The Political Thread

[Dudley]

As Tordel notes, this takes a somewhat simplistic view of man's relationship with the livestock and the land.

Well, your example was specifically about pigs, the disappearance of which would have very little effect on grazing land etc.  I take Tordelback's point in that certain artificial landscapes would disappear, taking with them entire ecosystems.  But, equally new ecosystems would take their place, arguably richer and more diverse.  Given the way that meat-eating contributes to far more significant ecological destruction via (e.g.) methane production, the trade-off seems a fair one.

You're also advocating the planned extinction of a significant number species, which seems odd if you're advocating it from an animal welfare position.

Don't see this at all - the original species will survive, even as the bloated, unhealthy, non-self-sustaining human creations die out.

I don't think you've ever had this argument IRL as you claimed - these points are all very simple and anyone with a basic grasp of animal rights issues should be able to respond without causing too much hilarity.

[Jim_Campbell]

I don't think you've ever had this argument IRL as you claimed - these points are all very simple and anyone with a basic grasp of animal rights issues should be able to respond without causing too much hilarity.

Are you actually calling me a liar, Dudley?

Don't see this at all - the original species will survive, even as the bloated, unhealthy, non-self-sustaining human creations die out.

You think there is room in the British landscape for wild pigs? Without culling?

'Original' species by whose definition? Are you proposing a cut-off date, before which the species is 'pure' and free from the taint of tens of thousands of years of human husbandry and after which the species is undeserving of life?

Yes, you're right, these are clearly simple issues that have clear-cut answers.

Cheers

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

On the question of me owning my own rights or simply applying them, I'm wondering if these aren't actually one and the same thing. If we were to regard rights (for the sake of this argument) as entirely similar to language, would this help in any way? We are all taught the basic rules of language more or less from Day One and after that the language is inside you, "owned" by you. How you then employ your language is entirely up to you. You are free to use words like "nigger" as much as you want but we all accept that there is a risk in doing so.

.
Anyone who "owns" language in this way is capable of producing a work like War and Peace but nobody can be forced (at least not lawfully) to do so.

.
If, then, we treated rights in the same way and taught them equally to everyone in school the application of individually owned rights may become easier. If everyone in the country knew their rights (and responsibilities, of course) then institutions like OffCom would become increasingly irrelevant as businesses would be forced by individuals into acting properly.

.
Let me try and illustrate, again, from my own experience. Some of you may be amused, intrigued or appalled to discover that I haven't paid a water bill in over two years. It's a long story, settle in...

.
It began when I received a water bill that I considered to be too large. I wrote to the water company to express my concerns and negotiate for a reduction. The water company's answer was to install a water meter and then I'd get a reduction next year. Maybe. If I used less water.

.
Without changing my levels of water usage (wasting water has always been one of my bugbears) the meter produced the next water bill which was a third of what I had been paying. This indicated to me that I had been over paying significantly for two decades and so requested some form of recompense from the water company, who flatly refused even to discuss the matter.

.
Dander up, I did a little research and read the gobbledegookinous water privatisation legislation. Most of it was pretty dry and incomprehensible but what I basically learned was that the water companies had purchased two things in order to run the country's water system: a right and a responsibility. The responsibility purchased was to supply the people of the country with adequate drinking water and to safely remove their sewage. The right they purchased was to raise a levy on that service.

.
Nowhere in that legislation did I find a clause rendering that levy compulsory - the only 'compulsory' levy is tax and only governments, not private companies, can impose taxes. Using this new knowledge, I wrote back to the water company and told them that I would pay what they asked if they could prove I had to; either by pointing to specific law or legislation or by producing a contract, signed by me, containing my agreement to pay whatever was demanded of me.

.
Fuck you; pay me.

.
Prove I have to.

.
Fuck you; pay me.

.
This went on for a few months - all the water company did was send terse demands, ignoring my question utterly. When the last three letters demanding payment were all virtually word-for-word identical I felt that an impasse had been reached and imposed a condition of my own: As we're getting nowhere and appear to be going around in circles, and because my time is precious, I am no longer prepared to deal with your correspondence for free. Enclosed is a SAE containing a contract saying that I agree to deal with as many letters as you want to send but my charge is £25 per letter.

