Will You Pay For Higher Standards In Food Production?

OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Yes i do smoke, usually 7 or less rollys a day, and as for your points;

a. Since 1995 no animals have been used to test tobacco or tobacco products ( <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm</a> ). So my animal ethics are not off- tobacco animal testing was banned before i even started smoking, and to be honest if you use the ethic that you shouldn't use anything thats been tested on animals at some point in its history, then thats ridiculous as the vast majority of things have (food, medications, cleaning products, cosmetic products etc etc).
But surely you wouldn't advocate using ANYTHING that has animal testing? it's cruel after all and as you keep saying you might as well kick a dog every time you light one ;) And tobacco companies no longer need to use animals as they already know what it does to them and humans but perhaps the fact that they did all the research before you started smoking is convenient for you is this a case of your ethics being used when convenient?


For a start, animal testing is a completely different matter to battery farming. Animal testing is necessary in many aspect for the safety of the human race- battery farming is not. I am not going to delve too much into this matter as it is largely off-topic and deserves another thread in its own right.
However animal testing and battery farming are not comparable issues- animal testing is done for the safety of the human race. Whether i agree or disagree on animal testing, depends very much on the individual case of testing (i.e. Animal testing for cures for stuff like Parkinson's Disease is a very different matter than animal testing for a new brand of lipstick etc).

Lighting up a rolly is no comparable to kicking a dog everytime, because animals have not been involved in tobacco testing for over a decade- whether i smoke or not, it will not put animals into that sort of testing. So you example/analogy is completely wrong.
Battery farming is a completely different matter- its purpose is for profit, and unlike me, everytime you buy a KFC you are paying for another chicken/s to be put in another cage.

b. I don't smoke around non-smokers without permission; the only times i smoke are in my own home, or at the pub in the designated smoking area- if i smoke around a non-smoker, i ask if it is cool with them first (and the vast majority of the time its fine). Don't label all smokers as the same- we're not all trying to make children, pregnant women and baby animals breath as much of our smoke as possible :rolleyes: .
Perhaps the non smokers are too polite to tell you that they do mind your unfiltered smoke wafting over them, or perhaps they are worried that you will go off on a rant about it's your right.

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But the fact remains that i am a considerate and polite smoker who asks for permission, so i am at no fault whatsoever- you can assume and accuse all you like (but i warn its not that intelligent nor credible to do so), but that doesn't change the facts.

Oh dear me, you just haven't done your research there.

The tobacco industry is responsible for roughly 12% of the the deforestation of the planet, directly leading to the death of many animals who are burned in the fires and the loss of habitat of many more. It's not just trees cut down for space to grow it, but also to cure (dry) it.

How can anyone who claims to care about animals partake in consumption of a drug purely for their pleasure that is directly responsible for the deaths of so many wild animals? Not to mention the millions more affected by the effects of global warming caused by the burning of the trees and the subsequent lack of trees to deal with the additional CO2 in the atmophere? That's one big hypocrisy right there.

You have lectured why everyone should eat free range because it's healthier, yet partake in smoking which is responsible for so many illnesses. Hypocrisy again.

There was the program on last night showing that Tobacco comapnies are promoting smoking to children in poorer countries, how can anyone who claims the moral high ground support this industry?

So your habit, which is just for pleasure, has a history of animal testing, causes masses of worldwide deforestation, promotes it's products to children and is unhealthy for you and anyone around you.

You see how this works Tokis? If you aren't whiter than white yourself you shouldn't be so dismissive and accusatory towards others.

Would you like a hand down of that high horse?

Arfie


I could equally argue that you are even worse in this respect- you call my tabacco a drug for pleisure, but you forget that your fast food burgers and nuggets are purely for pleasure too (they are not necessary for healthy diet etc) and that animal ranching plays an even bigger part in forest deforestation;

"Cattle ranching is a major cause of rainforest destruction in Central and South America. Ranchers slash and burn rainforests to grow grass pasture for cattle. Once the cattle have grazed sufficiently, they are slaughtered and exported to industrialised countries, including the US, to be made into fast food hamburgers and frozen meat products. It has been estimated that for every quarter pound hamburger made from rainforest cattle, 5 sq m of rainforest is cleared.;

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/environment/co...sts/page2.shtml"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/environment/co...sts/page2.shtml[/URL]


"Soybean production in the Brazilian Amazon states grew approximately 60 percent between 1998 and 2002, and the cattle herd nearly doubled from 26.2 million in 1991 to 51.6 million in 2001, making Brazil the second largest soybean exporter and the world’s major beef exporter, according to the Woods Hole report.

This increase in production has transformed the agricultural sector into a serious threat to the Amazon environment. The effect of land clearing on the Amazon rainforest and its indigenous inhabitants is severe.

The Greenpeace report quotes Britaldo Silveira Soares-Filho of the University of Minas Gerais as saying, "By 2050, current trends in agricultural expansion will eliminate a total of 40 per cent of Amazon forests, including at least two-thirds of the forest cover of six major watersheds and 12 eco-regions.";

[URL="http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2727"]http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2727[/URL]

"A handful of the world's largest food companies and commodity traders, including McDonald's in the UK, are driving illegal and rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest, according to a six-year investigation of the Brazilian soya bean industry.

The report, published today, follows a 7,000km chain that starts with the clearing of virgin forest by farmers and leads directly to Chicken McNuggets being sold in British and European fast food restaurants. It also alleges that much of the soya animal feed arriving in the UK from Brazil is a product of "forest crime" and that McDonald's and British supermarkets have turned a blind eye to the destruction of the forest.

