A cull
-
UK badgers advise ministers that government scientists should be culled to prevent the spread of Foot-in-Mouth disease, the BBC has learned[^] Oh sorry... did I misread that? Makes sense though... maybe we could start with 73- ... NO NO I didn't say that... Fred
geez, can't they just teach the badgers to cover their snouts when they cough around cattle? now culling scientists, if we could add lawyers / judges / politicians as well, might be a very good idea.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
geez, can't they just teach the badgers to cover their snouts when they cough around cattle? now culling scientists, if we could add lawyers / judges / politicians as well, might be a very good idea.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
geez, can't they just teach the badgers to cover their snouts when they cough around cattle?
no manners, these badgers - make a right mess of my lawn. (Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it...)
-
UK badgers advise ministers that government scientists should be culled to prevent the spread of Foot-in-Mouth disease, the BBC has learned[^] Oh sorry... did I misread that? Makes sense though... maybe we could start with 73- ... NO NO I didn't say that... Fred
So yeah, what are your thoughts on the subject...? :rolleyes:
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
So yeah, what are your thoughts on the subject...? :rolleyes:
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
You have to ask? Fred "Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at, I couldn't believe after all these years, you didn't know me better than that" Dylan - Idiot Wind
-
You have to ask? Fred "Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at, I couldn't believe after all these years, you didn't know me better than that" Dylan - Idiot Wind
"Save the cows"?
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
"Save the cows"?
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
The cows shouldn't be there, in such numbers, in the first place. It's not my problem - it's one of "your" making - so don't ask me to solve it. But the (long term) answer is, of course, less intense farming and (preferably) no dairy / animal farming at all. And I can't help but wonder at how they want to spend millions of pounds killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of animals for something that they can't even agree upon amongst themselves will work. And why should all these animals be killed just because you lot want to stuff your face full of baby-cow food (in the case of milk/cheese etc) or the cattle themselves, for your burgers and steaks? Fred
-
UK badgers advise ministers that government scientists should be culled to prevent the spread of Foot-in-Mouth disease, the BBC has learned[^] Oh sorry... did I misread that? Makes sense though... maybe we could start with 73- ... NO NO I didn't say that... Fred
Be careful to not hurt his feelings or he might threaten again to take you to court!
-
The cows shouldn't be there, in such numbers, in the first place. It's not my problem - it's one of "your" making - so don't ask me to solve it. But the (long term) answer is, of course, less intense farming and (preferably) no dairy / animal farming at all. And I can't help but wonder at how they want to spend millions of pounds killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of animals for something that they can't even agree upon amongst themselves will work. And why should all these animals be killed just because you lot want to stuff your face full of baby-cow food (in the case of milk/cheese etc) or the cattle themselves, for your burgers and steaks? Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
The cows shouldn't be there, in such numbers, in the first place.
Should the badgers?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But the (long term) answer is, of course, less intense farming and (preferably) no dairy / animal farming at all.
I like milk. And cheese. It's fine if you don't, but wishing sickness and death upon cattle just because you don't benefit from them seems a tad petty. FWIW, i suspect that less cultivation would make life harder for the badgers.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And why should all these animals be killed
The stated reason is to prevent the spread of TB, although there seems to be some controversy regarding whether such killing is terribly useful towards that end. I'm curious if you have an opinion on this apart from, "we should never even have had this problem - if we all ate marsh grass, we'd have little need for either cattle or badgers!"
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
Be careful to not hurt his feelings or he might threaten again to take you to court!
Shh! You're just trying to cause trouble, aren't you? I'm sure he's very nice to his pets. Fred I said, "No! No! No! I'm a doctor and it's true, I'm a clean-cut kid And I been to college, too." Dylan - Motorpsycho Nightmare
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The cows shouldn't be there, in such numbers, in the first place.
Should the badgers?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But the (long term) answer is, of course, less intense farming and (preferably) no dairy / animal farming at all.
I like milk. And cheese. It's fine if you don't, but wishing sickness and death upon cattle just because you don't benefit from them seems a tad petty. FWIW, i suspect that less cultivation would make life harder for the badgers.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And why should all these animals be killed
The stated reason is to prevent the spread of TB, although there seems to be some controversy regarding whether such killing is terribly useful towards that end. I'm curious if you have an opinion on this apart from, "we should never even have had this problem - if we all ate marsh grass, we'd have little need for either cattle or badgers!"
