PDA

View Full Version : Human attitudes toward animals



Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 12:34 PM
I find it very strange that human beings readily anthropomorphize their animal pets but (for the most part) completely ignore the routine inhumane factory farm practices with regard to our animal protein.

Kaa
10-12-2012, 12:39 PM
Why strange? I find this completely normal and as-expected.

If you live with an animal, interact with it, take care of it, play with it, feed it, etc. -- you will form an emotional connection with it. But a random animal somewhere that you've never seen and will never see...

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 12:47 PM
I think you are correct in one regard... the closer you live with a domestic animal the more you realize your responsibility toward it.

Pigs are more intelligent than dogs or cats. Yet the modern factory farm treats them in an inhumane manner. We don't care because we are detached and value inexpensive animal protein above all other considerations.

I think the ancient Jewish and Pagan religious animal sacrifice rituals were far more humane than our modern practice. The entire idea behind their ritual was that animals are sentient beings worthy of tremendous respect.

Kaa
10-12-2012, 12:50 PM
But the modern factory farms treat them in an inhumane manner.

That entirely depends on your definition of "inhumane".


The entire idea behind their ritual was that animals are sentient beings worthy of tremendous respect.

Ahem. How shall I put it? That's pure unmitigated BS.

Kaa

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 12:55 PM
Tom,
This might interest you:

Citizens' summary
EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
The welfare of some animals is routinely compromised in the EU.
For example, piglets have their tails cut off and are castrated without anaesthesia.
Lack of enforcement, insufficient economic incentives, poor knowledge on animal welfare and the
absence of specific guidance for certain species are the common reasons for most animal welfare
problems encountered in the EU.
WHAT EXACTLY WOULD CHANGE?
The EU is taking a series of actions to address these common problems. Dealing effectively with
problems does not always need new law. Sometimes better enforcement of existing rules can make
an important difference too. It is also important to develop tools that will improve the economic value of
animal welfare for businesses and increase awareness among everyone involved. In particular:
1. To simplify the EU legislative framework on animal welfare so as to:
• Increase transparency of animal welfare claims;
• Focus on the results for the animals;
• Improve education for people handling animals.
2. To better use and reinforce existing actions:
• Increase compliance with EU legislation;
• Strengthen international cooperation;
• Improve information to consumers and the public;
• Optimise synergies with the Common Agriculture Policy;
• Investigate specific problems like the welfare of farmed fish.
WHO WOULD BENEFIT AND HOW?
All of us, as citizens and consumers, would benefit because we care about animals and want them to
be well treated.
The Animal Welfare Strategy will improve information to consumers, retailers, food services and food
processors on animal welfare through the development a transparent system for animal welfare
claims.
Commercial sectors dealing with animals, in particular farmers, because the strategy will provide them
with tools to better innovate and promote their actions on animal welfare.
WHY DOES ACTION HAVE TO BE TAKEN BY THE EU?
National authorities have an important role to play to protect animals but meat, milk, eggs and other
animal products are freely traded within the EU. Conditions of competition have to be the same for all
producers.
In addition, if Member States perform checks, finance research and education on animal welfare, their
actions are often insufficiently coordinated. The Strategy will improve information flows and
coordination of research on animal welfare between Member States through the proposal to establish
a network of reference centres as is the case for animal health.
WHEN IS THE STRATEGY LIKELY TO COME INTO EFFECT?
The strategy is comprised of a list of actions that will come gradually into effect from 2012 to 2015. For
example, in 2012 the Commission will set up an implementing plan on the grouping of sows. In 2013, it
will publish guidelines on the protection of pigs. In 2014 it will consider and possibly prepare a
proposal for a general EU animal welfare legislative framework, etc.
from :http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 12:58 PM
That entirely depends on your definition of "inhumane".So present your concept of "humane."


Ahem. How shall I put it? That's pure unmitigated BS.Not nearly good enough. Explain.

Kaa
10-12-2012, 01:14 PM
So present your concept of "humane."

Err.. let me adjust my answer :-) Before we even get to the definition of humane, the first question is whether "humane" (in its dictionary definition of compassionate and merciful) is the right concept. To give an idea, does it make sense to talk about whether, say, shrimp farming is humane?


Not nearly good enough. Explain.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the "ancients" considered animals to be sentient beings. And I don't see where you get the "tremendous respect" either.

When you kill an animal -- either for sacrifice or just for food -- you want it to be quick and painless for your own convenience and safety.

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 01:29 PM
But this thread is not merely about humane slaughtering.

This thread is about the humane vs. inhumane RAISING of animals.

Address that issue, Kaa.

Kaa
10-12-2012, 01:35 PM
This thread is about the humane vs. inhumane RAISING of animals.

Address that issue, Kaa.

What exactly is the issue?

Would you like to grant farm animals certain rights?

Kaa

wardd
10-12-2012, 01:38 PM
my ducks think they are better than me

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 01:42 PM
What exactly is the issue?

Would you like to grant farm animals certain rights?

Kaa
The right not to have to live like this?
http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/data/image_3_5406.jpg
orhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1yOvcLwqr5Q/Tbdk7x_ntVI/AAAAAAAAAAs/ExJLzWwk0Pc/s320/Gestation%2BCrates.jpg

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 01:46 PM
What exactly is the issue?

Would you like to grant farm animals certain rights?
What would Jesus do, Kaa?

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 01:55 PM
How would Jesus raise a sheep, Kaa?

ishmael
10-12-2012, 01:58 PM
I agree with you, Tom. Deplorable!

For a variety of reasons(cost being one, the above abuse another) I've cut back on my meat eating. I still eat it on occasion, but when I do I try to be selective about what I buy. It's not, however, that easy to find pasture-raised animals around here. I've found I can enjoy properly prepared beans and rice just as much as meat.

If karma is real we have a tremendous debt to pay off down the road.

BrianW
10-12-2012, 02:09 PM
How would Jesus raise a sheep, Kaa?

He was good at making a little food go a long way.

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 02:19 PM
Yep.

Responsible animal husbandry is becoming extinct. Because people like Kaa don''t see the point.

bamamick
10-12-2012, 02:28 PM
I do not eat beef or pork or lamb because of the reasons some here have stated. I have weaned myself off of this over time and I don't miss it, really. I am lucky in that I can eat seafood year round.

If more people really had it shoved in their faces how these animals are raised they would do the same. Thing about it is, turkeys and chickens are raised in just as deplorable conditions, and I eat a lot of turkey meat.

I read a book not too long ago called 'the lucky ones' about a young lady who has dedicated her life to rescuing farm animals and giving them a life (and death) with some dignity. If you love animals, which my family and I do, you will not feel the same way after looking into this subject just a tiny bit.

Of course, it is the luxury of our times which allow such thoughts. If we want to eat we simply go to the store and pick up food, or go out somewhere. People in harder times worry little about where the food comes from. It is only now, after a couple of generations of plenty, that people are questioning the ethics of how we got here. A couple of generations of struggling to get by and people will forget all about factory farming. It's like an article that I read where Prince Charles was speaking about organic farming at a convention in the UK. An old gaffer stood up and told HRH 'if you will promise to give me a couple of million pounds then I will promise you that I will do nothing but organic farming', and honestly, it's as simple as that. Farmers want to send their kids to college, too. Isn't that right?

Mickey Lake

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 02:30 PM
I don't know -- if you want to talk human equivalencies, I'd start with the right of being not raised to be killed and eaten. In comparison with this, housing conditions are a minor niggle.

Kaa
If we had evolved to be vegetarian, and still achieved the current world population that we have now, wow many animal species would still exist?

Waddie
10-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Yep, it's all Kaa's fault..... or maybe it's the needs of seven billion people, most of whom can't afford "free range" animal protein. Tom, since you're against many modern farming practices, how would you provide seven billion people with cheap food?

regards,
Waddie

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Yep, it's all Kaa's fault..... or maybe it's the needs of seven billion people, most of whom can't afford "free range" animal protein. Tom, since you're against many modern farming practices, how would you provide seven billion people with cheap food?