The report, by Greenpeace investigators, details how the world's largest private company, the $70bn (£40bn) a year US agribusiness giant Cargill, has built a port and 13 soya storage works in the Amazon region. It provides farmers with seeds and agrochemicals to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of beans a year, which the company then exports to Liverpool and other European ports, mainly from Santarem, a city on the Amazon river.";

[URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/apr/06/brazil.food"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/apr/06/brazil.food[/URL]


So by accusing me of hypocrisy, you make yourself into a hypocrit as well- your beloved fast food is having a far more damaging impact on the environment that my tobacco is having (also i would like to add that where did you source you tobacco deforestation figure from?). The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit, so you can no fair place to critercize me when you are supporting much worse causes. Your product causes even more widespread deforestation, its unhealthy for you, and it unashamedly promotes its products to children etc.
Also i did not see that program you see of on TV, so i cannot comment on that.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
Nope not wrong. The reason you said for eating free range products such as eggs was because they taste better- so you are not doing it for ethical reasons (at least you haven't named such reasons yet).
Not just that, but you also said in post 15;

"I like the taste of them and will continue eating them if and when I want to. Now if they start using free range ingredients I will be happy about that, but it is not and will never be the deciding factor in my choice of what to eat."

Which further backs up my conclusion that you don't particularly care about whether your food products are battery/barn/free rang etc.

Yes you are entirely wrong the statement I was replying to was:

So basically you don't really care about animal cruelty if doing something about it would cost you a tiny price.
The price isn't relevant, I pay the price for free range, I possibly pay more when I eat KFC. I've already stated that I would be happy if they all used free range, but it will not be the over riding decision.

Well thats the first you ever indicated that you have lots of money to spend on food- you earlier posts indicated completely otherwise
I have never indicated that I have little or indeed "lots" of money to spend on food, you are still assuming.

The difference between the other persons train example and your fast food example are completely different- the train sandwich situation was a situation brought about where the person was forced to eat intensive farmed products, and that this person wouldn't buy these things if there was a good alternative (the only alternative they had most of the time was cheese filled sandwiches, of which they cannot stand). You go down to KFC and similar places completely by choice- you don't go to these places because you are put in an unfavorable position. So your case is not comparable to the train sandwich scenario,
No it isn't different, if you know you are going on a train and you know it is likely to have intensively farmed food and you truly are against it, you could pack a sandwich yourself. If you care as deeply as you are pretending you would boycott foods which have battery eggs such as mayo etc, it's not hard to find out if you really care. So if you can't be bothered is it not just morals when it's convenient?

I did not refer myself to the PETA and i am not misquoting you either. In post 3 where exactly do i refer myself to the PETA?
Read agin I did not state you refered yourself to PETA I said you "referenced them yourself" (meaning you quoted them) As your reading ability appears to be impared here's the paragraph with it highlighted.

The prohibition of stunning and the humane attitude towards the slaughtered animal expressed in shechita law limits the extent to which Jewish slaughterhouses can industrialize their procedures. The most industrialized attempt at a kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors of Postville, Iowa, became the center of controversy in 2004, after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released gruesome undercover video of cattle struggling to their feet with their tracheas and esophagi ripped out after shechita. Some of the cattle actually got up and stood for a minute or so after being dumped from the rotating pen.
Secondly, with the fundamentalism, it is not my attitude. This is a debate and not a religious lecture- at every moment possible i have probed your reasoning and tried to understand it and challenge it through debate- if i were really a fundamentalist, i would brush off and ignore everything you say that disagreed with my own views. This is not the case- simply because i do not agree with you and that i have strong opinions does not make me "fundamentalist".
You referring me as having an "attitude" similar to PETA (what is the attitude you think i have? The attitude of caring about animals??), i could similarly draw similarities between your attitude and that of the Japanese Whaling nations trying to justify whaling.
You can draw similarities to me and anyone you like, perhaps I should misquote you on it later on ;)

The thing is though you don't buy free range for ethical reasons, you said your reasoning was because it tasted better, but on the whole other than that you don't really care either way about battery/barn/free range etc. Is this your ethic?
The thing is I've never claimed it to be an ethics thing for me, it is YOUR ethics. I would much rather all animals be brought up in a free range manner, but they aren't and although I buy free range myself restaurants do not and I am not going to refuse a meal that I want on that basis.

Now you see you could be on dodgy ground here, as has been highlighted, you say "enjoying my smokes" in your profile, do you smoke tobacco? If so, your talk of ethics/morals, health and hypocrisy is all rather ironic.

I have just answered this in my previous post and it is not hypocritic nor ironic (see my post)- don't be so quick to attack or assume about me.
See my previous reply to this delusion.

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
The price isn't relevant, I pay the price for free range, I possibly pay more when I eat KFC. I've already stated that I would be happy if they all used free range, but it will not be the over riding decision.

But the thing is though you don't buy free range for ethical reasons. If you were truly against battery farming etc, you would not eat foods like McD's and KFC etc.

The difference between the other persons train example and your fast food example are completely different- the train sandwich situation was a situation brought about where the person was forced to eat intensive farmed products, and that this person wouldn't buy these things if there was a good alternative (the only alternative they had most of the time was cheese filled sandwiches, of which they cannot stand). You go down to KFC and similar places completely by choice- you don't go to these places because you are put in an unfavorable position. So your case is not comparable to the train sandwich scenario,
No it isn't different, if you know you are going on a train and you know it is likely to have intensively farmed food and you truly are against it, you could pack a sandwich yourself. If you care as deeply as you are pretending you would boycott foods which have battery eggs such as mayo etc, it's not hard to find out if you really care. So if you can't be bothered is it not just morals when it's convenient?

