leicsmac Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strokes said: You live in the states right? Do you eat the poultry? Thankfully one of the regs my home state does have (there's not many: Live Free or Die motherfvcker) is regarding such things, somewhat stricter than the USDA recommendations IIRC. That being said, my point (I think was a bit hamfisted about it) isn't really specifically about chicken in this case (I think it's probably, on the balance of things, more safe than the noise being made about it implies), but more about the general idea of cutting regs to make a quick buck rather than looking for a better solution and how it can and has backfired. This isn't just an animal welfare issue in the larger scheme of things, it can become a public health issue too. Edited 15 February 2018 by leicsmac
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 7 hours ago, Strokes said: If people have the choice and the knowledge, what is the problem? If you are right they will still buy the same chicken they buy now. The chlorination isn't an ingredient, it's a process. So why would it be labelled?
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: The chlorination isn't an ingredient, it's a process. So why would it be labelled? Because the consumer demands it. Nobody expects it to be like smoked meats (in the title) but why should it not be?
Rogstanley Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 6 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: I take it you’ve never been to Uni? The thing that sets University appart from normal schooling is both the method of learning and the way it develops critical thinking. The subject being discovered is only a proportional aspect of that period in education; and even then, plus whatever that subject is will build transferable skills that will be of benefit to any industry, not just ones relating to the core subject. And finally, it should also not be forgotten that a University education also helps one explore a much wider range of drinking games. Yes I’ve been to uni. I’m not disagreeing with any of that (which you’d know if you’d read my posts properly - I take it you’ve never been to uni). I’m just questioning whether the specific examples given really prove the point. For every famous musician or actor who went to uni there’s one who didn’t. Who is the most famous British band of recent years? The Arctic Monkeys? Oasis? Kasabian? Did any of them go to uni? Don’t think so. Was Return of the Mack the result of the Mac-daddy having a bit free time between lectures in Egyptian Mythology? Don’t think so. The point is that if you’re exceptionally talented and driven then you’re probably going to make something of yourself anyway, regardless of whether or not you went to uni. It isn’t going or not going to uni that made the difference in the examples given, it’s their talent and drive.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 16 hours ago, Kopfkino said: No, because apart from the very few libertarian anarchists, nobody has ever believed there is no role for basic regulation in setting the rules of the market. So it's quite safe to assume that people would not interpret such a phrase in that basic form. But evidently we're not at that level of debate and everything has to be spelt out exactly as it's meant with the lawyers looking over it with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it says exactly what was intended. OK. Well you probably shouldn’t say things like the EU is “precisely not a free market”. Because apart from the very few far left communists, nobody has ever believed there is a role for complete regulation in setting the rules of the market. So it's quite safe to assume that people would not interpret such a phrase in that basic form. But evidently we're not at that level of debate and everything has to be spelt out exactly as it's meant with the lawyers looking over it with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it says exactly what was intended. My advice to you would be to extend the same courtesies and protocols of debate to your fellow debaters, if you expect them to be reciprocated in kind. In other words, practice what you preach mate.