Are you suggesting that there are no other sources of inexpensive and plentiful protein?

By the way... I come from a long line of farmers. Going back to the 14th century according the family genealogist.

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Yep, it's all Kaa's fault..... or maybe it's the needs of seven billion people, most of whom can't afford "free range" animal protein. Tom, since you're against many modern farming practices, how would you provide seven billion people with cheap food?

regards,
Waddie
I am puzzled as to why the US needs intensive animal husbandry over "free range" it is not as though the US is short of space.

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 02:47 PM
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-P

Arguably, the concentrated nutrition from animal protein and fat was a very important step in allowing the evolution of a bigger brain. Herbivores spend most of their day chewing and there's a good reason for that.

Kaa

I know all of that, work with me. It's a thought experiment, think about the possible consequences on the planets ecology.

bamamick
10-12-2012, 02:48 PM
According to my farming friends, free range cattle and hogs do not produce enough weight for the same amount of time you put into them (this makes sense). It is simply a matter of economics. If we are willing to pay substantially more for milk, cheese, eggs, etc, and of course, meat, then it would not be an issue. Ask the people living below the poverty level if they would be willing to do that.

Personally I buy all of the 'natural' products I can get my hands on, but I make good money and can afford it.

Mickey Lake

Tom Montgomery
10-12-2012, 02:50 PM
I am puzzled as to why the US needs intensive animal husbandry over "free range" it is not as though the US is short of space.
Because we worship the dollar and inexpensive protein trumps all other considerations.

Waddie
10-12-2012, 02:58 PM
I am puzzled as to why the US needs intensive animal husbandry over "free range" it is not as though the US is short of space.

Most all of the available farmland globally is now in production. Many acres that you see (from the air perhaps), are not good for cultivation. And it's true that animals consume lots of grain, but we're lucky that they do. Much of the grain that's produced isn't able to be graded for human consumption, so it is fed to animals. Many acres, like in Nebraska or the Kansas Flint Hills, aren't suited to plowing, only to pasture. So it's not so much of a waste as most people think to raise animals.

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 03:07 PM
<shrug> Not that much, I think. Sure, some extinctions would not have occurred. On the other hand, how many wolves are left in Western Europe? That's not because they're food. Also by now habitat destruction is a major threat and a vegetarian society is not immune from it.

Kaa
You are on the right lines. Wolves and the aurochs went because they competed with or were detrimental in other ways to our food animals. Think of what would have happened to the animals that would have competed with our food source had we been vegetarian.

Waddie
10-12-2012, 03:07 PM
I'm still waiting-----Come on, Tom, or anybody, tell me how you're going to produce cheap enough food to feed in volume on a global scale, without using modern farming techniques. Some of you may come from farming ancestry, but I'm a part owner in a modern farm, and we haven't figured out how to make money from "free range" unless your farm is a fairly short drive from a major town with some affluent citizens. Our farm is far from any urban center.

BTW; many farmers market sellers advertize "organic", but don't bet on it. Same for some of the "organic" in stores. Authentic "Organic" requires a certification that isn't easy to meet, and even real organic allows some types of modern farming techniques.

regards,
Waddie

skuthorp
10-12-2012, 03:15 PM
Yep, it's all Kaa's fault..... or maybe it's the needs of seven billion people, most of whom can't afford "free range" animal protein. Tom, since you're against many modern farming practices, how would you provide seven billion people with cheap food?

regards,
Waddie
And there lies the problem,"seven billion people".
But humans have no problem dehumanising their own species and killing them at random, it's part of the reason for our success as a species, we're nasty. Animals come a very poor last in our considerations. And as for our 'special' relationship with our pets, it's not always so special. Just ask your local SPCA or animal shelter about holiday time.
In any case it's mostly a western middle class issue because we are removed from the farming practices that provide our meat and we can afford the distraction.

Waddie
10-12-2012, 03:15 PM
WHAT MAKES PRODUCE "ORGANIC"?
Contrary to what most people believe, "organic" does not automatically mean "pesticide-free" or "chemical-free". In fact, under the laws of most states, organic farmers are allowed to use a wide variety of chemical sprays and powders on their crops.

So what does organic mean? It means that these pesticides, if used, must be derived from natural sources, not synthetically manufactured. Also, these pesticides must be applied using equipment that has not been used to apply any synthetic materials for the past three years, and the land being planted cannot have been treated with synthetic materials for that period either.

Most organic farmers (and even some conventional farmers, too) employ mechanical and cultural tools to help control pests. These include insect traps, careful crop selection (there are a growing number of disease-resistant varieties), and biological controls (such as predator insects and beneficial microorganisms).

ORGANIC PRODUCE AND PERSONAL HEALTH
When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

ORGANIC PESTICIDES VERSUS SYNTHETIC PESTICIDES
Clearly, the less we impact our environment, the better off we all are. Organic farming practices have greatly advanced the use of non-chemical means to control pests, as mentioned earlier.

Unfortunately, these non-chemical methods do not always provide enough protection, and it's necessary to use chemical pesticides. How do organic pesticides compare with conventional pesticides?

A recent study compared the effectiveness of a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture versus a synthetic pesticide, imidan. Rotenone and pyrethrin are two common organic pesticides; imidan is considered a "soft" synthetic pesticide (i.e., designed to have a brief lifetime after application, and other traits that minimize unwanted effects). It was found that up to 7 applications of the rotenone- pyrethrin mixture were required to obtain the level of protection provided by 2 applications of imidan.

It seems unlikely that 7 applications of rotenone and pyrethrin are really better for the environment than 2 applications of imidan, especially when rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and other aquatic life.

It should be noted, however, that we don't know for certain which system is more harmful. This is because we do not look at organic pesticides the same way that we look at conventional pesticides. We don't know how long these organic pesticides persist in the environment, or the full extent of their effects.

When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.

WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
For obvious reasons, organic farmers have done little, if anything, to dispel the myth that "organic = chemical/pesticide-free". They would only stand to lose business by making such a disclosure.

Pesticide manufacturers have little concern in the matter. To them, "synthetic pesticides sold" and "organic pesticides sold" are both "pesticides sold".

As for conventional farmers, they are not really in a position to be critical. It would not be in their interest to draw attention to chemical and pesticide use.


http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

regards,
Waddie

BrianY
10-12-2012, 03:23 PM
'Animals" by The Talking Heads


I’m mad...and that’s a fact
I found out...animals don’t help
Animal think...they’re pretty smart
**** on the ground...see in the dark.

They wander around like a crazy dog
Make a mistake in the parking lot
Always bumping into things
Always let you down down down down.

They’re never there when you need them
They never come when you call them
They’re never there when you need them
The never come when you call them down down down down.

I know the animals...are laughing at us
They don’t even know...what a joke is
I won’t follow...animal’s advice
I don’t care...if they’re laughing at us.

They’re never there when you need them
They never come when you call them
They’re never there when you need them
The never come when you call them down down down down.

They say they don’t need money
They’re lvinign on nuts and berries
They say animals don’t worry
You know animals are hairy?
They think they know what’s best
They’re making a fool of us
They ought to be more careful
They’re setting a bad example
They have untroubled lives
They think everything’s nice
They like to laugh at people
They’re setting a bad example
(go ahead) laugh at me.

ccmanuals
10-12-2012, 03:27 PM
I don't think this all has to be one or the other. I'm pretty sure we can figure out how to farm and raise animals for food without the cruelty. How about enacting some commen sense standards?

Peerie Maa
10-12-2012, 03:35 PM
I don't think this all has to be one or the other. I'm pretty sure we can figure out how to farm and raise animals for food without the cruelty. How about enacting some commen sense standards?

See post #5

ccmanuals
10-12-2012, 03:43 PM
See post #5


Yikes, if they are doing this in the EU then it can't be done in the US! We would be just like those European socialists. :)

Shang
10-12-2012, 05:25 PM
Most all of the available farmland globally is now in production. Many acres that you see (from the air perhaps), are not good for cultivation. And it's true that animals consume lots of grain, but we're lucky that they do. Much of the grain that's produced isn't able to be graded for human consumption, so it is fed to animals. Many acres, like in Nebraska or the Kansas Flint Hills, aren't suited to plowing, only to pasture. So it's not so much of a waste as most people think to raise animals.

regards,
Waddie

No, it's the other way around, seventy percent of our best farm land is used only for meat production. This is extremely inefficient.