The person in the situation wasn't me for a start so do not refer to me as so. Secondly, the person in the situation said they often stayed at hotels and doesn't always know their schedule etc. Thirdly the person also said they do try to eat home cooked meals, but due to their work this is not always possible. Basically, they are in a no-win situation.
You have assumed incorrect things here;
a. You assume the person knows they are going on a train- this is not always the case with the person.
b. You assume they have the materials and time to do cooking- this is not always the case, the person mentions staying in hotels a lot where these things are not always possible.


If you honestly don't have the time to cook, regularly stay away from home and often don't have any idea of your schedule, then you can't really blame something for buying a factory product sandwich on the train because there's no other palatable option. I am not a fundamentalist in my beliefs and i do personally think that it is excusable as a one-off; this person said if they had better options they would opt for them.
You are not comparable to this person at all in your fast food situation because pretty much none of the pressured factors apply to you, and you do not always try to opt for the better option etc.

Read agin I did not state you refered yourself to PETA I said you "referenced them yourself" (meaning you quoted them) As your reading ability appears to be impared here's the paragraph with it highlighted.
So you liken me to them in my "attitude" (of which you still haven't answered what this attitude you are accusing me of is) because i use a small factual document which names them?

The thing is I've never claimed it to be an ethics thing for me, it is YOUR ethics. I would much rather all animals be brought up in a free range manner, but they aren't and although I buy free range myself restaurants do not and I am not going to refuse a meal that I want on that basis.

"Sigh" I have asked you loads of times what your ethics exactly are, and you keep dodging the question. You tell me, what are you ethics exactly? How can you be against animal cruelty when you don't mind supporting it by buying fast food like McD meals etc? How much does animal cruelty really concern you? Admit it in clear manner.

See my previous reply to this delusion.
And see mine.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But the fact remains that i am a considerate and polite smoker who asks for permission, so i am at no fault whatsoever- you can assume and accuse all you like (but i warn its not that intelligent nor credible to do so), but that doesn't change the facts.
Indeed yet you have continually assumed and accused and your credibility is falling rapidly because of it.

So by accusing me of hypocrisy, you make yourself into a hypocrit as well- your beloved fast food is having a far more damaging impact on the environment that my tobacco is having (also i would like to add that where did you source you tobacco deforestation figure from?). The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit, so you can no fair place to critercize me when you are supporting much worse causes. Your product causes even more widespread deforestation, its unhealthy for you, and it unashamedly promotes its products to children etc.
Also i did not see that program you see of on TV, so i cannot comment on that.
You miss the whole point, YOU keep telling us all how animal welfare is something we should all be concerned about, yet you partake in something that causes so much damage. Whether McDonalds ranches do more or less damage, tobacco does damage to 12% of the worlds forests (according to WWF HERE and many others, google "deforestation tobacco" if you want more) and you support that and the effects it has.

The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit
That is quite frankly the most ridiculous statement you have made so far! So as it casues only 12% damage it's OK? The credibility of your morals has hit rock bottom. By the way, McDonalds stopped the deforestation according to Greenpeace who your argument was based on. So not only have you shown that am I not the hypocrite, but have proved beyond doubt that you are!

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But the fact remains that i am a considerate and polite smoker who asks for permission, so i am at no fault whatsoever- you can assume and accuse all you like (but i warn its not that intelligent nor credible to do so), but that doesn't change the facts.
Indeed yet you have continually assumed and accused and your credibility is falling rapidly because of it.

So by accusing me of hypocrisy, you make yourself into a hypocrit as well- your beloved fast food is having a far more damaging impact on the environment that my tobacco is having (also i would like to add that where did you source you tobacco deforestation figure from?). The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit, so you can no fair place to critercize me when you are supporting much worse causes. Your product causes even more widespread deforestation, its unhealthy for you, and it unashamedly promotes its products to children etc.
Also i did not see that program you see of on TV, so i cannot comment on that.
You miss the whole point, YOU keep telling us all how animal welfare is something we should all be concerned about, yet you partake in something that causes so much damage. Whether McDonalds ranches do more or less damage, tobacco does damage to 12% of the worlds forests (according to WWF HERE and many others, google "deforestation tobacco" if you want more) and you support that and the effects it has.

The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit
That is quite frankly the most ridiculous statement you have made so far! So as it casues only 12% damage it's OK? The credibility of your morals has hit rock bottom. By the way, McDonalds stopped the deforestation according to Greenpeace who your argument was based on. So not only have you shown that am I not the hypocrite, but have proved beyond doubt that you are!

Arfie


Ok, lets get this straight, this is where you originally quoted the smoking figure;


The tobacco industry is responsible for roughly 12% of the the deforestation of the planet, directly leading to the death of many animals who are burned in the fires and the loss of habitat of many more. It's not just trees cut down for space to grow it, but also to cure (dry) it.

You keep on saying that smoking has caused 12% of the WORLDS deforestation, when in actual reality the article where you got this stuff from says otherwise;

"In southern Africa alone an estimated 200,000 hectares of woodlands are cut annually to support tobacco farming. This accounts for 12% of deforestation in the region."



So does Africa count as the whole world LOL in your book?