Grebfromgrebland Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 On 10/02/2018 at 12:22, Izzy Muzzett said: The lefties will like this Three contractors are bidding to refurbish the fence at 10 Downing street. One is from Birmingham another is from Liverpool, and the third is some bloke from London. All three go with a Downing Street official to examine the fence. The Brummie contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about £900. £400 for materials, £400 for my crew, and £100 profit for me." The Scouse contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for £700. £300 for materials, £200 for my crew, and £200 profit for me." The bloke from London doesn't bother to measure or figure, but leans over to the Downing Street official and whispers, "£2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the others! How did you come up with such a high figure?" The bloke whispers back, £1000 for me, £1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Liverpool to do the job." "Done!" replies the government official..... And that is how Carillion (and many other govt contractor type companies ) was born..... Unfortunately there is no joke here
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: OK. Well you probably shouldn’t say things like the EU is “precisely not a free market”. Because apart from the very few far left communists, nobody has ever believed there is a role for complete regulation in setting the rules of the market. So it's quite safe to assume that people would not interpret such a phrase in that basic form. But evidently we're not at that level of debate and everything has to be spelt out exactly as it's meant with the lawyers looking over it with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it says exactly what was intended. My advice to you would be to extend the same courtesies and protocols of debate to your fellow debaters, if you expect them to be reciprocated in kind. In other words, practice what you preach mate. Well being as I was on about chicken and I stated I am less free in the chicken market than our American friends, rather than the whole EU market. And that is why a free marketeer would actually support leave and why you are wrong that a free marketeer should be a remainer. Though of course the existence of the customs union is the real reason no free marketeer could support being in the EU.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: Because the consumer demands it. Nobody expects it to be like smoked meats (in the title) but why should it not be? You know, i'm actually prepared to concede the point on the chicken. I still maintain that the ban is more mainly animal welfare. Factory farm chickens have a horrific life. But, one line that we, as a Society, don't cross is letting them live their short pitiful lives whilst knee-deep in their own shit and piss. We give them that. Maybe it's a pointless concession given their function in life. Maybe. If you and others believe that chickens don't deserve that right so that we can save about 90p every time we go for a curry, then so be it. Agree to disagree. There is no right or wrong answer about that. However, I'm sure we can all agree that we're not leaving the EU just because of the rights of chickens. So, what other EU regulations are you and others looking forward to being able to disregard when we leave the EU?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 6 hours ago, leicsmac said: That being said, my point (I think was a bit hamfisted about it) isn't really specifically about chicken in this case Clarity of communication mac, clarity of communucation
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Do people on here actually boycott chicken when they go to the USA? No idea how many times it needs to be said, if we do end up having it here and you don't want it, don't buy it. It's that simple.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 28 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Well being as I was on about chicken and I stated I am less free in the chicken market than our American friends, rather than the whole EU market. And that is why a free marketeer would actually support leave and why you are wrong that a free marketeer should be a remainer. Though of course the existence of the customs union is the real reason no free marketeer could support being in the EU. Sorry in advance as i'm probably going to annoy you again. But I can only respond to the words that you write. A free marketeer isn't going to support Leave because we have more stringent animal welfare legislation than another country. Surely you can see that's a complete non sequitur? You're mixing morality with economics. As I've said before, the logical conclusion for your line of thought is the slave trade. Most free marketeers wouldn't support this although the market does. The point is, everybody has a level at which they believe that morality should place limits on the free market. Everybody. The EU is a free market which is regulated (to be precise about it) J Over-regulated some might say. The US is a free market which is less regulated. So OK. On reflection, maybe I was wrong about free marketeers being Remainers. But I think you’re also wrong to say they should be Leavers. It may actually be that what determines our views about Remain/Leave doesn’t actually have anything to do with economics. It’s to do with your attitude towards things like animal welfare, gun control, safey of children’s toys, housing standards (Grenfell) etc etc. So. The question I would ask you is what benefits you think there are in lowering our standards of these things to aid the market? OK we may see a temporary boost in the market as cheaper products flood in and create a bit more wealth. But surely this hike will be only temporary and will cause a race to the bottom as, for example, chicken farmers find that they too have to lower their standards to compete with cheaper US imports?
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 10 hours ago, Innovindil said: I've been to America twice, I can't guarantee that it was chlorinated (not sure if it all is or not), but I've eaten their chicken. Didn't taste any different to "ours". Shockingly, like millions of Americans, I'm still alive. I know that it's not to "the standard", my argument is that if it's fine for America, a country where if you so much as sneeze on someone you'll get sued, it should be good enough for us. You just want to keep eating any chicken from anywhere at any time and not worry about it, so you're removing all worry about the potential harmful effects of how we mass produce food in today's society Your argument is absurdly anecdotal and just plain empty. Because you've had chicken and you're not dead we're supposed to cease all lines of questioning regarding farming techniques? Lolz
Innovindil Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: You just want to keep eating any chicken from anywhere at any time and not worry about it, so you're removing all worry about the potential harmful effects of how we mass produce food in today's society Your argument is absurdly anecdotal and just plain empty. Because you've had chicken and you're not dead we're supposed to cease all lines of questioning regarding farming techniques? Lolz Where on earth have I said that?