"...According to the United Nations, raising animals for food (including land used for grazing and land used to grow feed crops) now uses a staggering 30 percent of the Earth's land mass. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to grow grain to feed farmed animals, and according to scientists at the Smithsonian Institution, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed worldwide every minute to create more room for farmed animals...
...Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, they only produce comparatively small amounts of meat, dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh."

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources.aspx

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Yep, it's all Kaa's fault..... or maybe it's the needs of seven billion people, most of whom can't afford "free range" animal protein. Tom, since you're against many modern farming practices, how would you provide seven billion people with cheap food?

regards,
Waddie

Strangely enough the vast majority of your "cheap" animal derived food is unnecessary to human health, in fact it's lack improves health, say's I after 40 years of vegetarian diet.

Waddie
10-12-2012, 06:31 PM
....only 7 percent of the world's land was being used for agriculture in 1700. The Amazon basin has seen some of the greatest changes in recent times, with huge swaths of the rainforest being felled to grow soya beans."One of the major changes we see is the fast expansion of soybeans in Brazil and Argentina, grown for export to China and the EU," Ramankutty said.
This agricultural expansion has come at the expense of tropical forests in both countries. Meanwhile, intensive farming practices mean that cropland areas have decreased slightly in the US and Europe and the land is being gobbled up by urbanization. The research indicates that there is now little room for further agricultural expansion.
"Except for Latin America and Africa, all the places in the world where we could grow crops are already being cultivated. The remaining places are either too cold or too dry to grow crops," Ramankutty said.
The scientists hope that by continuing to monitor changes in land use, they will be able to highlight problems and help find solutions.
"The real question is, how can we continue to produce food from the land while preventing negative environmental consequences such as deforestation, water pollution and soil erosion?" Ramankutty said.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/12/07/2003283384

regards,
Waddie

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 06:49 PM
Now this is a good topic, but why so late damn I'm tiredBY:D

Factory farming and all that goes with it is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust and it's blithely ignored by all and sundry for the sake of cheaper meat. Pathetic!!:arg

The single biggest danger to the world environment is the continued expansion of Western style factory farming of animal products and the swing towards a Western style "animal product heavy" diet in the Developing world. it is totally unsustainable and is destroying not only the atmosphere but the water and soil resources as well .
It is an incredibly inefficient system to grow food that humans could consume and then feed it to animals before eating the product!!, A process that is incredibly inefficient and involves significant food value losses at each step.
The single issue of feeding antibiotics to factory farm animals and the resultant loss of potency of our antibiotic defense against infection has the potential kill more people than will ever be fed as a result of factory farming!!

Waddie
10-12-2012, 06:53 PM
Now this is a good topic, but why so late damn I'm tiredBY:D

Factory farming and all that goes with it is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust and it's blithely ignored by all and sundry for the sake of cheaper meat. Pathetic!!:arg

This thread started regarding animal farming, but modern "factory" farming goes far past that. We are in a race to feed a ballooning world population. How else would you feed seven billion people - how about ten billion??? "free range" chickens??? Get real......

regards,
Waddie

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 06:58 PM
This thread started regarding animal farming, but modern "factory" farming goes far past that. We are in a race to feed a ballooning world population. How else would you feed seven billion people - how about ten billion??? "free range" chickens??? Get real......

regards,
Waddie

No chickens!!
get real. Why feed chickens instead of people and then feed the chickens to a few select groups who can afford the chickens while destroying the environment for all!!

Meli
10-12-2012, 07:03 PM
What exactly is the issue?

Would you like to grant farm animals certain rights?

Kaa

Yes. The right to be cared for, properly cleaned and fed and when their time comes, to be killed quickly.
Animals bred for the table should be killed on the farm not hereded into trucks with some other animal pooping on their heads, driven hungry and thirsty for hours in fear.
I'm no vegitarian, but animals do have rights.

Meli
10-12-2012, 07:04 PM
This thread started regarding animal farming, but modern "factory" farming goes far past that. We are in a race to feed a ballooning world population. How else would you feed seven billion people - how about ten billion??? "free range" chickens??? Get real......

regards,
Waddie

Eat less meat??:rolleyes:

Donn
10-12-2012, 07:13 PM
Eat less meat??:rolleyes:

Grow more meat. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/donnwest/smilies/nana.gif

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 07:18 PM
Grow more meat. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/donnwest/smilies/nana.gif

The informed opinion of a middle class Western guy!!
Standard practice, "ignore the real end result and look after my own immeadiate pleasures"!!
And people wonder where the problem has come from!!

Meli
10-12-2012, 07:22 PM
^ that's sexist :D

TomF
10-12-2012, 07:23 PM
There's always the Soylent Green option. ;)

Bottom line is that there are too many humans, and we're not only crowding out other species we find not terribly useful, but poorly treating species which we do find useful. Because for us as a species, it's always been about us.

It is entirely characteristic of us that we treat the animals we eat the way we do, when you reflect on how we treat the rest of the environment within which we live. To say nothing of how we've typically treated other humans outside our own select identity groups. The exercise of compassion is a difficult thing for us even with each other, let alone across species boundaries. A mark of our poverty, says I.

Shang
10-12-2012, 07:28 PM
Then there the bright side...global warming may very well make the production of farm animals for human food impossible, or at least impractical, within a generation. Enjoy burgers while you can, but prepare to become vegetarian.

seanz
10-12-2012, 07:31 PM
Why strange? I find this completely normal and as-expected.

If you live with an animal, interact with it, take care of it, play with it, feed it, etc. -- you will form an emotional connection with it. But a random animal somewhere that you've never seen and will never see...

Kaa

Outasight, outamind? A refreshing ethical perspective.

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 07:38 PM
This thread started regarding animal farming, but modern "factory" farming goes far past that. We are in a race to feed a ballooning world population. How else would you feed seven billion people - how about ten billion??? "free range" chickens??? Get real......

regards,
Waddie

Why not? Poultry can be raised in acceptable conditions right along side humans and use all that wasted food we produce. An excellent solution.

Donn
10-12-2012, 08:02 PM
The informed opinion of a middle class Western guy!!
Standard practice, "ignore the real end result and look after my own immeadiate pleasures"!!
And people wonder where the problem has come from!!

You really are full of yourself, Farfie.

Pity about your illiteracy.

seanz
10-12-2012, 08:11 PM
So, how do you live your comfortable life knowing there are children dying from hunger in Africa right now?

Kaa

My life is comfortable? I suppose it is, not that you'd care, you can't see me.

You can't see the children in Africa either, so why do you bother to ask a question about them?

seanz
10-12-2012, 08:21 PM
Because your ethical theory seems to deride the "outasight, outamind" approach.[QUOTE]

What do you care if it does? It can't possibly matter to you what another person, so far away, thinks about anything.


[QUOTE=Kaa;3561306]Given this, you should care about children in Africa as much as about someone dying on your doorstep. Do you?

Kaa

Is the doorstep completely blocked by their corpse? Can I step around them? Can I just nip out the back while someone else takes care of the body? Why are they dying? Is it contagious?

Hmm. If I just stay inside, maybe I won't see them and then they won't matter.


Now, exactly which ethical theory were you attributing to my post?
TIA
:)

Waddie
10-12-2012, 08:27 PM
Eat less meat??:rolleyes:

Just like the rest of the world wanting the consumer lifestyle we are accustomed to, they also are eating, and determined to have, more meat in their diets. WE sold most of the world on the idea that capitalism and democracy would make it possible for everyone to live just like us. Well, they believed it, and now want our lifestyle lock, stock and barrel. And that includes more meat in their diet. So you be the one to tell them they can't have the American Dream, which includes the inalienable right to a chicken in every pot as promised by numerous politicians over the years. Good luck on that.....

regards,
Waddie

TomF
10-12-2012, 08:30 PM
BS. Too many humans by what criterion?