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
Like I said, it's not my problem, nor down to me that you have got yourself into a situation where there can only be losers now. There isn't a solution now that won't include pain, fear and death for a lot of animals. So see what you've done. And there are lots of alternatives to marsh grass, believe it or not. I eat a good, varied, healthy and tasty diet, without forcing any animal to suffer for it. You could too if you wanted. But you don't want. So be it. So now thousands of badgers are going to be killed for you, as well as all the cows. Just so long as you know what you are doing, I guess there's not much I can do. But I will not stop from reminding you (all) from time to time. That's all. Fred
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The cows shouldn't be there, in such numbers, in the first place.
Should the badgers?
Fred_Smith wrote:
But the (long term) answer is, of course, less intense farming and (preferably) no dairy / animal farming at all.
I like milk. And cheese. It's fine if you don't, but wishing sickness and death upon cattle just because you don't benefit from them seems a tad petty. FWIW, i suspect that less cultivation would make life harder for the badgers.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And why should all these animals be killed
The stated reason is to prevent the spread of TB, although there seems to be some controversy regarding whether such killing is terribly useful towards that end. I'm curious if you have an opinion on this apart from, "we should never even have had this problem - if we all ate marsh grass, we'd have little need for either cattle or badgers!"
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
Shog9 wrote:
if we all ate marsh grass, we'd have little need for either cattle or badgers!"
Yeah, but think of the methane, and the resultant global warming...
-
UK badgers advise ministers that government scientists should be culled to prevent the spread of Foot-in-Mouth disease, the BBC has learned[^] Oh sorry... did I misread that? Makes sense though... maybe we could start with 73- ... NO NO I didn't say that... Fred
-
Like I said, it's not my problem, nor down to me that you have got yourself into a situation where there can only be losers now. There isn't a solution now that won't include pain, fear and death for a lot of animals. So see what you've done. And there are lots of alternatives to marsh grass, believe it or not. I eat a good, varied, healthy and tasty diet, without forcing any animal to suffer for it. You could too if you wanted. But you don't want. So be it. So now thousands of badgers are going to be killed for you, as well as all the cows. Just so long as you know what you are doing, I guess there's not much I can do. But I will not stop from reminding you (all) from time to time. That's all. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
Like I said, it's not my problem
And yet, you started the thread... Surely you wouldn't bring up a topic on which you hold no interest? :confused:
Fred_Smith wrote:
So see what you've done.
The other day, i did not kill a spider i came upon. Rather, i left it to hunt and devour other insects. The other day, my wife killed a spider she came upon. No doubt sparing the lives of many other insects. Choices have consequences. Sanity requires we accept that fact.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I eat a good, varied, healthy and tasty diet, without forcing any animal to suffer for it.
Or so you say. All that it really means is that you are comfortable with the choices you make in order to survive, but uncomfortable with the choices i make. Perhaps my choices do result in more death and suffering than yours. Perhaps not. Such judgments are fraught with error...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
Shog9 wrote:
if we all ate marsh grass, we'd have little need for either cattle or badgers!"
Yeah, but think of the methane, and the resultant global warming...
Well now that you mention it, it is a tad chilly here today. Maybe i'll have a nice salad for lunch...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Like I said, it's not my problem
And yet, you started the thread... Surely you wouldn't bring up a topic on which you hold no interest? :confused:
Fred_Smith wrote:
So see what you've done.
The other day, i did not kill a spider i came upon. Rather, i left it to hunt and devour other insects. The other day, my wife killed a spider she came upon. No doubt sparing the lives of many other insects. Choices have consequences. Sanity requires we accept that fact.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I eat a good, varied, healthy and tasty diet, without forcing any animal to suffer for it.
Or so you say. All that it really means is that you are comfortable with the choices you make in order to survive, but uncomfortable with the choices i make. Perhaps my choices do result in more death and suffering than yours. Perhaps not. Such judgments are fraught with error...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger, Online Poker Players?
