Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 10 minutes ago, ajthefox said: That is some bizarre logic going on there, Strokes. It's bred specifically so you can eat it, why not at least let it have a half decent life? The only real favour you can do is not be the one eating the fvcker. You don't really believe you're doing the animal a favour by eating it, do you? If you were stuck on an island with two sheep and one sheep came and greeted you and seemed happy and the other sheep was scared of its own shadow. When it came to the crunch and you had to kill one to survive, which one would you pick. Happy friendly sheep or the scared one?
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Strokes said: If you were stuck on an island with two sheep and one sheep came and greeted you and seemed happy and the other sheep was scared of its own shadow. When it came to the crunch and you had to kill one to survive, which one would you pick. Happy friendly sheep or the scared one? Yeah, but you're the one scaring the sheep. You should love your sheep equally
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: If you were stuck on an island with two sheep and one sheep came and greeted you and seemed happy and the other sheep was scared of its own shadow. When it came to the crunch and you had to kill one to survive, which one would you pick. Happy friendly sheep or the scared one? That's a rather unrealistic question. Both sheep are going to be eaten in 6 months. Would you prefer them to be happy or scared and miserable for those 6 months? Edited 15 February 2018 by Guest
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Strokes said: If you were stuck on an island with two sheep and one sheep came and greeted you and seemed happy and the other sheep was scared of its own shadow. When it came to the crunch and you had to kill one to survive, which one would you pick. Happy friendly sheep or the scared one? I can guess what you would do with the happy friendly sheep Strokesy.
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 8 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: Yeah, but you're the one scaring the sheep. You should love your sheep equally I’m not welsh. 1
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: That's a rather unrealistic question. Both sheep are going to be eaten in 6 months. Would you prefer them to be happy or scared and miserable for those 6 months? Which one would you eat first?
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: If you were stuck on an island with two sheep and one sheep came and greeted you and seemed happy and the other sheep was scared of its own shadow. When it came to the crunch and you had to kill one to survive, which one would you pick. Happy friendly sheep or the scared one? Your analogies are becoming increasingly bizarre, mate. When an animal is bred for slaughter, it isn't being be done because you are in a position of kill or starve, but rather to please your palette. Why would you possibly accept and condone that in it's brief life its welfare should be irrelevant?
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: I’m not welsh. I am half Welsh, and have confirmed the stereotype unfortunately
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: I am half Welsh, and have confirmed the stereotype unfortunately If you're only half Welsh does that mean you pull out before ejaculating?
Guest Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: Which one would you eat first? If the miserable one was disease ridden and the meat not looked after as well id be eating the other one.
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Buce said: Your analogies are becoming increasingly bizarre, mate. When an animal is bred for slaughter, it isn't being be done because you are in a position of kill or starve, but rather to please your palette. Why would you possibly accept and condone that in it's brief life its welfare should be irrelevant It’s a hypothetical question not an analogy.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 Just now, Buce said: If you're only half Welsh does that mean you pull out before ejaculating? With sheep? Or in general? Who am I kidding. Its only sheep. The answer is it depends how serious I am about the sheep 1
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: If the miserable one was disease ridden and the meat not looked after as well id be eating the other one. It’s not diseased, in fact it got that fat depressed look about it. 1
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 4 hours ago, Fox Ulike said: 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? To start again, I have not disputed that the EU is a relatively free market and in fact contain many countries that rank highest for economic freedom, I just said the market for chicken is less free than in America. Literally nobody is going to have voted leave on the basis of chlorinated chickens but they would on the basis of the EU potentially being a concentration of power in Brussels. The point on chlorinated chicken is no free-marketeer would support its ban, given the EU says there is not a safety concern. I wouldn't buy it, I prefer higher-welfare meat and I'm sure that's a view shared by many free-marketeers but my choice is not a reason to restrict the choice of other people who possibly can't afford the choice, who might genuinely benefit from the £x a year difference. It's not for people who pretend to care about the poor so they can vote for a pay rise to decide what the poor can or can't buy because they prefer higher-welfare chicken. That is the moral limit of the free-market, it is immoral for me to choose to restrict someone else's freedom. It is up to society to come up with other means to steer people away from lower-welfare meat that isn't a direct infringement on their freedoms. Anyone that doesn't understand that should read Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and then Free to Choose. Or watch any video of him talking, he's good at destroying this notion of free-markets being