If you feel strongly about the issue you can always take steps to start fixing that problem.

KaaToo many humans by the criterion of the impact on our ecosystem of our rather unbridled growth. As we're demonstrably poor at regulating our consumption patterns, the ecosystem would be better off were there fewer of us doing the consuming.

We didn't get to 10% of the big fish left in the sea because those 10% had their appetites grow.

As to helping depopulation along ... I'm not about to eat my kids, but I'm happy to not prolong my own life by extraordinary means. Dying's part of the whole gig. And yeah, I support (and help fund) contraception etc.

seanz
10-12-2012, 08:32 PM
Any theory which would claim that physical closeness and personal acquaintance do not matter in ethical matters :-P Isn't that what caused your "outasight, outamind" comment in the first place?

Kaa

?

No.

Pity, you were doing so well.

You can have a do-over, I care about your feelings even though I can't see you.
:)

seanz
10-12-2012, 08:40 PM
Sniffle sob. How sweet of you.

So what DID cause that "outasight, outamind" comment?

Kaa

It was caused by your refreshing ethical perspective, which implied that you would eat a horse as long as you'd never fed it an apple.

TomF
10-12-2012, 08:41 PM
And, pray tell, why should I care whether a particular ecosystem would have been "better off"? Does it have its own interests and rights? Is every field an injury to the forest or the prairies/steppes that were there before?

Against whose interests do you want to balance human interests?

KaaAgainst the rest of the planet's inhabitants' interests. Pick a species, and tell me why we have more right to exist and dominate.

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 08:45 PM
And, pray tell, why should I care whether a particular ecosystem would have been "better off"? Does it have its own interests and rights? Is every field an injury to the forest or the prairies/steppes that were there before?

Against whose interests do you want to balance human interests?

Kaa

The answer to that is completely obvious even to you ?

John A. Campbell
10-12-2012, 08:53 PM
I want to address this issue on a somewhat different note.......I was born and raised on a farm located about 1/4 mile from where I now live. I can vividly remember my father castrating pigs and calves as part of the process of raising livestock. That was a traumatic experience for me......hearing and knowing about the pain the animals suffered without any form of treatment to reduce it. I can also remember telling my 4H/Ag teacher on field trips that I would not participate in the process of castration even if it meant that I would fail the class.... he didn't push that issue. I distinctly remember telling my father that if I had my way with it, farmers and ranchers (including him) would go to jail if they treated an animal that way without pain control, I was about 12 years old at the time, and I refused to take part in any of it......that was 61 years ago and I still feel that way today. Now you can call me overly tender hearted or anything else you wish but I call it being HUMANE ........by the way, I am a long standing member of ASPCA and am 100% supportive of their efforts.

seanz
10-12-2012, 08:56 PM
Don't see any problems with it. My ethical relations with a creature with which I've formed an emotional bond are not the same as with one I've never seen.

Kaa

So your ethical basis is entirely emotional? Your neighbours start torturing and killing cats for sport but as long as the cats aren't your pets, that's fine?

Any problems with that?

Besides the noise?

Chip-skiff
10-12-2012, 09:00 PM
What heartrendingly earnest sentiments. It'd be refreshing to have a detailed account of how your thinking changes the way you live, day to day.

Being married to someone who publishes articles and book chapters on the impact of agriculture on native species, I've learned more than I ought to know for my own good. In practical terms, we've pretty much stopped eating beef and use other domestic meats quite sparingly. In September we went hunting and killed an antelope, which I skinned and cut up, while she wrapped. The antelope was not happy being shot. I wouldn't be happy trying to exist on a veg diet in a climate and landscape that produces wild animals but not a great deal in terms of vegetables or grains (let alone fruit). The greenhouse and short-season garden will carry us only so far.

Where I live plays the largest part in my reckoning of what constitutes a right livelihood, and that has come up only in passing (someone mentioned eating seafood in Florida). Universal moral dicta concerning practical subsistence tend to be a big blast of self-righteous gas.

What about the Inuit? Should they aspire to be vegetarians?

TomF
10-12-2012, 09:07 PM
Because we can and because it's our species. I'm very speciist :-D

Would you have problems with feeding a human to a pack of wolves about to die from hunger? Why?

KaaIf you're one of the 2-3% of Americans who might still be unarmed I could prolly break your neck pretty easily too, and get your resources for my kids. You may be speciist, but I'm a family man. ;)

But I wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't feed a live human to a pack of wolves, nor would I go out and humanely kill one for the purpose. But I've little difficulty with the Tibetan custom of feeding the raptors with the dead. Feed my body to wolves when I'm done with it if you like - I won't be using it. :D

Humans are over-running our petri dish; it's in our own best interest to look for ways to participate in the balance of our ecosystem, rather than undergo a crash. And IMO, as an allegedly conscious and self-aware species, we've a greater responsibility to do so than algae or krill.

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 09:08 PM
What heartrendingly earnest sentiments. It'd be refreshing to have a detailed account of how your thinking changes the way you live, day to day.

Being married to someone who publishes articles and book chapters on the impact of agriculture on native species, I've learned more than I ought to know for my own good. In practical terms, we've pretty much stopped eating beef and use other domestic meats quite sparingly. In September we went hunting and killed an antelope, which I skinned and cut up, while she wrapped. The antelope was not happy being shot. I wouldn't be happy trying to exist on a veg diet in a climate and landscape that produces wild animals but not a great deal in terms of vegetables or grains (let alone fruit). The greenhouse and short-season garden will carry us only so far.

Where I live plays the largest part in my reckoning of what constitutes a right livelihood, and that has come up only in passing (someone mentioned eating seafood in Florida). Universal moral dicta concerning practical subsistence tend to be a big blast of self-righteous gas.

What about the Inuit? Should they aspire to be vegetarians?

Chip we've found beans, chick peas and such to be an entirely satisfying protein source but were I in a climate that made gardening too difficult I'd likely raise poultry and hunt a little. It's not necessary here and for me necessity and minimising harm is the deciding factor.

Kaa does a good job of expressing mainstream utilitarian disregard for everything except self interest. Well expressed Kaa.

leikec
10-12-2012, 09:10 PM
If you're one of the 2-3% of Americans who might still be unarmed I could prolly break your neck pretty easily too, and get your resources for my kids. You may be speciist, but I'm a family man. ;)

But I wouldn't.

No, I wouldn't feed a live human to a pack of wolves, nor would I go out and humanely kill one for the purpose. But I've little difficulty with the Tibetan custom of feeding the raptors with the dead. Feed my body to wolves when I'm done with it if you like - I won't be using it. :D

Humans are over-running our petri dish; it's in our own best interest to look for ways to participate in the balance of our ecosystem, rather than undergo a crash. And IMO, as an allegedly conscious and self-aware species, we've a greater responsibility to do so than algae or krill.

I certainly wouldn't loan algae or krill any money...not again. :D

Jeff C

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:19 PM
No, my ethical basis is not entirely emotional. But emotions -- in particular empathy -- certainly enter into it. [QUOTE]

But you can only empathize with other beings that you can see? If thousands die in a far off disaster, you don't think "How terrible", you think "Meh"?

[QUOTE=Kaa;3561388]It is my impression that ethics which claim pure rationality and absence of emotions lead to horrors all too easily.

Kaa

An impression? That's about as close as you'll come to a cast iron fact. Why, just look at economic rationalism........

Chip-skiff
10-12-2012, 09:19 PM
Chip we've found beans, chick peas and such to be an entirely satisfying protein source but were I in a climate that made gardening too difficult I'd likely raise poultry and hunt a little. It's not necessary here and for me necessity and minimising harm is the deciding factor.

Beans and chick peas are greenhouse crops here. I can get a short harvest of snow peas, pod peas, and sugar snap peas, most years, if the deer don't wipe them out. I've kept chickens, and this would be a tough place to do that. Too many predators and too bloody cold: they'd have to be kept in a wire pen (with a heated coop for half the year).