.
Fuck you; pay me.

.
As the contract was not returned, every subsequent letter from the water company was returned unopened with "RETURNED UNREAD - AS AGREED" written on it in red Sharpie.

.
This happened about four times before the first letter from a debt collection agency arrived, threatening all manner of legal and financial nasties if I didn't pay up. It took only three letters to convince them that I knew the law well enough to know that a) any company that sells or otherwise passes on any debt to a third party automatically dissolves that debt (Bills of Exchange Act 1882) and that b) no private company (including and especially debt collection agencies) has the right to take my money without my consent.

.
Then the letters from the water company started coming again - and each was RETURNED UNREAD - AS AGREED, a practice which remains in force to this day. The established pattern seems to be 4 letters from the water company, two or three from a debt collection agency, 4 more from the water company and so on and on.

.
If the water company had respected my rights from the outset then it would now be reaping at least some money from my responsibility to pay my share but in denying my rights it is also denying my responsibilities. It cannot deny its responsibilities because it purchased them and is also a thing (a non-living entity, a corporation, a straw man) with far fewer rights and responsibilities than you or me.

.
Of course, whether my strategy will hold in the face of my current situation has yet to be seen but, for the moment at least, I suspect that - so long as I remain firm, stick to my rights and honour my responsibilities - all they can do is threaten, bully and practice to deceive.

.
It is difficult to stand up for oneself under the current system. It seems that many people believe their rights are bestowed from above rather than part of their DNA, so to speak. The more of us that do it, though, the easier it becomes. I've even started helping others with debt collectors - saving them quite a lot of money. I do not charge for this help (although I will admit to getting one or two good shared meals out of it) and never will. My only request is to pass the knowledge on to others so they can own their own rights.

.
Crap - another novel and I still don't think I'm any closer to putting my thoughts on "ownership" into any coherent form!

[Tiplodocus]

I don't think you've ever had this argument IRL as you claimed - these points are all very simple and anyone with a basic grasp of animal rights issues should be able to respond without causing too much hilarity.

Are you actually calling me a liar, Dudley?

Don't see this at all - the original species will survive, even as the bloated, unhealthy, non-self-sustaining human creations die out.

You think there is room in the British landscape for wild pigs? Without culling?

'Original' species by whose definition? Are you proposing a cut-off date, before which the species is 'pure' and free from the taint of tens of thousands of years of human husbandry and after which the species is undeserving of life?

Yes, you're right, these are clearly simple issues that have clear-cut answers.

Cheers

Jim

Well then you've been engaging with very dim vegetarian and vegans.

The very first thing you learn to do when faced with one of these "magic wand" questions (or the ever hilarious, "If you were stranded on a desert island, and the only thing to eat is a pig, would you kill it?") is to respond with:

"You are asking me to respond to a completely hypothetical scenario.

What YOU need to ask YOURSELF FIRST is the very REAL question and scenario:

Why, when there is currently an abundance of ways and means of feeding yourself with fruit, vegetables, nuts and pulses that do not require any cruelty to, or the slaughter of animals, do you continue to choose to eat meat and inflict pain and suffering and slaughter? "


As to the "Magic Wand" question:

So ultimately you may have to cull the current live stock of pigs which were all destined to be cruelly slaughtered anyway.  To end up in a world where nobody eats meat?  I would suggest that the vegans and vegetarians are not making the issue any worse.

The poor pigs are getting it either way.

One ends up with a status quo (creating new generations of pigs to which we are cruel and ultimately slaughter) and one which, after an uncomfortable and unpleasant start, leads to a more sustainable world where there is no animal cruelty.

Is that really that hard a decision even if you don't have a magic wand?

[The Legendary Shark]

On the question of animals, I really don't know what our long-term objectives should be, although I do have some suggestions for the short term:

.
Break up mega-farms and re-institute as many small, "family" or community farms as possible, such farms dedicated to feeding the local populace and trade of excess products.

.
An immediate cessation and reversal of the breathtakingly ill-advised United Nations projects "Agenda 21" and "Codex Alimentarius".