a race to the bottom. I mean you're the one that decided they should be remainers, I just countered that as more likely they should be leavers and that's mainly because of the customs union. In truth, this is not a simple transitive relationship and people would be what they decide and make that choice based on whatever factors they like. And then they can come on here to be told by some trolls that they're racist if they choose leave. I'm not even talking about lowering our own standards. I'm just saying there should be a choice for people in what they buy. Chlorine-washing chickens doesn't have to lower standards. New Zealand allow chlorine-washing of chicken and have an animal welfare rating of A, joint highest with ourselves, Switzerland, and Austria. Chicken when calculated on PPP is cheaper in NZ than it is here. Admittedly it's B for welfare of farmed animals which is better indicator. But that is the same as France, Italy, Germany, and Spain, as well as being below our A rating. The point being that, we have higher animal welfare standards because of our own rules and chlorine-washing chicken does not have to lead to standards any worse than the EU currently accepts. Incidentally Italy has animal welfare rating as low as the US. So there's absolutely no reason why standards in this country have to drop, people that don't want to buy chlorinated chicken but those that don't mind can buy American imports and benefit in the pocket as a result. And being as people seem to care so much, it seems there'll still be big demand for UK chicken farmers as they are now, in fact British chicken might well get a free marketing boost. All I think is that people should be free to make a choice for themselves. It would be a very reasonable point to question how I'm comfortable with our own higher existing animal welfare regs given their potential effects on prices. I don't know enough about them to say if anything should be removed.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s not diseased, in fact it got that fat depressed look about it. On a serious note though, the difference between bog standard chicken and the chicken brought up on a farm is pretty big, very noticeable. I dont know if its possible that we could produce chicken in mass amounts to that standard. Edited 15 February 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: On a serious note though, the difference between bog standard chicken and the chicken brought up on a farm is pretty big, very noticable. I dont know if its possible that we could produce chicken in mass amounts to that standard. Apparently we can do anything if we’re enthusiastic enough. Edited 15 February 2018 by Realist Guy In The Room
James. Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 2 hours ago, Strokes said: If I eat an animal that was having a shit life, it feels like I’ve helped put it out of its misery. If It was skipping through the meadows bleating out a tune that could sound similar to it’s a wonderful life. I might feel pretty bad about it. Christ.
Buce Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 16 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s a hypothetical question not an analogy. And therefore an irrelevant red herring. You must be bored at work to keep flogging this dead horse sheep.
Captain... Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Captain... said: This thread is like a comfy safety blanket, if I ever feel lost in the world I can pop in here and ground myself on seeing the same people have the same argument over and over again. Now I'm realigned I'll drop a couple of truth bombs. The chlorine chicken issue is still massively misunderstood, the objection to it is not that chlorine is bad and that eating chlorine washed chicken will kill you. It won't we swim in chlorine, and swallow plenty along with copious amounts of wee and poo particles, that the chlorine helps to destroy the bacteria of before we swallow it. We get it in our eyes and all round our most sensitive parts to no ill effect. The issue is that by allowing chicken to be chlorine washed after being slaughtered allows the breeding, rearing, slaughter and preparation process to be much less sanitary and corners can be cut to speed up the process/make it cheaper. Chlorine washing is just one example of where there isn't the same level of food regulation outside the EU. It comes down to if we want to sanction poorer food practices because they are cheaper to agree a trade deal with the US. The issue then becomes if we are allowing cheaper food into our markets due to poorer food hygiene practices then UK farmers will want to be able to compete on the same level as the US and other countries and demand that regulations be relaxed so they can chlorine wash their chickens and slaughter diseased chickens and keep them in less sanitary environments. But by doing that our produce will subsequently be banned from entering the EU market, still our biggest and closest trading partner, so we will either put our farmers out of business by flooding the market with cheaper produce from countries with fewer regulations, or we will de-regulate our market to match the US/other trading countries and thus deny our farmers entry into a huge market. By keeping EU standards we can still export our produce to other non EU countries as well as the EU as well is keeping it competitive in our domestic market. Personally it is a no from me, anyone disagree? 