If we all stopped hunting, and the state game department collapsed for lack of revenue, the cattle and sheep ranchers (and Asian investors) would expand to fill the vacuum, wrecking ever more of the public land with domestic livestock. Weird world, ennit?

TomF
10-12-2012, 09:20 PM
What heartrendingly earnest sentiments. It'd be refreshing to have a detailed account of how your thinking changes the way you live, day to day. ...Whose earnest thoughts are rending your heart? ;)

We are eating more and more vegetarian food, because we increasingly try to buy our meat from local producers who raise it on pasture ... and it's expensive. Nothing like 100% there yet. Personally, I'm content eating farmed meat, depending on the conditions of the animals' lives. I'd prefer hunted meat, but for family reasons I've gone into here before, I'm not going to tempt the fates and have a gun in the house. I appreciate the argument that animal husbandry is a waste of grain ... but am well aware that the grain I save by eating vegetarian isn't about to be shipped to the Horn of Africa. I'm better off, I think, eating locally and otherwise what I think is "ethically," and doing other things to help folks in the Horn of Africa do what seems more ethical there. I doubt it means having them get reliant on Canadian wheat.

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:24 PM
What heartrendingly earnest sentiments. It'd be refreshing to have a detailed account of how your thinking changes the way you live, day to day.

Being married to someone who publishes articles and book chapters on the impact of agriculture on native species, I've learned more than I ought to know for my own good. In practical terms, we've pretty much stopped eating beef and use other domestic meats quite sparingly. In September we went hunting and killed an antelope, which I skinned and cut up, while she wrapped. The antelope was not happy being shot. I wouldn't be happy trying to exist on a veg diet in a climate and landscape that produces wild animals but not a great deal in terms of vegetables or grains (let alone fruit). The greenhouse and short-season garden will carry us only so far.

Where I live plays the largest part in my reckoning of what constitutes a right livelihood, and that has come up only in passing (someone mentioned eating seafood in Florida). Universal moral dicta concerning practical subsistence tend to be a big blast of self-righteous gas.

What about the Inuit? Should they aspire to be vegetarians?

Caroboo?

Sealfu?


What should they aspire to? The industrial world (and it's offshoot, industrial farming) appears to be putting an end to their way of life. What now?

Chip-skiff
10-12-2012, 09:26 PM
Caroboo? Sealfu? What should they aspire to? The industrial world (and it's offshoot, industrial farming) appears to be putting an end to their way of life. What now?

Civilized tucker— Bully beef, Spam, frozen pizza, Doritos, cheap whiskey, and meth.

TomF
10-12-2012, 09:27 PM
I have some doubts about that, but be careful! You might attract SamF to this thread and become an example of an atheist! :-DLet's not put either thing to the test, OK? I'm pretty confident in my unarmed predation skills, but neither of us need a Sam derailment. :)
Ah. In our best interest, you say. But the issue is precisely whether we should consider interests other than our own species. The argument that we should do X for our own good is one thing -- the argument that we owe a duty to the planet/ecosystem/Gaia/creatures big and small is quite a different one.

KaaI tossed you a bone there, Kaa - you're welcome.

It is in our best interest to regulate our own population, but it is also a responsibility I think we have to the other species with whom we share the planet. It would be nice if the latter motivated you (and most humans), but realistically it's more likely to be the former.

Pragmatically, I wouldn't much care which, if it would only happen. I'm not optimistic.

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:30 PM
I am not a utilitarian, at least not a committed one :-D Note how seanz is trying to make one out of me and I try to resist :-)

Resistance is futile.........


There is also a rather big difference between personal self-interest and species self-interest.

Kaa

Well, sort of. Depends how you look at it. You might be annoyed to find that you were the last one left. That's if you cared.
:)

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:31 PM
Civilized tucker— Bully beef, Spam, frozen pizza, Doritos, cheap whiskey, and meth.

You had me until you got to dessert.

TomF
10-12-2012, 09:32 PM
I certainly wouldn't loan algae or krill any money...not again. :D

Jeff CKrill are such irresponsible, slippery b@stards.

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 09:35 PM
I am not a utilitarian, at least not a committed one :-D Note how seanz is trying to make one out of me and I try to resist :-)

There is also a rather big difference between personal self-interest and species self-interest.

Kaa

Yes, I'd certainly agree, personal self interest totally overshadows species self interest, Our species requires a healthy ecosystem but that does not correlate to individual desires.

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:42 PM
What heartrendingly earnest sentiments. It'd be refreshing to have a detailed account of how your thinking changes the way you live, day to day.

Being married to someone who publishes articles and book chapters on the impact of agriculture on native species, I've learned more than I ought to know for my own good. In practical terms, we've pretty much stopped eating beef and use other domestic meats quite sparingly. In September we went hunting and killed an antelope, which I skinned and cut up, while she wrapped. The antelope was not happy being shot. I wouldn't be happy trying to exist on a veg diet in a climate and landscape that produces wild animals but not a great deal in terms of vegetables or grains (let alone fruit). The greenhouse and short-season garden will carry us only so far.

Where I live plays the largest part in my reckoning of what constitutes a right livelihood, and that has come up only in passing (someone mentioned eating seafood in Florida). Universal moral dicta concerning practical subsistence tend to be a big blast of self-righteous gas.

What about the Inuit? Should they aspire to be vegetarians?

Dammit! This deserves pages of response!
:D

"I don't want to be a vegetarian, you can't make me and if you think I should be a vegetarian, then you have to force the Inuit to be vegetarian first"

Does that about sum it up?

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:47 PM
We do, perfectly well. Notice what happens to birth rates in every nation which reaches a certain level of development/wealth.



That's the interesting part :-) I've heard this assertion very often, but I've also never seen a successful attempt to construct a coherent philosophical framework in which this would be unambiguously true (other than PETA-style ones where feeding live humans to hungry wolves is perfectly fine).

Kaa

Somewhere along the line they would encounter issues in the selection process.


Now, where's that short list of philosophies that have provided us with unambiguous truths?

PeterSibley
10-12-2012, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=Kaa;3561416]We do, perfectly well. Notice what happens to birth rates in every nation which reaches a certain level of development/wealth.

/QUOTE]

Birth rates fall but consumption rises , the gross effect may be worse for the environment.

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:51 PM
Nah, there is also the part about the local vegetarians starving to death around February :-)

Kaa

Not if they stockpile lentils, then they'd last till March.......and die of the "vapors".

TomF
10-12-2012, 09:54 PM
We do, perfectly well. Notice what happens to birth rates in every nation which reaches a certain level of development/wealth.Yep, and it's a good start. Would be better if so many billions weren't still below that self-regulating point - the ecological cost of getting all of us to that self-regulation point will be rather staggering.
That's the interesting part :-) I've heard this assertion very often, but I've also never seen a successful attempt to construct a coherent philosophical framework in which this would be unambiguously true (other than PETA-style ones where feeding live humans to hungry wolves is perfectly fine).

KaaYeah, it is the interesting part. It's the part which starts from the position that humans are merely actors within ecosystems, rather than the culmination of them. Strangely, Kaa, the philosophical view you're expressing has traditionally been associated with historically mainstream strands of Christianity (the "subdue the earth" reading of Genesis) ... and mine with the historically less churchified. Though in recent decades, it's become a fairly common standpoint for mainstream Christians.

How does it feel to be in bed with centuries of stuffy Protestants and Catholics?

seanz
10-12-2012, 09:57 PM
Oh, I don't think "sort of", I think "definitely" :-) Your own species is a super-tribe. People who act in their own self-interest are called selfish bastards. People who act in the interest of their tribe (and even better, their super-tribe) are universally called heroes.