.
Immediate repeal of legislation requiring all livestock to be injected with antibiotics and artificial growth hormones.

.
A complete ban (except where impracticable, for example remote communities requiring fresh stocks) on the transport of living animals more than 20 miles.

.
More families should own a cow or a pig or chickens so we can not only feed ourselves with meat, milk an eggs we know to be of good quality but also learn about what we're eating.

.
Fewer supermarkets and more local butcher's shops sourcing local products.

.
Running the farming industry to meet the needs of society instead of the needs of shareholders, stockbrokers and bankers.

.
Heh - you knew I couldn't leave the bankers out for long, right?

[Richmond Clements]

Why, when there is currently an abundance of ways and means of feeding yourself with fruit, vegetables, nuts and pulses that do not require any cruelty to, or the slaughter of animals, do you continue to choose to eat meat and inflict pain and suffering and slaughter?

And an excellent question this is, too.
My answer is that as long as I can live with myself for eating the flesh of another animal, I will do so. There may come a time when I change my mind (I only eat meat once or twice a week as it is) but that is not today.

Sort version: Because bacon.

[JamesC]

What YOU need to ask YOURSELF FIRST is the very REAL question and scenario:

Why, when there is currently an abundance of ways and means of feeding yourself with fruit, vegetables, nuts and pulses that do not require any cruelty to, or the slaughter of animals, do you continue to choose to eat meat and inflict pain and suffering and slaughter? [/i] "

If I'm totally honest it's partly because I enjoy the taste of meat but it's far more to do with laziness on my part. It's so convenient being a meat eater. If I'm on a long drive I can stop off any time I see the golden arches.
I have thought about becoming a vegetarian but I just can't bring myself to re-educate myself with what I can and can't eat and to learn to cook again. Everything in my repertoire contains meat and I find vegetarian cookery very un-intuitive.
I console myself by trying to be a responsible meat eater. I try to buy good quality meat with the tractor mark and I don't eat meat every day (my girlfriend is vegetarian but I can only stand her meals about 3 times a week as she only knows how to make about 4 things and they're all what I call Blob Dinners).

I do think it's possible to farm animals for food without them suffering but I try not to think about this too much to be honest (which is probably a bit cowardly - I'm happy to eat a bacon sarnie and ask no questions).   

If I became a parent I may think about making a more drastic change, or at least looking into the issues more deeply - if only to give sensible, informed answers to the inevitable animal cruelty questions.

[Tiplodocus]

Indeed, and that is REALLY the answer for a lot of people despite the many varied and hilarious excuses they give ("But we've been designed to eat meat" etc.).

I always find myself amused when people accuse vegans and vegetarians of "taking the moral high ground" when, if you examine the anwer to that question, they HAVE the moral high ground.

Eating meat, and dairy, is ultimately a SELFISH act.  The person cares only about the self, not the cruel fate of the animals or the effects on the planet.

The next question, is of course, how do we get everybody to stop being selfish.

[Tiplodocus]

(For a start, you don't call them "selfish").

[Jim_Campbell]

Well then you've been engaging with very dim vegetarian and vegans.

That was rather the subtext of my original post.

Why, when there is currently an abundance of ways and means of feeding yourself with fruit, vegetables, nuts and pulses that do not require any cruelty to, or the slaughter of animals, do you continue to choose to eat meat and inflict pain and suffering and slaughter?

OK, firstly, I don't condone pain and suffering. Up until relatively recently, in smaller rural communities people kept pigs that lived (seemingly) content lives in fields and were well fed up until the day the chap in the village with the gun came round and shot them. I am not convinced that transporting live animals hundreds of miles to massive abattoirs and slaughtering them on an industrial scale represents an improvement in animal welfare. Again: I am not arguing for the status quo.

However, living involves eating things and, absent my ability to photosynthesise, something has to die to facilitate that. I don't have any particular problem with that proposition in and of itself* and I don't accord human beings any special status in the food chain. We're largely hairless apes who've wound up top of the food chain by a couple of million years of very lucky breaks. I appreciate that there are good health reasons for not eating people, but I have no particular qualms about the idea in the abstract: in a straight 'stranded on a desert island' choice, I'd certainly eat a dead human before I killed a live pig.