Also with the McD thing, it doesn't excuse your beloved KFC, so my argument is still valid;

"As we revealed in early April, McDonald's have been implicated in the clearance of the Amazon rainforest to grow soya for animal feed and, thanks to the thousands of emails and letters you sent, they're talking to us about how they can get out of the Amazon.

KFC, however, are a different story. Using a secret recipe of illegal deforestation, land clearing and slavery, KFC continue to buy chickens from their suppliers that have been fed on soya from the Amazon.

KFC is part of Yum! Brands Inc., the world'slargest restaurant chain which also includes Pizza Hut and other fast food companies. Greenpeace recently wrote to Yum! Brands, Inc. regarding the destruction of the Amazon, but the company claimed its soya is grown in other parts of Brazil. Yet Greenpeace has traced its supply chain and found that some comes from facilities that use soya grown in the Amazon rainforest.

So the name might be different but the story is the same. In the last three years 70,000 sq km of Amazon rainforest has been destroyed - that's an area of forest the size of six football pitches every minute. Much of this destruction has been driven by the soya industry.

The chicken you eat at KFC is fed on soya grown in deforested areas of the Amazon basin and exported into Europe. To coincide with the company's annual general meeting in Kentucky today, on Wednesday Greenpeace unfurled a 300 sq m banner in an area of the rainforest cleared for soya cultivation with the legend "KFC Amazon Criminal" and demanded that KFC stop trashing the Amazon for fast food.";

<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/...st-for-chickens" target="_blank">http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/...st-for-chickens</a>


So your precious KFC supports slavery as well.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
So you liken me to them in my "attitude" (of which you still haven't answered what this attitude you are accusing me of is) because i use a small factual document which names them?
Your attitude on this thread is that if people do not fully and wholeheartedly agree with you then they have no morals/ethics and are hypocrites. You still seem to forget that I do eat free range. If the free range issue was a major thing in my life as it seems to be in yours, I would go to the effort of finding out where else non free range stuff is used and boycot those things too.

The thing is I've never claimed it to be an ethics thing for me, it is YOUR ethics. I would much rather all animals be brought up in a free range manner, but they aren't and although I buy free range myself restaurants do not and I am not going to refuse a meal that I want on that basis.
"Sigh" I have asked you loads of times what your ethics exactly are, and you keep dodging the question. You tell me, what are you ethics exactly? How can you be against animal cruelty when you don't mind supporting it by buying fast food like McD meals etc? How much does animal cruelty really concern you? Admit it in clear manner.
I really don't need to type it out again as you've even quoted it for me, but I'll bold it so you can see it.

But my ethics aren't the issue, your original question was "Will You Pay For Higher Standards In Food Production?" and the answer is yes, in fact I do for the majority of my food in fact I will as often as possible buy local so the carbon footprint is lower too. If the fact that I will eat something that isn't free range makes me unethical in your world, then so be it. Your opinon is wholly irrelevant as you have shown your hypocricy already.

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
So you liken me to them in my "attitude" (of which you still haven't answered what this attitude you are accusing me of is) because i use a small factual document which names them?
Your attitude on this thread is that if people do not fully and wholeheartedly agree with you then they have no morals/ethics and are hypocrites. You still seem to forget that I do eat free range. If the free range issue was a major thing in my life as it seems to be in yours, I would go to the effort of finding out where else non free range stuff is used and boycot those things too.

Not at all. Also since you liken my attitude to PETA, then do you view them this way as well?

Just because you eat free-range doesn't all of a sudden make you a saint- you are not eating free range for ethical reasons (you said it was for taste). When it comes to ethics, why you eat or don't eat stuff is just as important as what you eat, do you not agree?


The thing is I've never claimed it to be an ethics thing for me, it is YOUR ethics. I would much rather all animals be brought up in a free range manner, but they aren't and although I buy free range myself restaurants do not and I am not going to refuse a meal that I want on that basis.
"Sigh" I have asked you loads of times what your ethics exactly are, and you keep dodging the question. You tell me, what are you ethics exactly? How can you be against animal cruelty when you don't mind supporting it by buying fast food like McD meals etc? How much does animal cruelty really concern you? Admit it in clear manner.
I really don't need to type it out again as you've even quoted it for me, but I'll bold it so you can see it.

But my ethics aren't the issue, your original question was "Will You Pay For Higher Standards In Food Production?" and the answer is yes, in fact I do for the majority of my food in fact I will as often as possible buy local so the carbon footprint is lower too. If the fact that I will eat something that isn't free range makes me unethical in your world, then so be it. Your opinon is wholly irrelevant as you have shown your hypocricy already.

Arfie

No, my questions concerning your ethics is because you will pay for factory farmed food if you like the taste, yet on the other hand you say you are against animal cruelty- my questions were not brought about by you simply disagreeing with me, it is not as simplistic as that.
Also, if your ethics aren't the issue, then neither should be my smoking. If you want a thread as narrow to the strict title question, then you shouldn't have chased matters like animal testing and smoking and stuff etc.

I respect the fact that you do eat some free range, however i still disagree with your reasoning for consuming factory fast food etc.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
Ok, lets get this straight, this is where you originally quoted the smoking figure;


The tobacco industry is responsible for roughly 12% of the the deforestation of the planet, directly leading to the death of many animals who are burned in the fires and the loss of habitat of many more. It's not just trees cut down for space to grow it, but also to cure (dry) it.