Shog9 wrote:
Surely you wouldn't bring up a topic on which you hold no interest
I have an interest, yes, but as I said, there is no solution now that doesn't involve fear pain and death. But you made the problem, not me. I am quite aware, thank you, that animals kill other animals. The difference between humans and other animals though is that we can choose what we do - we are not bound by our nature. We have a "higher" (though it's hard to justify that word sometimes) consciousness than they do. We used to live in caves too, once, and lived lives much like any other animal - but we used our brains and chose to do better. If only we would do so some more and extend this to our eating habits. We can reduce the pain and suffering and death we inflict on other beings in order to survive ourselves - the first step is to make the choice to want to do so, then we can work out the answers. On an individual scale, in rich western societies, the answers are already there. You only have to want them. Fred
-
Shog9 wrote:
Surely you wouldn't bring up a topic on which you hold no interest
I have an interest, yes, but as I said, there is no solution now that doesn't involve fear pain and death. But you made the problem, not me. I am quite aware, thank you, that animals kill other animals. The difference between humans and other animals though is that we can choose what we do - we are not bound by our nature. We have a "higher" (though it's hard to justify that word sometimes) consciousness than they do. We used to live in caves too, once, and lived lives much like any other animal - but we used our brains and chose to do better. If only we would do so some more and extend this to our eating habits. We can reduce the pain and suffering and death we inflict on other beings in order to survive ourselves - the first step is to make the choice to want to do so, then we can work out the answers. On an individual scale, in rich western societies, the answers are already there. You only have to want them. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
We used to live in caves too, once, and lived lives much like any other animal - but we used our brains and chose to do better. If only we would do so some more and extend this to our eating habits.
We didn't give up shelter, or move beyond the need for it. We improved it. We shelter on our own terms - comfortably warm in the middle of a vast, blizzard-swept plain or pleasantly cool surrounded by sweltering heat. Near as i can tell, we've done exactly that when it comes to our eating habits... in fact, i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint. Consider for a moment the implicit question with which you started this thread: is it appropriate to destroy one animal in hope of preserving another? We - as a society - can debate this question only because it is surreal to us. If badgers are killed, we can agree or disagree on the concept, but practically speaking our lives - that is, most of our lives - aren't affected. Same with the death of cattle - the price of milk or meat might go up, but not by so much that we'd have to change our lives in any significant way. Contrast with the family of only a few years ago, who might have devoted the majority of their labor, land, and attention for a year or more in keeping just a few cattle alive and healthy so as to provide them with milk and perhaps meat. The death by sickness of even one animal would then be vastly more damaging to them - so much so, that even the potential might motivate them to savagely eliminate any perceived threat. A discussion of this in abstract would likely be seen as utterly foolish, an activity for the idle rich or addled. It is, therefore, our modernity and prosperity that even allow such a question as this. To say, "you've got yourself into this", and then propose that such questions would not arise in a more developed society seems, to me, confusion on your part - the two are part of each other, a necessary result of a society removed from the basic needs of survival. Without that, the question is senseless...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger,
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
We used to live in caves too, once, and lived lives much like any other animal - but we used our brains and chose to do better. If only we would do so some more and extend this to our eating habits.
We didn't give up shelter, or move beyond the need for it. We improved it. We shelter on our own terms - comfortably warm in the middle of a vast, blizzard-swept plain or pleasantly cool surrounded by sweltering heat. Near as i can tell, we've done exactly that when it comes to our eating habits... in fact, i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint. Consider for a moment the implicit question with which you started this thread: is it appropriate to destroy one animal in hope of preserving another? We - as a society - can debate this question only because it is surreal to us. If badgers are killed, we can agree or disagree on the concept, but practically speaking our lives - that is, most of our lives - aren't affected. Same with the death of cattle - the price of milk or meat might go up, but not by so much that we'd have to change our lives in any significant way. Contrast with the family of only a few years ago, who might have devoted the majority of their labor, land, and attention for a year or more in keeping just a few cattle alive and healthy so as to provide them with milk and perhaps meat. The death by sickness of even one animal would then be vastly more damaging to them - so much so, that even the potential might motivate them to savagely eliminate any perceived threat. A discussion of this in abstract would likely be seen as utterly foolish, an activity for the idle rich or addled. It is, therefore, our modernity and prosperity that even allow such a question as this. To say, "you've got yourself into this", and then propose that such questions would not arise in a more developed society seems, to me, confusion on your part - the two are part of each other, a necessary result of a society removed from the basic needs of survival. Without that, the question is senseless...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger,
Well fine - if our "modernity and prosperity" allows us to ask this, then let's ask it, and stop just dismissing it with "ah but poor people in Africa, or our ancestors couldn't (have) survived thus". We can, if we want. We can at least talk about it. It isn't a non-starter - it is a viable choice if we want it.