Kaa

Let's hear it for Al Gore. What a hero.
:)

skuthorp
10-12-2012, 10:06 PM
I suspect that Kaa is playing devils advocate here, and the resulting thread is interesting. Regards human reproduction, I haven't, but I admit to freely to being a user of more than my share of the planet's resources.
Re Krill. It seems that Krill live very well on algae that in turn lives on iron rich whale faeces, a net gain seemingly in terms of the resource.
"Saving endangered baleen whales could boost the carbon storage capacity of the Southern Ocean, suggests a new study of whale faeces. Whale faeces once provided huge quantities of iron to a now anaemic Southern Ocean, boosting the growth of carbon-sequestering phytoplankton.So says Stephen Nicol (http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=37189) of the Australian Antarctic Division, based in Kingston, Tasmania, who has found "huge amounts of iron in whale poo". He believes that before commercial whaling (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527461.200-lost-leviathans-hunting-the-worlds-missing-whales.html), baleen whale faeces may have accounted for some 12 per cent of the iron on the surface of the Southern Ocean."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html

seanz
10-12-2012, 10:08 PM
Many, provided you accept the underlying assumptions (yeah, yeah, I know about Gφdel, we're not going there or we'll never come back). It's not that hard to construct a logical system without internal contradictions.

Ok, so you don't work as a computer programer?


The problem is finding a set of good assumptions AND making sure you can live with all the logically necessary conclusions :-)

Kaa

That's easy. Just be blindly happy with your assumptions and you'll never have a problem with the conclusions......people have been doing that since the year dot.

And that, I believe, brings us back to "outa sight, outa mind".
:D

seanz
10-12-2012, 10:10 PM
He had and has a LOT of personal self-interest. Expressed in $$$$$$$$ :-)

Kaa


So the rich can't be interested in the greater good?

Damn commie.
:)

seanz
10-12-2012, 10:26 PM
Nah, but the point here is that Al Gore started much less rich. It just so happened that global warming magically filled his pockets with lots and lots of money :-D

Kaa

In folk stories, don't heroes often get a magical reward?

seanz
10-12-2012, 10:29 PM
Not at all, conclusions have a very well developed habit of taking a large bite out of your posterior. Until they do many people are blindly happy, that's true :-)

Kaa

Then they're just blindly miserable..........


It amazes me that when people are blatantly confronted with the negative consequences of their assumptions how they will pause momentarily in shock, and then pick up their assumptions and move on.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 01:59 AM
You really are full of yourself, Farfie.

Pity about your illiteracy.

Classic Donn!!
Doesn't have real response to a comment because he knows he's wrong so tries to score a point by spotting a spelling error in a post at 1AM.
Such talent. Given that it's your regular game it would be fine but the real edge shows with this.

Farfie.
A lot of older guys when feeling threatened by women respond by infantilising their name in an attempt to belittle them and their comments. The pointing out of a petty typo as well becomes another sad attempt at a put down. All rather than actually respond to the comment with a counter argument.
Classic sexist strategy!:rolleyes:

Meli
10-13-2012, 02:01 AM
Nah, that's just what Donnn does. No gender bias there :D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:15 AM
The logic of taking soy protein which is perfectly suitable for human consumption and feeding it to livestock which is what happens to 60% of the world production, and then eating the animals is totally crazy. The animals convert the soy protein to animal protein at best 10% efficiency. So 60% of one of the worlds cheapest and healthiest forms of protein is reduced to being of only 6% value overall and it is in a high cholesterol form that also has links to a lot of cancers!
That's really smart!
They ship hay from Australia to Japan to feed cattle for expensive meat in Japan.
They ship soy from Argentina to Denmark to feed to pigs so that subsidised farmers in Denmark can ship pork all over the world!

The carbon footprint, the water usage, the antibiotic dangers and the health risks are huge with factory meat farming.
Since Exxon Valdez there have been at least a dozen massive leaks into the environment that were of a greater volume and have all caused huge environmental hassles. All have involved animal waste from factory farms.
The underground water systems of many areas near these nightmares are permanently damaged!

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:16 AM
Nah, that's just what Donnn does. No gender bias there :D

The typo stuff is just Donn, that's his fetish.
The infantilising of names rather than replying is classic sexist put down!

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 02:22 AM
The logic of taking soy protein which is perfectly suitable for human consumption and feeding it to livestock which is what happens to 60% of the world production, and then eating the animals is totally crazy. The animals convert the soy protein to animal protein at best 10% efficiency. So 60% of one of the worlds cheapest and healthiest forms of protein is reduced to being of only 6% value overall and it is in a high cholesterol form that also has links to a lot of cancers!
That's really smart!
They ship hay from Australia to Japan to feed cattle for expensive meat in Japan.
They ship soy from Argentina to Denmark to feed to pigs so that subsidised farmers in Denmark can ship pork all over the world!

The carbon footprint, the water usage, the antibiotic dangers and the health risks are huge with factory meat farming.
Since Exxon Valdez there have been at least a dozen massive leaks into the environment that were of a greater volume and have all caused huge environmental hassles. All have involved animal waste from factory farms.
The underground water systems of many areas near these nightmares are permanently damaged!


You can have your soy. I'll have what I want.

... and I'm just wondering.... how's the land your nightmare palace is built on? Permanently damaged?

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 02:23 AM
The typo stuff is just Donn, that's his fetish.
The infantilising of names rather than replying is classic sexist put down!

Are you saying this is a classic sexist put down by Meli?


Nah, that's just what Donnn does. No gender bias there :D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:34 AM
Are you saying this is a classic sexist put down by Meli?

Donn is pretty good at reading comprehension, maybe he can help you because you're obviously struggling a bit there.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 02:36 AM
Donn is pretty good at reading comprehension, maybe he can help you because you're obviously struggling a bit there.

I rarely struggle.... I was just seeing how deep your sisterhood bonds went.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:36 AM
... and I'm just wondering.... how's the land your nightmare palace is built on? Permanently damaged?

Just what are you on about? you really are beginning to lose the plot, maybe it's some of that rat or dog you've been eating lately!

Meli
10-13-2012, 02:46 AM
No It's not.
Australians diminutise all names. Melanie =Meli or melsi
Ian =Iansy :D
Robert =Robbo
Gillian =Gilli
Donn = Donno or donni

Farfalla =farphi

One of the great equalizers.
Don't search for gender insults, there's plenty of ordinary ones here without looking for them :D

Shut up Iansy, :D

purri
10-13-2012, 02:49 AM
Sophie, For 3 days a week I eat skippy, thence local seafood, thence imported quadrupeds and all with locally grown vegies both indigenous and non. According to your philosophy how might you classify this intake?

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:53 AM
Since when has Donn been Australian?
Believe it or not I've spent plenty of time around Aussies, the place is crawling with them. I even had one as a partner for a few years.

Take a quick look and see if Donn infantilises other guys names.
I'll have to disagree with you Meli as the tactic of infantilising names is a well recorded technique for sexist put downs.
As for the other insults, I'm well aware of them.

Meli
10-13-2012, 02:53 AM
I rarely struggle.... I was just seeing how deep your sisterhood bonds went.

Hmmm divide and conquer eh? Fat chance.:rolleyes:
I don't always agree with Soph,or her sometimes aggressive take on things (unless I'm really mad :D). (life is too short and bigger issues take precedence)
Generally I agree with Soph, but in a less engaged fashion.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:55 AM
Sophie, For 3 days a week I eat skippy, thence local seafood, thence imported quadrupeds and all with locally grown vegies both indigenous and non. According to your philosophy how might you classify this intake?

Skippy??

Meli
10-13-2012, 02:58 AM
Allison was always "Ali" from friends or foes alike here, a diminutive even she took no exception to.
Ali is a hard act to follow and much respected here. If she took no offence, dont see why you should. Don insults everyone with a pretty even hand :D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 02:58 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/damaged-goods-slut-and-spinster-sexist-labels-against-women-8192854.html

Here you go Meli, I was actually saving it for another thread, it's off course here.

Meli
10-13-2012, 02:59 AM
Skippy??
Da bush Kangaroo :D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 03:02 AM
Alli is a common usage of the name, I know a few.
I assume she signed herself as that, many women do, they find Allison to be a bit of a formal name, it has lots of old fashioned overtones of prim and proper which I gather Alli was not:d
But the intent was different here.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 03:04 AM
Oh Bush Tucker, I remember that TV series, the guy with the weird hat:d

Healthy and environmentally sound!