You keep on saying that smoking has caused 12% of the WORLDS deforestation, when in actual reality the article where you got this stuff from says otherwise;
Actually I said planet, not worlds and I said it once, but I've already seen you cant read properly. It was however a typing error like the "the the" just before it ;)

So does Africa count as the whole world LOL in your book?
No it doesn't it was a mistype, however is it OK if it's only 12% of Africa? Do you not care for the african animals?

Also with the McD thing, it doesn't excuse your beloved KFC, so my argument is still valid;
No it's not! I'm not making excuses for them, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who claims animal welfare is important yet partakes in a habit that is responsible for massive amounts of deforestation and justifies it bay saying is has less impact!

However THIS makes interesting reading about soya deforestation in the Amazon.


So your precious KFC supports slavery as well.
Unlike tobacco ever has done :rolleyes:

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Actually I said planet, not worlds and I said it once, but I've already seen you cant read properly. It was however a typing error like the "the the" just before it ;)

Ok so you have said "world" as well as "planet". But the fact still remains that you misquoted the fact in the first place and that your 12% of world/planet deforestation was actually Africa and not the world in general- you are hypocritical in accusing me of not being able to read properly when you get your whole fact wrong even though you have the website to it.


No it doesn't it was a mistype, however is it OK if it's only 12% of Africa? Do you not care for the african animals?

Of course i care about the African animals however there's no indication whatsoever that the brand of tobacco that i smoke has intentionally harmed animals. To reverse the question: Don't you care about the battery chickens? Battery farming is deliberate and real and every time you support it with your cash the consequences this are assured to put more chickens in cages.
Anyways, you said that your ethics aren't the issue, so why should my smoking be?? You can't have it both ways.

No it's not! I'm not making excuses for them, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who claims animal welfare is important yet partakes in a habit that is responsible for massive amounts of deforestation and justifies it bay saying is has less impact!

No actually you assuming things again. If you look at the original post, where i tackle environment, i say "it is no justification".
I am not trying to justify it, i am just saying it is not the worst thing out there etc in relation to animal welfare and not as bad as issues like the main topic of the thread- you have tried to argue that because i smoke, i have lost some sort of moral high ground to debate with others that its wrong to eat battery food, yes? Thats ridiculous if so- its no more logical than saying to someone "if you drive a car you are not allowed to debate with others that its wrong to burn rubber tyres"!
edit: Also my argument is still valid- yes i got mixed up with KFC and McD, however because you eat both its still a valid argument etc.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
Flood control was blocking me previously so I'll answer the rest here.

"Not at all. Also since you liken my attitude to PETA, then do you view them this way as well?"

IMO PETA have a decent enough idea, but are going about things in the wrong way, their aggressive attitude is offputting in the extreme. The way they conduct themselves ensures that I would never support them in any way.

"Just because you eat free-range doesn't all of a sudden make you a saint- you are not eating free range for ethical reasons (you said it was for taste)"

I've never claimed it has, in fact I am prepared to admit that I do wander off and eat things that aren't free range, but I'm not telling other people what they should and shouldn't do.

"When it comes to ethics, why you eat or don't eat stuff is just as important as what you eat, do you not agree?"

Not particularly, if you are so dead set against it, then you refuse to eat anything that does not comply with your beliefs, so as I said before if I believed so strongly I would avoid all products that contain intensively farmed foods.

Ok so you have said "world" as well as "planet". But the fact still remains that you misquoted the fact in the first place and that your 12% of world/planet deforestation was actually Africa and not the world in general- you are hypocritical in accusing me of not being able to read properly when you get your whole fact wrong even though you have the website to it.
Indeed I did, well done ;) Still I've got a few more misquotes to go before I catch you up ;)

To reverse the question: Don't you care about the battery chickens? Battery farming is deliberate and real and every time you support it with your cash the consequences this are assured to put more chickens in cages.
To a certain extent yes I do, but not to the extent that it will stop me eating them anymore than knowing that tobacco deforestation will stop you smoking.

Anyways, you said that your ethics aren't the issue, so why should my smoking be?? You can't have it both ways.
Because it's you who was accusing me of being unethical and if smoking causes animal welfare issues, surely you can see there is an ethical issue there.

No actually you assuming things again. If you look at the original post, where i tackle environment, i say "it is no justification".
I am not trying to justify it, i am just saying it is not the worst thing out there etc in relation to animal welfare and not as bad as issues like the main topic of the thread
I'm not sure how you quantify that deforestation is more or less of an animal welfare issued than battery farmed chickens (the original topic of the thread)

Again this highlights that despite saying that my morals are convenient so are yours. You know there is no justification yet still support the industry that does it because you like to smoke.

- you have tried to argue that because i smoke, i have lost some sort of moral high ground to debate with others that its wrong to eat battery food, yes? Thats ridiculous if so- its no more logical than saying to someone "if you drive a car you are not allowed to debate with others that its wrong to burn rubber tyres"!
You have lost some moral high ground when you are calling other peoples morals and ethics wrong when your own are so severely flawed!

Also, if your ethics aren't the issue, then neither should be my smoking. If you want a thread as narrow to the strict title question, then you shouldn't have chased matters like animal testing and smoking and stuff etc.
The point about your smoking is to highlight that things are not that black and white. You partake in something that causes and has caused misery and death to massive numbers of animals around the world yet you are still an animal lover (I'm making an assumption there). Just because you do smoke and the industry causes all that damage does not make you any less of an animal lover, nor does me partaking in a KFC/McD make me care any less about animals. Do you see yet?