Shog9 wrote:
i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint.
I am 10,000% and some in favour of bending the natural order of things! The "natural order" is a cruel, heartless, pain-ridden, fear-ridden beast that knows no mercy. We have bent it no end to try and eliminate as much of such darkeness as we can from our own lives - and that's fine with me; I just wish we would stop thinking we have a natural (sic) right to do so at the expense of other sentient life. Personally, and it is for this very reason, that I don't like the word "natural" associated with my vegan and anti-vivisectionist life choices. Nature can be awesomely beautiful - it can also be bloody ugly. But it isn't my foundation - I start from the point of our higher consciousness, and what we could do with it (as opposed to what we actually do with it) if we so chose.... Fred
-
UK badgers advise ministers that government scientists should be culled to prevent the spread of Foot-in-Mouth disease, the BBC has learned[^] Oh sorry... did I misread that? Makes sense though... maybe we could start with 73- ... NO NO I didn't say that... Fred
Sorry I'm late - I was just eating a big fucking steak. Tomorrow I'm cooking an entire chicken, but I'll only eat a little bit of it and throw the rest out. Then I think I'll order something cute and fuzzy from the charcuterie at the market - probably rabbit. I think increasing the demand for meat is important. Oh, what's this thread about? All that talk about meat made me miss the point of this thread. Ah, but who cares, it's just Fred_Smith. Oh I see - something about a badger cull. Their tails make damned fine shaving brushes. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out for the price drop and profit by buying a couple.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
We used to live in caves too, once, and lived lives much like any other animal - but we used our brains and chose to do better. If only we would do so some more and extend this to our eating habits.
We didn't give up shelter, or move beyond the need for it. We improved it. We shelter on our own terms - comfortably warm in the middle of a vast, blizzard-swept plain or pleasantly cool surrounded by sweltering heat. Near as i can tell, we've done exactly that when it comes to our eating habits... in fact, i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint. Consider for a moment the implicit question with which you started this thread: is it appropriate to destroy one animal in hope of preserving another? We - as a society - can debate this question only because it is surreal to us. If badgers are killed, we can agree or disagree on the concept, but practically speaking our lives - that is, most of our lives - aren't affected. Same with the death of cattle - the price of milk or meat might go up, but not by so much that we'd have to change our lives in any significant way. Contrast with the family of only a few years ago, who might have devoted the majority of their labor, land, and attention for a year or more in keeping just a few cattle alive and healthy so as to provide them with milk and perhaps meat. The death by sickness of even one animal would then be vastly more damaging to them - so much so, that even the potential might motivate them to savagely eliminate any perceived threat. A discussion of this in abstract would likely be seen as utterly foolish, an activity for the idle rich or addled. It is, therefore, our modernity and prosperity that even allow such a question as this. To say, "you've got yourself into this", and then propose that such questions would not arise in a more developed society seems, to me, confusion on your part - the two are part of each other, a necessary result of a society removed from the basic needs of survival. Without that, the question is senseless...
every night, i kneel at the foot of my bed and thank the Great Overseeing Politicians for protecting my freedoms by reducing their number, as if they were deer in a state park. -- Chris Losinger,
Shog9 wrote:
It is, therefore, our modernity and prosperity that even allow such a question as this. To say, "you've got yourself into this", and then propose that such questions would not arise in a more developed society seems, to me, confusion on your part - the two are part of each other, a necessary result of a society removed from the basic needs of survival. Without that, the question is senseless...
Shog, it is absolutely incredible that you posted this. Why? Because aside from myself and a few others, it's a point I have rarely ever seen exposited. So very many of the right/wrong questions we ask in our civilization are possible only because we've built the luxury to allow it. In a world where we lived closer to the land, such questions would be treated with disdain, even malice.