17 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: To start again, I have not disputed that the EU is a relatively free market and in fact contain many countries that rank highest for economic freedom, I just said the market for chicken is less free than in America. Literally nobody is going to have voted leave on the basis of chlorinated chickens but they would on the basis of the EU potentially being a concentration of power in Brussels. The point on chlorinated chicken is no free-marketeer would support its ban, given the EU says there is not a safety concern. I wouldn't buy it, I prefer higher-welfare meat and I'm sure that's a view shared by many free-marketeers but my choice is not a reason to restrict the choice of other people who possibly can't afford the choice, who might genuinely benefit from the £x a year difference. It's not for people who pretend to care about the poor so they can vote for a pay rise to decide what the poor can or can't buy because they prefer higher-welfare chicken. That is the moral limit of the free-market, it is immoral for me to choose to restrict someone else's freedom. It is up to society to come up with other means to steer people away from lower-welfare meat that isn't a direct infringement on their freedoms. Anyone that doesn't understand that should read Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and then Free to Choose. Or watch any video of him talking, he's good at destroying this notion of free-markets being a race to the bottom. I mean you're the one that decided they should be remainers, I just countered that as more likely they should be leavers and that's mainly because of the customs union. In truth, this is not a simple transitive relationship and people would be what they decide and make that choice based on whatever factors they like. And then they can come on here to be told by some trolls that they're racist if they choose leave. I'm not even talking about lowering our own standards. I'm just saying there should be a choice for people in what they buy. Chlorine-washing chickens doesn't have to lower standards. New Zealand allow chlorine-washing of chicken and have an animal welfare rating of A, joint highest with ourselves, Switzerland, and Austria. Chicken when calculated on PPP is cheaper in NZ than it is here. Admittedly it's B for welfare of farmed animals which is better indicator. But that is the same as France, Italy, Germany, and Spain, as well as being below our A rating. The point being that, we have higher animal welfare standards because of our own rules and chlorine-washing chicken does not have to lead to standards any worse than the EU currently accepts. Incidentally Italy has animal welfare rating as low as the US. So there's absolutely no reason why standards in this country have to drop, people that don't want to buy chlorinated chicken but those that don't mind can buy American imports and benefit in the pocket as a result. And being as people seem to care so much, it seems there'll still be big demand for UK chicken farmers as they are now, in fact British chicken might well get a free marketing boost. All I think is that people should be free to make a choice for themselves. It would be a very reasonable point to question how I'm comfortable with our own higher existing animal welfare regs given their potential effects on prices. I don't know enough about them to say if anything should be removed. Do you disagree with my analysis? Allowing chlorine washed chicken into our market will result in a cheaper substitute to British chicken that isn't chlorine washed. To compete we would need to allow our farmers to chlorine wash and follow similar practices to the US (or subsidise which is anathema to a free marketeer) to allow our farmers to be competitive in our own domestic market. In doing so we would then be unable to trade with the EU. Even if we stick to our current standards of farming there is a risk to trade with the EU if we can't prove that the chicken produce being sold is solely bred in the UK under their standards. Any risk of contamination from Chlorine washed chicken will jeopardise trade. Edited 15 February 2018 by Captain...
Strokes Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 13 minutes ago, Buce said: And therefore an irrelevant red herring. You must be bored at work to keep flogging this dead horse sheep. You must be bored to keep biting.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 11 minutes ago, Captain... said: Do you disagree with my analysis? Allowing chlorine washed chicken into our market will result in a cheaper substitute to British chicken that isn't chlorine washed. To compete we would need to allow our farmers to chlorine wash and follow similar practices to the US (or subsidise which is anathema to a free marketeer) to allow our farmers to be competitive in our own domestic market. In doing so we would then be unable to trade with the EU. Even if we stick to our current standards of farming there is a risk to trade with the EU if we can't prove that the chicken produce being sold is solely bred in the UK under their standards. Any risk of contamination from Chlorine washed chicken will jeopardise trade. I don't disagree with your analysis. What I would disagree with is the notion that we have to protect our farmers by lowering standards, we don't. There will be ways for them to compete otherwise, the market finds a new equilibrium. Given then uproar nobody will be buying it anyway. And then I disagree that we need to protect our exports of chicken to the EU.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 13 minutes ago, Captain... said: Do you disagree with my analysis? Allowing chlorine washed chicken into our market will result in a cheaper substitute to British chicken that isn't chlorine washed. To compete we would need to allow our farmers to chlorine wash and follow similar practices to the US (or subsidise which is anathema to a free marketeer) to allow our farmers to be competitive in our own domestic market. In doing so we would then be unable to trade with the EU. Even if we stick to our current standards of farming there is a risk to trade with the EU if we can't prove that the chicken produce being sold is solely bred in the UK under their standards. Any risk of contamination from Chlorine washed chicken will jeopardise trade. We already buy cheaper chicken from Europe, what difference does it make to our farmers if it comes from America? If our farmers can't compete they'll have to change their business model. Maybe go organic,aim for a premium market. The money that's saved by the population will be spent on other things, which will be a boost to the economy.