I respect the fact that you do eat some free range, however i still disagree with your reasoning for consuming factory fast food etc.
Well thats fine, I can live with that, but stop questioning my ethics/morals and calling me a hypocrite.

Anyway, I'm off home now to cook my free range chicken breast :drool:

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
Flood control was blocking me previously so I'll answer the rest here.

"Not at all. Also since you liken my attitude to PETA, then do you view them this way as well?"

IMO PETA have a decent enough idea, but are going about things in the wrong way, their aggressive attitude is offputting in the extreme. The way they conduct themselves ensures that I would never support them in any way.

"Just because you eat free-range doesn't all of a sudden make you a saint- you are not eating free range for ethical reasons (you said it was for taste)"

I've never claimed it has, in fact I am prepared to admit that I do wander off and eat things that aren't free range, but I'm not telling other people what they should and shouldn't do.

"When it comes to ethics, why you eat or don't eat stuff is just as important as what you eat, do you not agree?"

Not particularly, if you are so dead set against it, then you refuse to eat anything that does not comply with your beliefs, so as I said before if I believed so strongly I would avoid all products that contain intensively farmed foods.

Ok so you have said "world" as well as "planet". But the fact still remains that you misquoted the fact in the first place and that your 12% of world/planet deforestation was actually Africa and not the world in general- you are hypocritical in accusing me of not being able to read properly when you get your whole fact wrong even though you have the website to it.
Indeed I did, well done ;) Still I've got a few more misquotes to go before I catch you up ;)

To reverse the question: Don't you care about the battery chickens? Battery farming is deliberate and real and every time you support it with your cash the consequences this are assured to put more chickens in cages.
To a certain extent yes I do, but not to the extent that it will stop me eating them anymore than knowing that tobacco deforestation will stop you smoking.

Anyways, you said that your ethics aren't the issue, so why should my smoking be?? You can't have it both ways.
Because it's you who was accusing me of being unethical and if smoking causes animal welfare issues, surely you can see there is an ethical issue there.

No actually you assuming things again. If you look at the original post, where i tackle environment, i say "it is no justification".
I am not trying to justify it, i am just saying it is not the worst thing out there etc in relation to animal welfare and not as bad as issues like the main topic of the thread
I'm not sure how you quantify that deforestation is more or less of an animal welfare issued than battery farmed chickens (the original topic of the thread)

Again this highlights that despite saying that my morals are convenient so are yours. You know there is no justification yet still support the industry that does it because you like to smoke.

- you have tried to argue that because i smoke, i have lost some sort of moral high ground to debate with others that its wrong to eat battery food, yes? Thats ridiculous if so- its no more logical than saying to someone "if you drive a car you are not allowed to debate with others that its wrong to burn rubber tyres"!
You have lost some moral high ground when you are calling other peoples morals and ethics wrong when your own are so severely flawed!

Also, if your ethics aren't the issue, then neither should be my smoking. If you want a thread as narrow to the strict title question, then you shouldn't have chased matters like animal testing and smoking and stuff etc.
The point about your smoking is to highlight that things are not that black and white. You partake in something that causes and has caused misery and death to massive numbers of animals around the world yet you are still an animal lover (I'm making an assumption there). Just because you do smoke and the industry causes all that damage does not make you any less of an animal lover, nor does me partaking in a KFC/McD make me care any less about animals. Do you see yet?

I respect the fact that you do eat some free range, however i still disagree with your reasoning for consuming factory fast food etc.
Well thats fine, I can live with that, but stop questioning my ethics/morals and calling me a hypocrite.

Anyway, I'm off home now to cook my free range chicken breast :drool:

Arfie

Anyways;

a. Firstly, i am not telling people what they should and shouldn't do- in this thread, i merely shared my thoughts on stuff like this and question people's reasoning etc. I know i have probably acted a bit aggressive on this subject, however i admit that in part i cannot help this at times because its a subject that i feel very strongly about etc.

b. With the smoking, if you main point was to point out that i am guilty to of convenient ethics to some extent, then i have no problem in admitting that, because at the end of the day we all are guilty of this- unethical produce is so ingrained into our society that it is very difficult to completely remove oneself from stuff like that, and concerning this, there is the other problem of knowing exactly what is ethically produced and what isn't ( for example how do i know for sure that all of the clothes i have bought in my life time weren't made using or connected to child labor?).
However, the thing is though is that wasn't just it. If you are likening my ethics to yours, then everything you have accused (some of which is on true insult level) me of concerning my ethics must also apply to you (like you accusing my ethics/morality of hitting rock bottom because i smoked etc or some such thing), ne? I have not proclaimed in this thread at any point that i am ethically/morally better than anyone/everyone (because the way i see it we are all on different ethical levels- for example you might be more superior in one ethical issue than me or vice versa; without truly challenging every ethical aspect of someones life, you can never come to the conclusion that you are on the whole ethically better or worse than someone etc) else etc, and i disagree that i don't have the fair place to debate with other people about ethical/moral issues just because i am not ethically/morally flawless myself (you never said this outright but its a strong impression i got from some of what you said at various points).

c. I have accused you of hypocrisy and you have accused me of hypocrisy in this thread. I think if we are both brutally honest about this, we are both guilty of being hypocritical in this thread at various points (if you disagree that you have been hypocritical at any point in this thread then i am more than happy to pick out numerous examples). But founded accusation of hypocrisy is not such a bad thing since it helps keep people on track. Lets not try to let this sour relations between us; i am willing to admit that there have been points in this thread where i have been hypocritical if you were willing to do the same- lets not make this a matter of point winning.

d. Moral high-ground- i apologize for calling you unethical, however at the time i sincerely could not see your true ethics/reasoning (the thread has been very fast-paced at numerous points and difficult to keep track of) etc. As the thread has progressed, this is no longer the case, and so i take my comments back in that respect.


