmful, tortuous conditions for livestock. However, there are monetary gains to be made from this cruelty to animals that passes on benefits to the entire population.
The situation is not remotely analogous to a few of the tories' mates going out killing animals for fun, and then using their money to pressure the party into making it legal and free as much as possible. That doesn't benefit anyone, except a few psychopaths.
I'm not arguing with the point that its a contradiction to ban hunting purely on the grounds of animal welfare, but that's pedantry. On the contrary, I think the wallet is by far the most direct representation of the democratic will of the public you will find. Actions speak louder than words. We don't need to hold a referendum to ask whether people would rather pay more for humanely farmed food or pay less for inhumanely farmed food and holding one would be both redundant and vulnerable to errors introduced by people who think they prefer one but actually prefer the other. All we need to is stock both on the shelves side by side and people will tell you, day after day, which they prefer. Every single day a referendum is held on the specific issue of battery farmed hens and every day we vote to support them. You're right that voting with wallets isn't the same as voting. It's more honest. People like to vote to signal the kind of person they want others to think they are. People vote with their wallets because of the kind of person they actually are. Also the argument that buying meat is not cruel to animals is the same one that people who pay for child porn use to explain that nobody got hurt. You can't pay for someone else to do it on your behalf and then say that technically the act of paying is a separate act. My argument is not, and never was, that inhumane farming discredits the case against fox hunting, only that it discredits the animal welfare argument against fox hunting. The fox hunting issue comes down to whether people should be allowed to hurt animals for pleasure. As a society we're already very agreed that you're allowed to hurt animals because it'd cost a quid to not hurt them and you'd rather not spend it. I'm fine with fox hunting being banned, what gets me is the hypocritical moralists whining about the poor foxes. I think you have been in the US for too long Kwark, where they don't care about animals as much. Looking at my local supermarket shelf, I would say half the shelf is devoted to free range eggs.
In any case, I don't care much for animal welfare, but I do care that people in England find delight and joy in the bloodthirsty hunt of fox hunting and the control of such.
|
On May 10 2017 06:19 KwarK wrote:
Regulated conditions doesn't mean humane conditions. A fox's brutal death by hounds is far more merciful than the life of a battery hen. And again, we're talking a tiny number of foxes vs a huge number of hens. Even if foxes were treated less humanely than hens, and again, they're not, we'd be wasting our time trying to talk about it. It's not an animal welfare issue, it's a moral issue. Fox hunting isn't morally objectionable because it hurts animals, it's morally objectionable because it hurts animals for pleasure. As a society the British public have come down firmly in favour of hurting animals for food, they vote with their wallets daily.
There is simply no case for banning things for being contrary to animal welfare while factory livestock farming is still legal. Thinking otherwise is nothing more than ignorance of how food gets on your plate. It's not like they give the cows a bolt gun to make steak fair game.
Minor correction here: Battery cages for chickens were outlawed in the EU as of 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage
So European chickens have it slightly more humane than non-European ones.
|
United States43529 Posts
On May 11 2017 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:39 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's another level to this though KwarK. Buying meat is very removed from participating in animal cruelty. The act of buying meat itself is not cruel to animals, and it isn't directly showing support to cruel farming conditions. Its a massive oversimplification to suggest that the two are the same. 'Voting with wallets' is not the same as voting.
For example, if there was a referendum on improving farming conditions, how do you think it would turn out? It would inevitably end up with less harmful, tortuous conditions for livestock. However, there are monetary gains to be made from this cruelty to animals that passes on benefits to the entire population.
The situation is not remotely analogous to a few of the tories' mates going out killing animals for fun, and then using their money to pressure the party into making it legal and free as much as possible. That doesn't benefit anyone, except a few psychopaths.
