A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
You pro-farmyard-abortionists are scum.Stuart Arnot wrote:No, they just wouldn't be born.Dinos Sfyris wrote:I'm an omnivore for moral purposes. If everyone were veggies, all the farmyard critters aren't exactly going to live in a wonderous sanctuary where they serve man no purpose or financial gain, are they?
...your territory?Rosemary Roberts wrote:And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.
Proven using 'it is morally wrong to swear in front of young children'.David O'Donnell wrote:I am not moral
Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?Charlie Reams wrote:Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
Charlie Reams wrote: your territory?
Stuart Arnot wrote: p.s. Our territory.
Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.Paul Howe wrote:what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.
Paul Howe wrote:It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.
I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.Stuart Arnot wrote:I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.
I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.David O'Donnell wrote:You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?Charlie Reams wrote:Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.David O'Donnell wrote:If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.
I agree with you here, but you didn't make this distinction in your original post. Dealing with the consequences of climate change will likely be one of the biggest political challenges of the 21st century, and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding (although I certainly agree there are plenty of people on both sides who wilfully misinterpret the science in order to advance their own political agenda).Rosemary Roberts wrote:
As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities
The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
They sure are tasty though.David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.Jon Corby wrote:If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.
What a low-key way to finally reveal to the world the real reason for Carol's departure from the show.David O'Donnell wrote:A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.
I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.Paul Howe wrote: and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding
Fair enough, but being unbiased, effective, and correct in the analysis of an extremely complicated problem is an impossible standard to live up to. If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.Rosemary Roberts wrote:I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.Paul Howe wrote: and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding
True. But in my experience, they aren't. And I don't believe that "political action" has ever improved anything, certainly not when any government or political party was calling the shots..Paul Howe wrote:If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.
Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
It's cool to be against wearing fur.Michael Wallace wrote:It's a Friday afternoon, let's start an argument. If you eat meat, you cannot be opposed to hunting for sport, or wearing fur (obviously on the presumption that all animals are treated similarly, so no "oh fur is murder because the industry treats them so terribly", please). Discuss.
Particularly in winter.Gavin Chipper wrote:It's cool to be against wearing fur.
I agree. I have always thought that anyone who is genuinely upset by the cruel treatment of farm animals should stop eating, not meat, but eggs. I don't much care who or what eats my remains when I am dead, but I should object to being forced to spend my entire life in a shoebox.John Bosley wrote:Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.
But people can't get their heads round the thought of death. If someone said that the entire Universe would be destroyed instantly tomorrow with no pain or knowledge of dying, then people couldn't help but be shit-scared of it. But would this be a bad thing? How would one argue for it?John Bosley wrote:Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.
Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.Jon O'Neill wrote:Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
Theres an easier way, stop shopping at convenient supermarkets and go to local butchers, grocers etc.John Bosley wrote:We are not a cut above if we keep them in disgusting conditions.
As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork
>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu
IAWTPJon Corby wrote:If cardboard pigs don't make a difference, I don't know what will.
You might as well have just said:David Roe wrote:Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.Jon O'Neill wrote:Why?David Roe wrote:My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.
Jon Corby wrote:If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.
Ha ha, you're an idiot!Gavin Chipper wrote:The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?David O'Donnell wrote:The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.Charlie Reams wrote: I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.
Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
A bit before my time, human animals would hunt other animals for the sole purpose of not dying of starvation, and was quite a normal practice of nature. The scenes of hunting and killing are depicted in cave drawings. I suppose that organised farming, producing cereal crops did not exist in those times.Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
The evidence mounts...George Jenkins wrote:Personally, I like my meat and two veg
Global warming has been happening since the ice age as the ice gradually melts back from the equator. Warming will accelerate in relation to how much ice is left to act as a coolant.Rosemary Roberts wrote:Charlie Reams wrote: your territory?Stuart Arnott wrote: p.s. Our territory.Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.Paul Howe wrote:what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.
Paul Howe wrote:It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.Stuart Arnott wrote:I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.
As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities, and this is where the moral high ground tends to be dragged in: "If you restrict industry some people will starve"; "If you don't restrict industry some people will drown". This is going to be a question of "you pays your money and you takes your choice": the rich countries will decide what they choose to do and the poor countries will starve or drown. I don't think there is anything that any individual can do to change this, all we can do is reduce our own footprint as far as possible and stay out of the fight.
PISCATOLOGY----the study of fishes.Kieran Child wrote:^ That's curious. I got the word from Vegsoc, so it's in pretty wide usage now. I have no clue where it emerged or even that it was such a modern word.
A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"
Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?Rosemary Roberts wrote:As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.
I didn't say that anybody has all the answers. But if anybody does ever get all the answers it will be a scientist and not somebody who takes their "facts" from the popular media and internet polemicists.David Roe wrote:Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?Rosemary Roberts wrote:As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.
Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it. Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
Gavin Chipper wrote:Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)Gavin Chipper wrote:Good argument.David O'Donnell wrote:Ha ha, you're an idiot!
Maybe I did miss your point but if I did then I think it's because your point was unclear. I can't see any problem wih the argument I made against what I perceived to be your point.David O'Donnell wrote:Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it.
No-one has suggested you debate with yourself. What does that even mean anyway?Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.