Anyways, i've chilled out some bit now. I smoke, you eat KFC food- both of us have our flaws. Still though i still think its important to make positive changes in ones life whenever possible. I will continue to avoid battery food and to continue to convince others not to eat the stuff if i can, but this is just an area which i feel strongly on. And i'm sure you will continue to buy free range produce from time to time, and i hope that you continue to do so on an increasing level (i'm not trying to make you to do this, this is merely a hope).
Anyways, its been interesting debating with you for the time being, good luck with the chicken breast, i'm sure it will taste great :good: .
 

Nina

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Sunny Southend, Essex
b. I don't smoke around non-smokers without permission; the only times i smoke are in my own home, or at the pub in the designated smoking area- if i smoke around a non-smoker, i ask if it is cool with them first (and the vast majority of the time its fine). Don't label all smokers as the same- we're not all trying to make children, pregnant women and baby animals breath as much of our smoke as possible :rolleyes: .
Then surely you shouldn't be labelling all meat eaters as the same.

I do eat meat but just because I do doesn't mean I don't care for animals or give no consideration for their welfare.

Your comment about Waitrose chicken being £4.49 (if that was the price) per kg. Yes this sounds cheap but an average large chicken is at least 2-3 kg so you are already at around £12-£15 for just chicken. Then you need to add the veg on top.

If you think this is cheap then explain to a single mum who gets pennies a week to live on from the state that she should be able to feed her children on healthy free range food. She would die from laughing. While the costs are so high people will not pay for it.

You also say that some meals only take 20-30 minutes to cook but take Andy's example. He gets home at 20:10 each night. 10 minutes to get in, get changed, toilet etc. By the time he even starts to think about dinner it is pretty much 20:30. Then 30 minutes cooking time, it is now 21:00 and he hasn't even began eating yet!

I would love to have the time to cook "proper" food every day. I love cooking and would gladly do every single dayif i had the time but I don't. You are lucky that you have the time to cook like that everyday rather than having a million and one other things to do.
 

Arfie

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Location
The desert
a. Firstly, i am not telling people what they should and shouldn't do- in this thread, i merely shared my thoughts on stuff like this and question people's reasoning etc. I know i have probably acted a bit aggressive on this subject, however i admit that in part i cannot help this at times because its a subject that i feel very strongly about etc.
You were, you are telling us all that we shouldn't eat KFC/McD's because of their record on animal rights you also said that if people can't afford to eat free range meat, they should eat something else and many other examples which is what I object to. However if your stance was to try and convince us all to take action to get the likes of KFC etc to change their sourcing of meats to more humane methods, I have no problem with that, I may well fully support it.

b. With the smoking, if you main point was to point out that i am guilty to of convenient ethics to some extent, then i have no problem in admitting that, because at the end of the day we all are guilty of this.
That was the whole point of the smoking reference, you do it even though you know it is bad for you, others and the enviroment.

c. I have accused you of hypocrisy and you have accused me of hypocrisy in this thread. I think if we are both brutally honest about this, we are both guilty of being hypocritical in this thread at various points (if you disagree that you have been hypocritical at any point in this thread then i am more than happy to pick out numerous examples). But founded accusation of hypocrisy is not such a bad thing since it helps keep people on track. Lets not try to let this sour relations between us; i am willing to admit that there have been points in this thread where i have been hypocritical if you were willing to do the same- lets not make this a matter of point winning.
I do not feel that I have been hypocritical for the simple reason that I don't deny that intensive farming is cruel, I know it is, but I happen to like the products of a company that uses battery farmed chicken for now nor do I suggest that other people either eat or avoid it. They actually used to (and may still) get their chicken from the same suppliers as Morrisons (I worked at Morrisons and in another job was 2 doors down from KFC). Morrisons didn't start stocking free range because of boycotts or massive campains against them and nor will KFC, but maybe a suggestion that they offer free range alongside ther normal and giving people a choice will show them that a market exists.

d. Moral high-ground- i apologize for calling you unethical, however at the time i sincerely could not see your true ethics/reasoning (the thread has been very fast-paced at numerous points and difficult to keep track of) etc. As the thread has progressed, this is no longer the case, and so i take my comments back in that respect.
:*

Anyways, i've chilled out some bit now. I smoke, you eat KFC food- both of us have our flaws. Still though i still think its important to make positive changes in ones life whenever possible. I will continue to avoid battery food and to continue to convince others not to eat the stuff if i can, but this is just an area which i feel strongly on. And i'm sure you will continue to buy free range produce from time to time, and i hope that you continue to do so on an increasing level (i'm not trying to make you to do this, this is merely a hope).
You know what the irony is? I can't even remember the last time I had a KFC ;) I think it would have to have been over a year ago maybe two it's probably a year since I last had anything other than a drink at McDs either. I will continue to buy free range whenever it is practical and I hope that more places will stock more of it for a lower price to enable those on budgets to afford it more readily.