Meli
10-13-2012, 03:07 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/damaged-goods-slut-and-spinster-sexist-labels-against-women-8192854.html

Here you go Meli, I was actually saving it for another thread, it's off course here.

A tad patronizing (or is that matronizing) ?
I really don't need an artical from a pommy paper to tell me about sexist labels.
Diminutisation of a name, either male or female is not mentioned in that artical. It's often seen as a endearment both here, the UK or in the USA.
I'm sure Don didn't intend it as such, but it has no sexist connotations whatsoever.
No more than if don refered to John W as Johnny.

And Donn knows better that to pick on my spelling or grammar, we all know it's crap :D

Meli
10-13-2012, 03:17 AM
Back on the original topic.
My Daughter used to work in a pet supplies shop.
They sold sailor suits, dinner jackets, tutu's and Tiaras For dogs and cats.
Little cupcakes, cookies and other nonsense.
The mummies and daddies of these sad and over perfumed pooches were often rude and insulting to the mere humans that worked there and thought nothing of feeding someones erstwhile pigeon or pet chook to "Fifi.
Nor did they blink at spending the weekly household budget of an Australian Single parent on such fripperies.

Sad
a good case for eating the rich :D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 03:20 AM
Well I'm afraid we are going to differ on this one Meli.
I regularly get called Soph' by friends, but there are some people in real life that I wouldn't accept it from. So I don't have a problem with diminutives, it's the intention that I know is different in this case.
it's similar to when BF calls women here "sweetie" oe posts stuff like "give us a kiss" , just sad rubbish.
The article talks about infantalising names, I feel that I'm aware of Donn's reaction to me over time and I'm quite comfortable calling it for what I see it. your interpretation may differ but that's the world!
I ignore his typo corrections, I spell a lot better than i type and don't bother to go back and correct stuff sometimes, so no big deal.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 03:23 AM
Eating the rich!!

No I wouldn't recommend that, most of them are rather fat and who wants that sort of meat. if you're going to eat meat, lean is the way to go.
Maybe they could feed them to chickens, free range of course, and then it would be a lot healthier for you carnivores:d

Meli
10-13-2012, 03:24 AM
Well,as I'm quite sure you have the intelligence to realize Ian is baiting you (or me), in the interests of not hijacking a good thread, just ignore it like the big girl you are.:rolleyes:

Meli
10-13-2012, 03:26 AM
You hang them in a dry place first just like a good salami, silly :D

Peerie Maa
10-13-2012, 03:29 AM
Eating the rich!!

No I wouldn't recommend that, most of them are rather fat and who wants that sort of meat. if you're going to eat meat, lean is the way to go.
Maybe they could feed them to chickens, free range of course, and then it would be a lot healthier for you carnivores:d

No, you want fat meat, it has more and better flavour.

Meli
10-13-2012, 03:30 AM
Fat, baked (free range) Ham. Mmmmmm

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 03:46 AM
Meli did you ever see that Peter Greenway movie "The Cook, the Wife, the Thief, the Lover" had Michael gambon and helen Mirren. Great movie.
Gambon gets baked by Mirren's lover a chef and she eats him!!

Meli
10-13-2012, 04:05 AM
No, I avoided it.:D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 04:11 AM
You missed out!!|;)
Greenaway's movies were always "different" that's for sure but brilliant. "Z" , "The Draughtsman's Contract"

The "C,W,T,L" was good, Gambon is a working class thug who has become crime boss, Mirren his very put upon wife.

purri
10-13-2012, 05:44 AM
The Draughtman's Contract is my choice by far.

Chris Woodward
10-13-2012, 07:01 AM
http://youtu.be/8Sp-VFBbjpE

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 07:43 AM
Well I'm afraid we are going to differ on this one Meli.
I regularly get called Soph' by friends, but there are some people in real life that I wouldn't accept it from. So I don't have a problem with diminutives, it's the intention that I know is different in this case.
it's similar to when BF calls women here "sweetie" oe posts stuff like "give us a kiss" , just sad rubbish.
The article talks about infantalising names, I feel that I'm aware of Donn's reaction to me over time and I'm quite comfortable calling it for what I see it. your interpretation may differ but that's the world!
I ignore his typo corrections, I spell a lot better than i type and don't bother to go back and correct stuff sometimes, so no big deal.

Actually Soph's, you are the only woman on here I've called "Sweetie" and it was in a positive, non-confrontational thread... welcoming you back after you'd been banned for attacking one or more of your regular targets. You took it as intended... positively. If you've got another example... link it or get off your high horse.

"Give us a kiss" is a phrase I've used mostly with men. I tend to use it when someone is so full of crap that they could use lowering by a peg or two. Saying it to a bloke is just as effective as taking the first swing, which is something I tend not to do.... it simply puts the acid on them and they can either follow up or piss off. It tends to end confrontational situations quite effectively without violence.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 07:46 AM
Meli did you ever see that Peter Greenway movie "The Cook, the Wife, the Thief, the Lover" had Michael gambon and helen Mirren. Great movie.
Gambon gets baked by Mirren's lover a chef and she eats him!!

There's a woman in Oz who did just that. Cooked up her lover and served him up as dinner to his family. I met her in Mulawa when I was working on a program that massively reduced self-harm in female prisoners.

Did you realise that women are far nastier than men in gaols? If they have a disagreement, they break a bottle or boil up a saucepan of water to settle it. Dreadful stuff...

skuthorp
10-13-2012, 07:50 AM
There's a woman in Oz who did just that. Cooked up her lover and served him up as dinner to his family. I met her in Mulawa when I was working on a program that massively reduced self-harm in female prisoners.

I read a dissertation on cannibalism in the pacific islands, not ritual stuff, the real deal. Author thought that it was a sensible tactic where protein was an especially valuable resource to be conserved not wasted.:d

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 07:52 AM
I read a dissertation on cannibalism in the pacific islands, not ritual stuff, the real deal. Author thought that it was a sensible tactic where protein was an especially valuable resource to be conserved not wasted.:d

Apparently it happened not too far from you, not too long ago, on a regular basis. Some folks want to whitewash that, but I have no great issue with it.

skuthorp
10-13-2012, 07:55 AM
Barbecue.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Cannibals.23232.jpg/300px-Cannibals.23232.jpg

TomF
10-13-2012, 08:00 AM
Mmm - don't forget to saute the grey matter. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease anyone?

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 08:05 AM
Mmm - don't forget to saute the grey matter. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease anyone?

Yep. Knew someone who died of that... or something very similar. He was a tennis pro. Doping's early days.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 08:32 AM
Actually Soph's, you are the only woman on here I've called "Sweetie" and it was in a positive, non-confrontational thread... welcoming you back after you'd been banned for attacking one or more of your regular targets. You took it as intended... positively.

"Give us a kiss"

I was banned because a certain big baby cried his eyes out as usual. But what can you expect.


You took it as intended... positively.

Actually I ignored it for the sad little game it was. Just as this is just another little bit of sad attention seeking.

You seem to have missed the part about "some of my friends calling me Soph'". As you certainly don't qualify as such given your repeated behaviour you do realise that I consider you using that name offensive, so please refrain in future. You boast of your good manners so show some.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 08:36 AM
I was banned because a certain big baby cried his eyes out as usual. But what can you expect.



Actually I ignored it for the sad little game it was. Just as this is just another little bit of sad attention seeking.

You seem to have missed the part about "some of my friends calling me Soph'". As you certainly don't qualify as such given your repeated behaviour you do realise that I consider you using that name offensive, so please refrain in future. You boast of your good manners so show some.

Get it right will you... just once. I have no idea why you were banned last time. I didn't see the thread, let alone what you did on it.... so don't try and insinuate it was me.... if that's what you are doing.... and no, you didn't ignore it. You thanked me.

Thanks Soph's. I've been calling you that for a while now, and you haven't complained until now. How about some consistency eh?