I absolutely believe that if we are going to expect sheep and pigs and cows and chickens to die in order to feed us, then they should live lives that are as comfortable as possible and are ushered off this mortal coil in a fashion as humane as is humanly possible. I have the massive luxury of being reasonably well off and living somewhere I can directly access meat butchered and prepared by the farmers who raised the animals. Had I more land, I would happily put my money where my mouth is and keep and kill my own chickens.

Eating meat does not automatically mean "[choosing] to inflict pain and suffering and slaughter", and I'm not arguing in favour of a system that does so.

Cheers

Jim

*It always annoys me when there's a shark hunt after a surfer gets eaten, for example. If you're going to present yourself as food to one of the few species on the planet capable of posing a threat... well, circle of life and all that.

[Tiplodocus]

Nice points.

"Eating meat does not automatically mean "[choosing] to inflict pain and suffering and slaughter", and I'm not arguing in favour of a system that does so"

Two of the three are certainly open to debate (I'd argue all captivity/ownership is a form of suffering) but I'm pretty certain you have to slaughter the animals to eat their meat.

Unless you go for eating them one joint at a time. ;o)

[Jim_Campbell]

Two of the three are certainly open to debate (I'd argue all captivity/ownership is a form of suffering) but I'm pretty certain you have to slaughter the animals to eat their meat.

"Pig like that, you don't eat it all at once..."*

No, you're right about the slaughtering.

However, I think that if sheep could talk, they'd most likely disagree with you about the captivity/ownership thing. Let's be honest: a sheep's life consists of getting born, wandering around fields eating grass, having a couple of lambs every year and dying after a few years. Add humans to this and what you get is the exact same life with the addition of someone who actively looks after them, keeps them safe from predators and feeds them when food is scarce. A friend of mine once observed that, from a sheep's point of view, the best thing they ever did was invent shepherds.

Cheers

Jim

*Very old joke.

[M.I.K.]

A high number of fruit, vegetables and pulses do not agree with my digestive system. If I eat too many of them my stomach makes its displeasure evident in a horribly uncomfortable manner. I love the taste of cucumber but I've learned I have to completely avoid the things or suffer severe pain. Can't eat too many onions, can't eat the tiniest amount of peppers, too much wheat causes acid, can't eat too much of any green, leafy stuff and eating more than one banana a day recently proved to be a huge mistake.

Unless I was prepared to live on a diet of nowt but raw carrots and stuff made from potatoes, (which I think might also be causing a certain degree of bloating), I could never be a vegetarian without being in a constant state of intense discomfort. Eating meat and fish has never caused me such problems, (except for earlier this year when an H. Pylori infection made it impossible to eat pretty much anything without bringing it back up in an acidic soup).

So, yes, it might be selfish, but I think I'll remain an omnivore.

[Ancient Otter]

Indeed, and that is REALLY the answer for a lot of people despite the many varied and hilarious excuses they give ("But we've been designed to eat meat" etc.).

I'm not asking out of snarkyness but are we not designed to eat fruit, vegetables, grains etc. and meat? I'm just asking you because you seem the right person to ask this. I think it is totally noble of a person to be a vegetarian/vegan so no animal will ever harmed for them but the "not designed to meat" argument I'm unclear about.

[TordelBack]

It's the whole concept of 'being designed' I find most problematic  . 

But more seriously, asserting knowledge about what humans 'evolved to eat' when that is by no means clear, either in terms of basic definitions of 'human', palaeoanthropological evidence or its relevance to what humans eat now, strikes me as unwise in what is essentially an ethical argument.

I'm very sympathetic to vegitarianism, I was a vegetarian for 8 years, I've volunteered in an animal welfare shelter for 14 years, I make sure what little meat we eat is as free-range and cruelty-free as possible, and I make sure I cook my kids tasty vegitarian food at least twice a week so that they see it as a viable, enjoyable choice.  But it remains one option, with costs and benefits and repercussions that are worthy of debate.