Fox Ulike Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: To start again, I have not disputed that the EU is a relatively free market and in fact contain many countries that rank highest for economic freedom, I just said the market for chicken is less free than in America. Literally nobody is going to have voted leave on the basis of chlorinated chickens but they would on the basis of the EU potentially being a concentration of power in Brussels. The point on chlorinated chicken is no free-marketeer would support its ban, given the EU says there is not a safety concern. I wouldn't buy it, I prefer higher-welfare meat and I'm sure that's a view shared by many free-marketeers but my choice is not a reason to restrict the choice of other people who possibly can't afford the choice, who might genuinely benefit from the £x a year difference. It's not for people who pretend to care about the poor so they can vote for a pay rise to decide what the poor can or can't buy because they prefer higher-welfare chicken. That is the moral limit of the free-market, it is immoral for me to choose to restrict someone else's freedom. It is up to society to come up with other means to steer people away from lower-welfare meat that isn't a direct infringement on their freedoms. Anyone that doesn't understand that should read Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and then Free to Choose. Or watch any video of him talking, he's good at destroying this notion of free-markets being a race to the bottom. I mean you're the one that decided they should be remainers, I just countered that as more likely they should be leavers and that's mainly because of the customs union. In truth, this is not a simple transitive relationship and people would be what they decide and make that choice based on whatever factors they like. And then they can come on here to be told by some trolls that they're racist if they choose leave. I'm not even talking about lowering our own standards. I'm just saying there should be a choice for people in what they buy. Chlorine-washing chickens doesn't have to lower standards. New Zealand allow chlorine-washing of chicken and have an animal welfare rating of A, joint highest with ourselves, Switzerland, and Austria. Chicken when calculated on PPP is cheaper in NZ than it is here. Admittedly it's B for welfare of farmed animals which is better indicator. But that is the same as France, Italy, Germany, and Spain, as well as being below our A rating. The point being that, we have higher animal welfare standards because of our own rules and chlorine-washing chicken does not have to lead to standards any worse than the EU currently accepts. Incidentally Italy has animal welfare rating as low as the US. So there's absolutely no reason why standards in this country have to drop, people that don't want to buy chlorinated chicken but those that don't mind can buy American imports and benefit in the pocket as a result. And being as people seem to care so much, it seems there'll still be big demand for UK chicken farmers as they are now, in fact British chicken might well get a free marketing boost. All I think is that people should be free to make a choice for themselves. It would be a very reasonable point to question how I'm comfortable with our own higher existing animal welfare regs given their potential effects on prices. I don't know enough about them to say if anything should be removed. OK. Now. I ask these questions only out of interest. I'm not trying to trip you up or anything. But it's mainly based around this sentence: it is immoral for me to choose to restrict someone else's freedom Where does animal welfare come in to all this? Are you saying that each individual has the choice to decide whether to buy low- or high-welfare meat. What about the rights of the animals themselves? Do you believe animals have rights? And if not, does that mean that you think people should be allowed to do fox-hunting, bear-baiting etc? Also, what about the slave trade? If there were laws that prevented mistreatment of slaves, would you be in favour of people being able to sell themselves in slavery? What about Drugs and Prostitution? Is it immoral to restrict somebody's access to high grade heroin? Is it immoral to restrict somebody's freedom to own a gun? A knife? Deadly viruses? And I know you're not arguing for any of these - but I can't see a clear distinction between these things and your idea of 'freedom'.
Captain... Posted 15 February 2018 Posted 15 February 2018 1 minute ago, Kopfkino said: I don't disagree with your analysis. What I would disagree with is the notion that we have to protect our farmers by lowering standards, we don't. There will be ways for them to compete otherwise, the market finds a new equilibrium. Given then uproar nobody will be buying it anyway. And then I disagree that we need to protect our exports of chicken to the EU. Yes, but market equilibrium often means suppliers going out of business and can lead to a race to the bottom. If it is cheaper to buy chlorine washed chicken and there is decent supply from the US then without intervention it will negatively impact the demand for locally bred more expensive chicken. Even with the "uproar" mainly because the uproar is around the incorrect assumption chlorine washed chicken is unsafe. Price usually wins out. Why do you disagree that we need to protect our exports of chicken to the EU? If the EU bans any of our imports, chicken or otherwise, because it doesn't meet their standards, then that is a huge market that we won't be able to sell to. I don't know who much chicken we sell to the EU, but just purely from an economic point of view you don't want to block yourself from selling in to your biggest and closest trading partner.
Recommended Posts