I'm not arguing with the point that its a contradiction to ban hunting purely on the grounds of animal welfare, but that's pedantry. On the contrary, I think the wallet is by far the most direct representation of the democratic will of the public you will find. Actions speak louder than words. We don't need to hold a referendum to ask whether people would rather pay more for humanely farmed food or pay less for inhumanely farmed food and holding one would be both redundant and vulnerable to errors introduced by people who think they prefer one but actually prefer the other. All we need to is stock both on the shelves side by side and people will tell you, day after day, which they prefer. Every single day a referendum is held on the specific issue of battery farmed hens and every day we vote to support them. You're right that voting with wallets isn't the same as voting. It's more honest. People like to vote to signal the kind of person they want others to think they are. People vote with their wallets because of the kind of person they actually are. Also the argument that buying meat is not cruel to animals is the same one that people who pay for child porn use to explain that nobody got hurt. You can't pay for someone else to do it on your behalf and then say that technically the act of paying is a separate act. My argument is not, and never was, that inhumane farming discredits the case against fox hunting, only that it discredits the animal welfare argument against fox hunting. The fox hunting issue comes down to whether people should be allowed to hurt animals for pleasure. As a society we're already very agreed that you're allowed to hurt animals because it'd cost a quid to not hurt them and you'd rather not spend it. I'm fine with fox hunting being banned, what gets me is the hypocritical moralists whining about the poor foxes. I think you have been in the US for too long Kwark, where they don't care about animals as much. Looking at my local supermarket shelf, I would say half the shelf is devoted to free range eggs.
I do my bit and buy the fancy eggs over here too. I'm glad that it's spreading, and that it's spreading through consumer awareness.
|
'Free range' is not particularly meaningful. It's a legal guideline and you can have your chickens in pretty ridiculous conditions and still class them as free range. Best thing to do is look into the specific brand you are buying, because some of them are legitimately good conditions and others are not.
In the UK you can find people with their own little flocks in most villages, too. A lot of these will be rehomed from battery (or not-quite-battery) farms. I have about 20 hens. Fresh multicoloured eggs every morning  .
|
Yeah. Free range is meaningless. It can still be indoors with 6 hens per square meter. I buy eco eggs (and meat when I can). Fair trade bananas, coffee and chocolate (or from small coops). Marine stewardship fish (if available. It usually isn't :/ ).
But our farming practices are quite atrocious. People are so far removed from their food that they hardly even know what they're eating and the impact that has.
|
Labour won't leave the EU without a deal and the Liberal Democrats want to offer a vote between the proposed deal and remaining. Only one party understands the most basic premises of negotiation. It's actually embarrassing how shambolic our democracy is at the moment. Two of the three major parties are either incompetent or actively trying to undermine a democratic vote.
|
Soft Brexit is stupid. It's the worst of both worlds. The Lib Dems should simply campaign to stay in the EU imo.
|
Yeah that Lib Dem idea is beyond stupid. Your not window shopping, and the EU would never allow it.
|
On May 12 2017 01:43 bardtown wrote:
Labour won't leave the EU without a deal and the Liberal Democrats want to offer a vote between the proposed deal and remaining. Only one party understands the most basic premises of negotiation. It's actually embarrassing how shambolic our democracy is at the moment. Two of the three major parties are either incompetent or actively trying to undermine a democratic vote.
LibDems are just stupid, but the labour position sounds like a sensible (and transparant) way of getting what they actually want: no brexit at all. We'll negotiate for as long as it takes... 4 years later still no brexit has happened.
|
On May 12 2017 01:43 bardtown wrote:
Labour won't leave the EU without a deal and the Liberal Democrats want to offer a vote between the proposed deal and remaining. Only one party understands the most basic premises of negotiation. It's actually embarrassing how shambolic our democracy is at the moment. Two of the three major parties are either incompetent or actively trying to undermine a democratic vote.
It sounds like only one party accepts the results of the referendum. Leave campaign never alleged second chances after article 50.
Any hopes for reform out of Labour, or for that matter libdems?
|
Maybe the Brexit vote shouldn't have been decided through a simple majority to begin with, is it really surprising that there's going to be a political aftermath if you make a decision like this which practically half of the population opposes?
|
On May 12 2017 03:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 01:43 bardtown wrote:
Labour won't leave the EU without a deal and the Liberal Democrats want to offer a vote between the proposed deal and remaining. Only one party understands the most basic premises of negotiation. It's actually embarrassing how shambolic our democracy is at the moment. Two of the three major parties are either incompetent or actively trying to undermine a democratic vote. LibDems are just stupid, but the labour position sounds like a sensible (and transparant) way of getting what they actually want: no brexit at all. We'll negotiate for as long as it takes... 4 years later still no brexit has happened.
That doesn't actually work very well. It required a unanimous vote by all remaining EU countries to extend the negotiation deadline past the 2 year point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
