I don't see anything wrong with adapting to this idea that wild animals should be given rights.[/QUOTE]
I do. I think it's ridiculous that we should introduce new ways of thinking to adapt to the changing world.
Society has never progressed, so why should we start now?
AlexRocks · Member since
Animal rights is not a new idea. It is thousands of years old. There is nothing new under the sun. As I've said there are certain places that have progressed though you may want to deny it over and over it still is true. My view of the world is hardly U.S. centric. I think people from all walks of life could be as free and prosperous as they choose if they wanted to. I don't think traveling to fourteen countries is too sheltered do you?
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Donna13 wrote:[/b]
But if Brian is being too hasty, and using incorrect statistics and numbers that could cause a loss of credibility in his arguments, then that should be corrected ASAP. I don't think it should just be an issue of how many cows are sick now anyway, but based on higher principles of long term thinking. Sure, there could be loss of income for farmers, but that could just be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher milk and beef prices.[/QUOTE]
The bad facts and bad arguments are constant, and the very fact that it doesn't impact credibility is precisely what leads to this kind of completely egregious - what - sloppiness? arrogance? dishonesty? All of the above?
So right that this just isn't about sick cows - it's a very complex intersection of several issues and principles both tangible and intangible. The conversation however is dominated by people who reject that complexity in single minded pursuit of one goal. How can virtually anything be well served by that? I feel for the farmers not because I pretend to know what the right solution for the UK is but because they really are the ones with the best facts, the most comprehensive figures, the most extensive experience and and deepest knowledge on the issue and they are being completely run over by nonsense like the above (also released by the Badger Trust apparently) which is itself emboldened by a soft sympathetic press that seems unwilling to wade too far into unpopular waters. Imagine having a scientific, epidemiological issue blighting your profession and having it not managed as a matter of science and thoughtful ethics but largely as a matter of self serving politics and blind public opinion. They're in an awful situation, and meanwhile TB seems to just continue to spread throughout not only cow and badger populations but ever outward to other UK wild and domestic animals. Bad situation all around.
Incidentally, it's not necessarily as simple as greater costs being passed on to the consumers. Market pressures have a greater influence than what farmers see as a sustainable price on staples like milk. See http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/business-news/surprise-fall-in-retail-milk-price-during-crisis/52781.article
GratefulFan · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
I was struck a couple of years ago by a piece by George Monbiot stepping back from some of his beliefs about veganism and the sustainability and ethics of raising meat for food. It was based on a book called 'Meat: A Benign Extravagence' which tears down some often parroted bad arguments on both sides and proposes changes in farming practices that would result in sustainable meat production at about half it's current rate.
http://www.monbiot.com/2010/09/07/strong-meat
[/QUOTE]
He had me until he said this:
"many vegetable oils have a bigger footprint than animal fats, and reminds us that even vegan farming necessitates the largescale killing or ecological exclusion of animals: in this case pests."
Great, so veganism is unequivocally a sham because their ideals haven't been fully realized just yet. Perfect. So let's go back to 100% reliance on animals. Crisis averted.
[QUOTE]Or any number of other beings outside of his empathy and compassion glasses so narrow and rigid he may as well have none at all.[/QUOTE]
You keep toting this one, and it is beyond flawed. So if he doesn't have compassion for the ignorant people who can't be bothered to listen to a new point of view, he is the one at fault?
It is ok for others to be intolerant, but for him to be "intolerant" (for lack of a better word) of their intolerance is a problem?
It's like blaming a cancer expert for not curing polio. How about blaming Terry Fox for not running for starving children?
These circular arguments get you absolutely nowhere. They merely justify sitting on your arse while demonizing others who are actually trying to do something. Pick them apart all you want - at least they're out there doing their best, trying to help someone or something.
Such a stance always reminds me of this quote:
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" -- Isaac Asimov
[/QUOTE]
I don't even know where to begin with any of this. Your parsing of Monbiot's position is unsupportable. Your ill-fitting polio and Terry Fox metaphors illustrate once again that you really don't have command of sufficient facts in this complex issue to be weighing in on anything. You really shouldn't be talking about ignorant people. Glass houses and all that.