Shog9 wrote:
Consider for a moment the implicit question with which you started this thread: is it appropriate to destroy one animal in hope of preserving another?
I contend it is not our place to answer that question - in either direction. We simply are not gods and power over life and death is not ours. What we CAN and SHOULD do is what is necessary to our survival and maintenance of our way of life. That is a merely practical recognition that we ARE animals and as such we are not and can never be the "more developed society" so callously proposed by those who lament "if only humans were better than they are..." We're not. We won't be, not for a very long time at the very least, if ever. And attempting to build a world on the way people SHOULD be instead of how they ARE is a recipe for disaster.
Shog9 wrote:
Near as i can tell, we've done exactly that when it comes to our eating habits... in fact, i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint.
So I address this last, because it required the above to make sense. All animals bend the natural order of things to their needs, to one degree or another. This renders the term "natural order of things" a meaningless phrase, exposing it for the hypocrisy it is: it treats animal life as though it were a disease. Beaver have been known to cut down whole forests, for example, to build dams. Yet we'd never deride the beaver for being a pox on the face of an otherwise pristine world - we reserve that derisi
-
Well fine - if our "modernity and prosperity" allows us to ask this, then let's ask it, and stop just dismissing it with "ah but poor people in Africa, or our ancestors couldn't (have) survived thus". We can, if we want. We can at least talk about it. It isn't a non-starter - it is a viable choice if we want it.
Shog9 wrote:
i suspect this behavior, this willingness to bend the natural order of things to our own desires, is at the root of your complaint.
I am 10,000% and some in favour of bending the natural order of things! The "natural order" is a cruel, heartless, pain-ridden, fear-ridden beast that knows no mercy. We have bent it no end to try and eliminate as much of such darkeness as we can from our own lives - and that's fine with me; I just wish we would stop thinking we have a natural (sic) right to do so at the expense of other sentient life. Personally, and it is for this very reason, that I don't like the word "natural" associated with my vegan and anti-vivisectionist life choices. Nature can be awesomely beautiful - it can also be bloody ugly. But it isn't my foundation - I start from the point of our higher consciousness, and what we could do with it (as opposed to what we actually do with it) if we so chose.... Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
Well fine - if our "modernity and prosperity" allows us to ask this, then let's ask it, and stop just dismissing it with
"...it's not my problem 'cause my lifestyle doesn't depend on it". ;) Surely one brush-off is as pointless as another - and for what it's worth, the only thought i've ever given to badgers was when i'd hit one of their holes with a tractor tire, or a dog would come home the worse for scrapping with one. (that reminds me of a parallel though - ever heard of cedar apple rust? It's a fungal disease that affects apple trees and fruit, but requires the presence of cedars to survive through the winter. Culling all cedars in a five mile radius can eliminate the problem. Choices...)
Fred_Smith wrote:
I just wish we would stop thinking we have a natural (sic) right to do so at the expense of other sentient life.
We have rights according to our abilities and resources. I have the right to eat chicken breast for supper, because it is in my freezer; my sister has that right because she owns a chicken. She will not have eggs tomorrow if she eats chicken today however. I will have eggs if i drive to the store and purchase eggs, although i will no longer have the $1.30 i'd saved. I also have the right to not buy eggs, which may in some small way reduce the amount of cruelty inflicted on hens somewhere. Not eating the meat in my freezer will no doubt have some small effect on the power consumption of said device, which may or may not have further consequences elsewhere. Utilizing my right to avoid the purchase of additional chicken flesh may also have some small effect on the amount of cruelty inflicted elsewhere; my sister has a much more direct avenue, in that she is trusted with the care of her family's hens directly and therefore has much greater rights and responsibilities regarding the amount of cruelty inflicted upon them. Other factors may also be involved: a rooster that attacks relatives could be confined or could be killed and eaten - which is more cruel? Which is more practical? As you've said, it's not enough to just go with whatever seems more "natural" - when we have the ability and resources to move beyond that in our actions, so too do we have the right and responsibility to do so in our thinking. Something as simple as a zucchini quiche can be a moral dilemma, if you make it one. But whether you do or do not, you should be prepared