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 08:40 AM
Get it right will you... just once. I have no idea why you were banned last time. I didn't see the thread, let alone what you did on it.... so don't try and insinuate it was me.... if that's what you are doing.... and no, you didn't ignore it. You thanked me.

Thanks Soph's. I've been calling you that for a while now, and you haven't complained until now. How about some consistency eh?

You're struggling again BF. Try to get a grip on reality.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 08:45 AM
You're struggling again BF. Try to get a grip on reality.

Can't come up with any evidence eh? I did a search on "sweetie"... and it came up with three threads. Two of them were comments to Gareth... including this one.

I wasn't going to post this one... but my mate from Maine was asking for more photos of me over on another thread. This one's for you sweetie.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Last%20Java%20and%20Sumatra/010-4.jpg

If you want to search through the third thread, be my guest.

TomF
10-13-2012, 08:51 AM
I begin to have an inkling of why your wife's bought a dog bred to control wandering bulls. :D

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:09 AM
I begin to have an inkling of why your wife's bought a dog bred to control wandering bulls. :D

I think some other woman has given her the dog btw.

Sorry... I was just wanting to see how long it took Soph's to revert to kindergarten level again. Not long btw.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 09:38 AM
Funny how BF ran to Mommy when people were using the name Bronte and we were all asked to stop, which we did.
But when you are ask him to respect someone else's wishes about a similar thing he doesn't seem to get the message. I wonder why that is?
Well actually I don't. It's very obvious what childishness lies at the bottom of it. Sad!!

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:40 AM
Is this when I should have a sob in the corner?

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:46 AM
Funny how BF ran to Mommy when people were using the name Bronte and we were all asked to stop, which we did.
But when you are ask him to respect someone else's wishes about a similar thing he doesn't seem to get the message. I wonder why that is?
Well actually I don't. It's very obvious what childishness lies at the bottom of it. Sad!!

Now Sophie.... tell me what you know about double standards eh? Smallfella, Mediocrefella, Tinyfella ring a bell?

You start this crap every time... then try and fling mud at others. What is it that leads you to this?

.... and chuckling over your approach to life led to this...

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/022-4.jpg

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 09:46 AM
Is this when I should have a sob in the corner?

Feel free to if that helps.
other than that show the courtesy to others that was granted to you or is that an adult trait you lack?

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:47 AM
Feel free to if that helps.
other than that show the courtesy to others that was granted to you or is that an adult trait you lack?

I rest my case....




Now Sophie.... tell me what you know about double standards eh? Smallfella, Mediocrefella, Tinyfella ring a bell?

You start this crap every time... then try and fling mud at others. What is it that leads you to this?

.... and chuckling over your approach to life led to this...

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/022-4.jpg

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 09:49 AM
Now Sophie.... tell me what you know about double standards eh? Smallfella, Mediocrefella, Tinyfella ring a bell?

Care to post the whole context that you took those from which included you claiming that you had been misnamed. I've challenged you to every time that you've brought the topic up. But sadly I can't as someone ran to Mommy and had the posts deleted!

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:55 AM
Care to post the whole context that you took those from which included you claiming that you had been misnamed. I've challenged you to every time that you've brought the topic up. But sadly I can't as someone ran to Mommy and had the posts deleted!

Actually, I bumped your thread on that to show exactly what it is that you do. I didn't report it. I wish it was still here. Vile behaviour deserves to be on display from time to time.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:01 AM
Care to post the whole context that you took those from which included you claiming that you had been misnamed. I've challenged you to every time that you've brought the topic up. But sadly I can't as someone ran to Mommy and had the posts deleted!

OK... Here's the context, since you asked. I won't post anything that Scot wouldn't like though... but this was your starting point. Your thread... your attack. Not mine.



Big Member Non! Big Joke Oui!
Hey BF,
the wonders of the technology available to us these days.

I read this to a crowd of climbers in the bar earlier tonight
"One thing I've noticed though, is a few women react to my username here. Only one guy has IIRC. The women who've reacted to it.... and have harrassed me around the place are normally women who've come out of a marriage. I've reflected on that and there isn't much I can do about that."



Then I showed them a photo!

Some of them were in tears with laughter. All 4 women held their fingers and thumbs up close together and laughed. My partner just sat and grinned.

They wanted to send you a message but I'm not having my friends exposed to you.

They all thank you for your service to the cause of entertaining a bunch of climbers watching it snow which means we get to sleep in and then ski a bit.

Most of the comments centred around you being a practicioner of the dark and lonely arts of Onan!

I have a holiday to enjoy.
Bye Bye!

Sophie and the crew:D

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:02 AM
The evidence would seem to show that scot also has that view about some people.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:04 AM
The evidence would seem to show that scot also has that view about some people.

What? Because he repeatedly banned you for taking those sort of things too far?

Funny... your line of attack seems to have disintegrated.... again.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:05 AM
OK... Here's the context, since you asked. I won't post anything that Scot wouldn't like though... but this was your starting point. Your thread... your attack. Not mine.

Wrong thread by a long shot. That was month's before. Try again.

And that particular thread still exists because Scot agreed with me that it was not an attack thread despite you whining about it to him. he could see what it was actually about. I still have the PM's from him on that issue:d

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:06 AM
What? Because he repeatedly banned you for taking those sort of things too far?

Funny... your line of attack seems to have disintegrated.... again.

If he banned me then how is that proof that he ignored the behaviour, you really do struggle with logic. Boring!!

Paul Girouard
10-13-2012, 10:06 AM
Ian , did you put your photo of the dogs in the bike basket on this thread? The "attitude" humans have would vary by nation would be the point.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:10 AM
Wrong thread by a long shot. That was month's before. Try again.

And that particular thread still exists because Scot agreed with me that it was not an attack thread despite you whining about it to him. he could see what it was actually about. I still have the PM's from him on that issue:d

If it still exists.... bump it.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:13 AM
Ian , did you put your photo of the dogs in the bike basket on this thread? The "attitude" humans was would vary by nation would be the point.

I didn't, but I will... its going to take a minute or two for someone to pedal the internet genset a bit faster though. BRB

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:19 AM
Here it is Paul. The wailing from the dogs was horrendous btw. They were all snout-tied.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/176.jpg

A few days later, in a remote village where I got stranded for a day, someone pointed to these dogs and rubbed his tummy and smiled. The leftovers in the bowl was our rat soup dinner... but the dogs were only given sticky rice.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/304.jpg

Forest birds don't get a chance either

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/294.jpg

Rats, giant squirrel and a shirt full of seeds from the jungle

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/364.jpg

Roasting a rat for the soup

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/Beer%20Lao/368.jpg

Paul Girouard
10-13-2012, 10:35 AM
Its truly not "one world" is it. I think those photo fit in this thread quite well.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:47 AM
The tiny percentage of people living a subsistence lifestyle like that are not the major concern.
They have little impact on the world environment compared to the huge populations that are found in many other areas, except for their harvesting of Bush tucker and their continued clearing of forest cover for agriculture.

Paul Girouard
10-13-2012, 10:54 AM
Different subject , but keep grinding your axe!

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:57 AM
The tiny percentage of people living a subsistence lifestyle like that are not the major concern.
They have little impact on the world environment compared to the huge populations that are found in many other areas, except for their harvesting of Bush tucker and their continued clearing of forest cover for agriculture.

There's a far higher percentage than you give credit for who seek opportunistic protein. Having travelled the length of Vietnam a couple of years ago and seen the effort put into obtaining and selling "forest birds" and the like... the result being vast tracts of the country devoid of birdlife. Take a look in your own neck of the woods and tell me how many bird species there are.

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 10:58 AM
Different subject , but keep grinding your axe!

Amazing how blunt it is... all that grinding for no reward.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 11:06 AM
Different subject , but keep grinding your axe!

If you checked Paul you would see that there have been references to factory farming and environmental impact all through this thread. subsistence farming is in the minority of posts. So I have no idea what you are on about. As your mate BF has learnt, you need to get your facts right.:d