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: You just want to keep eating any chicken from anywhere at any time and not worry about it, so you're removing all worry about the potential harmful effects of how we mass produce food in today's society Your argument is absurdly anecdotal and just plain empty. Because you've had chicken and you're not dead we're supposed to cease all lines of questioning regarding farming techniques? Lolz He hasn't said that at all. Nothing like it in fact.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Innovindil said: Where on earth have I said that? Literally almost word for word in the post of yours that I quoted. How on earth did you need to ask?
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, MattP said: He hasn't said that at all. Nothing like it in fact. He has literally said that he ate chicken once in America and he is fine.
Innovindil Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: Literally almost word for word in the post of yours that I quoted. How on earth did you need to ask? Think you might have misunderstood. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Guest MattP Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: He has literally said that he ate chicken once in America and he is fine. So where did he claim you have to cease all lines of questioning on farming techniques? The answer is he didn't.
Innovindil Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: He has literally said that he ate chicken once in America and he is fine. And that someone equates to me wanting to ditch all lines of questioning regarding food? When I've specifically said I don't want that in a previous post? Some people just see what they want to see I guess. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: He has literally said that he ate chicken once in America and he is fine. To be fair what he said was that if it's good enough for the 300m people of American, then it should be good enough for over here. Look at me playing Devil's Advocate. I think we should move on from the chicken. It's probably not a good example because it is more to do with animal welfare than economics or food safety. I'm still waiting to hear what other examples there are though...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Innovindil said: Think you might have misunderstood. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ How about this line of yours? 'Muh chlorine chickens brah. If they're good enough for tens of millions of muricans, they're good enough for me' Are you being sarcastic or what? Because thats the only way I may have misunderstood You seem to be saying that because these practises are common then they are fine by definition
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Thing that makes me laugh is that the hard core remainers act like the EU is some kind of animal rights championing high quality food organisation. In fact this is not true, remember how we got served, horse and various other animals as a result of EU regulation? Remember Fipronil in EU Eggs, they are doing a damn fine job it seems. The reality is perhaps both need improvement, except the hard core remainers would never ever pick fault with the EU. As champions of the poor, the cheaper food with less animal welfare applied to it (not saying this is correct by any means) will enable them to have a better diet and reduce the cost of living, surely this is a good thing? We cant have it all ways?
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Fox Ulike said: To be fair what he said was that if it's good enough for the 300m people of American, then it should be good enough for over here. Look at me playing Devil's Advocate. I think we should move on from the chicken. It's probably not a good example because it is more to do with animal welfare than economics or food safety. I'm still waiting to hear what other examples there are though... Thats funny, i've just quoted him saying that as further evidence that he chooses to ignore the issue and you're using it somehow to suggest he is keen to criticise the methods of farming
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Innovindil said: And that someone equates to me wanting to ditch all lines of questioning regarding food? When I've specifically said I don't want that in a previous post? Some people just see what they want to see I guess. It was quite funny that i went back to previous posts to check if i had in fact misunderstood and the first one i found was an even more clear cut example of you having a stubborn and pig headed view of this matter
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Foxin_mad said: Thing that makes me laugh is that the hard core remainers act like the EU is some kind of animal rights championing high quality food organisation. In fact this is not true, remember how we got served, horse and various other animals as a result of EU regulation? Remember Fipronil in EU Eggs, they are doing a damn fine job it seems. The reality is perhaps both need improvement, except the hard core remainers would never ever pick fault with the EU. As champions of the poor, the cheaper food with less animal welfare applied to it (not saying this is correct by any means) will enable them to have a better diet and reduce the cost of living, surely this is a good thing? We cant have it all ways? Not at all I'm just reacting to the only example I've been given. Chick-chick-chick-chick chicken. Please tell me there's another reason we're leaving the EU?
Recommended Posts