Anyways, its been interesting debating with you for the time being, good luck with the chicken breast, i'm sure it will taste great :good: .
Nope! I burned it :-( :lol:

Anyway, I've made my point, I'll leave you to it :good:

Arfie
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
b. I don't smoke around non-smokers without permission; the only times i smoke are in my own home, or at the pub in the designated smoking area- if i smoke around a non-smoker, i ask if it is cool with them first (and the vast majority of the time its fine). Don't label all smokers as the same- we're not all trying to make children, pregnant women and baby animals breath as much of our smoke as possible :rolleyes: .
Then surely you shouldn't be labelling all meat eaters as the same.

I do eat meat but just because I do doesn't mean I don't care for animals or give no consideration for their welfare.


Where have i labeled all meat eaters as the same or assumed they are anything like? As said at the very beginning of the thread, i have nothing against the killing and eating of animals, my main concern lies with how they are raised and slaughtered. As for reasons why you eat or don't eaten certain types of meat, this is what this thread is in part here for.


Your comment about Waitrose chicken being £4.49 (if that was the price) per kg. Yes this sounds cheap but an average large chicken is at least 2-3 kg so you are already at around £12-£15 for just chicken. Then you need to add the veg on top.

If you think this is cheap then explain to a single mum who gets pennies a week to live on from the state that she should be able to feed her children on healthy free range food. She would die from laughing. While the costs are so high people will not pay for it.

You also say that some meals only take 20-30 minutes to cook but take Andy's example. He gets home at 20:10 each night. 10 minutes to get in, get changed, toilet etc. By the time he even starts to think about dinner it is pretty much 20:30. Then 30 minutes cooking time, it is now 21:00 and he hasn't even began eating yet!

I would love to have the time to cook "proper" food every day. I love cooking and would gladly do every single dayif i had the time but I don't. You are lucky that you have the time to cook like that everyday rather than having a million and one other things to do.


The Marks and Sparks free range chicken costs £5.24 and this price is not listed as per kg. Secondly, you don't have to eat meat at all in the first place- it is not a forced part of the diet. Also, plenty of people work full time but still find time to cook their own food- when i was living off the basic wage doing full-time factory work, i still found reasonable time to cook something for myself every night. The point about home cooking anyway is that you can save a lot of money by cooking meals from scratch- if you are a poor penny-counting single mum, then it makes all the more sense to home cook instead of buying pre-made stuff. I realize that not everyone can or wants to cook their own supper or whatever every day, but at the end of the day if you are doing normal full-time work then you will still at least have the weekend to spend sometime cooking, don't you agree? The excuse that you don't have time to home cook at all is only really valid if you work full-time overtime and never get any days off work etc. And besides i am not arguing that people should home cook everyday, i merely raised it as a point as a way of saving money etc.

Meat aside, free range eggs for sure cost hardly anymore than battery eggs (the difference is pennies), so i think at least there is less excuse for eating battery eggs in comparison to battery chicken.
 
OP
Tokis-Phoenix
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
0
Location
Southampton
You were, you are telling us all that we shouldn't eat KFC/McD's because of their record on animal rights you also said that if people can't afford to eat free range meat, they should eat something else and many other examples which is what I object to. However if your stance was to try and convince us all to take action to get the likes of KFC etc to change their sourcing of meats to more humane methods, I have no problem with that, I may well fully support it.

My stance was to convince people to stop supporting KFC and battery farms in general so much because of the way they treat animals etc. In my stance, i tried convince people that this was ethically/morally the best thing to do (i appreciate not everyone can do this to proper extent though). So i guess in a way you could say that my stance "was to try and convince us all to take action to get the likes of KFC etc to change their sourcing of meats to more humane methods" is true to a decent extent.


I do not feel that I have been hypocritical for the simple reason that I don't deny that intensive farming is cruel, I know it is, but I happen to like the products of a company that uses battery farmed chicken for now nor do I suggest that other people either eat or avoid it. They actually used to (and may still) get their chicken from the same suppliers as Morrisons (I worked at Morrisons and in another job was 2 doors down from KFC). Morrisons didn't start stocking free range because of boycotts or massive campains against them and nor will KFC, but maybe a suggestion that they offer free range alongside ther normal and giving people a choice will show them that a market exists.

With the hypocrisy thing, your hypocrisy lay more in accusing me of things like not reading/quoting things properly when you yourself had not read/quoted them properly (like with the Africa/World tobacco fact thing) etc.

Thats cool then, i am more than willing to admit that i have gone wrong when i can see it being the case :good: .

You know what the irony is? I can't even remember the last time I had a KFC ;) I think it would have to have been over a year ago maybe two it's probably a year since I last had anything other than a drink at McDs either. I will continue to buy free range whenever it is practical and I hope that more places will stock more of it for a lower price to enable those on budgets to afford it more readily.

Thats cool then :good: . When i stopped going to McD's and KFC it was of course intentional, i remember craving for such foods regularly like crazy at first- but i really think that such products are addictive and that they don't actually taste that great, i don't miss such products at all taste-wise now days- they were over-priced for what they were anyway. Is there any particular reason why you haven't had such fast food meals for such a long time?

Nope! I burned it :-( :lol:

Anyway, I've made my point, I'll leave you to it :good:

Arfie

Ah i don't have much experience cooking chicken, its not one of my fav meats now days (it used to be, but now i just find the flesh a bit dry and bland- its ok in pies though "thinks of mushroom and chicken pie mmm")- lamb, beef, pheasant and certain pig meats are my fav meats now days, although i don't tend to eat as much meat as i used to (i don't know why, i guess i just kinda unintentionally went off it a bit, even though i can afford more free range meat than i currently eat).

Good debating with you either way, you made me think more thoroughly about certain things (which is good) :good: . No hard feelings?
 
Top