Will You Pay For Higher Standards In Food Production?

[Arfie]

So basically you don't really care about animal cruelty if doing something about it would cost you a tiny price.

Wrong! you conveniently seem to have forgotten that I do buy free range, just because you have a bee in your bonnet about KFC and McD's makes me uncaring if I eat them.

Well then don't try to excuse buying battery farmed products because you don't have a large food budget, when you realistically do nothing at all to cut down on food costs. Your lack of money is your own fault in this sense and is again, no excuse for buying battery farmed products.

Some wild assumptions there! I never stated that I don't have a large food budget, in fact I spend more on food now than ever before BECAUSE I buy so much free range. Don't assume that you know more about financial management than I do I do not have a "lack of money" and have made no excuse for buying it, I've said that if I needed to I will.

Then you have no real morality/ethics concerning the treatment of animals.

Wrong again, I do have ethics, but just as you are prepared to buy things that could well be made with non free range ingredients and had no issue with buying a sarnie on a train, I am prepared to occaisionally buy fast food which is non free range. if you truly believe all you are saying live your own life by it before dictating to me. When you can honestly say you never buy anything that is not intensively farmed or has ingredients that have been intensively farmed you may be on a firmer footing for your ethics ranting!

They aren't my ethics, they are yours you need to spot the distinction. The fundamentalist (PETA style) attitude is more likely to push people in the opposite direction, I for one fancy a McD's right now which I didn't before I got lectured.

"Sigh", i had a feeling you'd sink and pull out the "fundamentalist" card. So, let me get this right, because i refuse to buy battery farmed products and disagree with others doing so, that makes me a "PETA animal rights fundamentalist" ?

Not only are you assuming but you are also misquoting me too, see the bold. You have the same attitude as PETA and you referenced them yourself in post 3 so the link is already there . In what way is it sinking using the word fundamentalist? Here is a definition of Fundamentalist for you, I've bolded the bits that highlight why it applies to the attitude you are adopting.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

You see, I do buy free range, but am honest enough to admit to buying KFC/McD and in your rigid thinking, that makes me completely wrong. The fact that I do buy free range is forgotten in your mind and you then call me a hypocrit and accuse me of having no morals or ethics.

And with the ethics, i'm just using the basic definitions of ethics. Because your ethics are convenience-based, they aren't actually really ethics at all, because ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life- your "ethics" appear to be little more than opinionated-whims, which you judge others upon but not so much yourself. By you saying its fine to eat McD's because its tasty even though you know its cruelly farmed stuff, but to then say that you think animals should be well-treated, its hypocritical and flawed thinking. Its like you saying that dog-kicking is wrong, but that its ok for you to kick a dog if you want to.

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.

Arfie

 

[chesterscot]

i think im way off the point or missed something but i enjoy a smoke from time to time and my animals have never complained and i dont just keep fish my other pets would show distress if they where been harmed or suffering
sorry if i missed the point but whats smoking baccy or anything else got to do with keeping fish
scot

 

[Arfie]

i think im way off the point or missed something but i enjoy a smoke from time to time and my animals have never complained and i dont just keep fish my other pets would show distress if they where been harmed or suffering
sorry if i missed the point but whats smoking baccy or anything else got to do with keeping fish
scot

Nothing at all Scot, but then you aren't lecturing me and everyone else on health, morality, ethics and hypocrisy.

If Tokis wants to continue questioning my morals/ethics/health and honesty then I will show how her habit of smoking goes against all those values she is so keen for others to uphold.

Arfie

 

[chesterscot]

cool arfie just wondered what was goin on with all the fag digs i take better care of my tortoise fish dogs and birds than i do myself with roobee my staffy ***** been pregas her and the dog get better food than me 20quid a week on meet excludin normall food hmmm somethings wrong there lol
regards scot

 

[Arfie]

Hope it's organic/free range dog food

Arfie

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I personally value my life over an animals. Look at the rising fuel prices. I would rather pay for the fuel over free range. The pictures honestly do not bother me much. There is much violence directed towards us humans. We have gangs, we have mass murders, we have terrorists, heck, we've even had concentration camps. That concerns me more than how my food was put on my plate. Honestly, if it came to saving one person or 10000 animals, I'd save the person.

So basically, your point is that because there are many human problems in the world (which you can't really do personally anything about BTW, like terrorism or concentration camps), you think that this is somehow reason enough to not bother about the animal side of problems (many of which you can easily help)?

I am not saying that you should prioritize animals over people- that has never been my point in this debate. A humans life is always worth more than an animals, and there's nothing wrong with that. However the issues you bring up in the human race have nothing whatsoever to do with battery farming, your justification for not bothering about farm animals is no more logical than someone saying "because there are many bad things in human society, i am not going to bother to upgrade my goldfishes accommodation from a bowl to an appropriately sized tank"- can you not see this??

 

[gaz gun man]

I always buy free range and/or organic meat.

I also shoot my own meat

 

[fergalthefish]

question for Tokis-Phoenix - on ur profile it says "enjoying my smokes". what does this mean?
if its what i think it is (smoking) then surely you're animal rights ethics are off. don't they force lab animals to smoke to see the damage they do?? isn't breathing out smoke harmful to others and the environment??
my apologies if i'm wrong about the meaning of your profile btw but if i'm right , then no apology at all.

do you have a n answer for my earlier question Tokis??

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

However, saying you can go without meat is an interesting prospect. I know that CFC has a very active and strength related job, that means he needs well built and effective muscles which makes his diet have a higher protein requirement than someone who sits in an office.

I do a lot of heavy lifting in the gym and I guzzle through about 200gms or more a day of protein. If I didn't have a cheap source of whey protein then I would be having to eat loads of cheap chicken breast, there would be no way I could afford to source the protein I need from organic meat for that rate. If one is not prepared to guzzle protein shakes (and they can get pretty annoying at times) then cheap protein becomes essential. At this point one cannot just say "eat meat less often", not if (unlike me) it can affect one's job and thus ability to earn.

Now I know the above is an unlikely and extreme example, but there are myriad reasons why people do not choose to eat organic/free range foods.

You don't need to eat lots of animal products to put on weight/muscle/have energy etc- my fiance is a vegetarian and he spends 2 hours working out at the gym every other day, he has a musclely physique and weighs just under 14 stone- he fuels his work with meals that contain lots of carbohydrates and cheese and cream and stuff, like pizza, pasta and sandwich dishes etc.
So basically, its not really a valid excuse to say that you have to eat meat if you want to be built like a brick or do high energy consuming work etc.

I think that while Toxis' heart is in right place, the method is destined to fail. People do not like to be told what to do, especially in their own home. Gentle persuasion and small goals is a much better method. Rather than bemoaning Arfie for going into KFC, enjoy the fact he purchases free range at home. AND whatever you do, do not tell someone they should be able to cook because you do That just reminds me of an art teacher telling me that everyone can draw, just watch how she does it when I know for a fact that I cannot.

Well i'm not really telling people to do, all i am doing is basically testing people's reasoning through debate- if their reasoning doesn't stand up strong to my questions and points etc, then thats not really my problem. When you feel very strongly about certain topics, its not easy to take an easy going non-testing/intrusive backseat in debate when you actually have very strong and feeling opinions about the matter at hand etc. One of the things i want to achieve in this debate is to remove denial and ignorance concerning intensive farming methods, which numerous people seem to have here- that can only really effectively be done by challenging opinions etc.

Let us also address the lack of time. While we in Britain spend the lowest portion of our paycheck on our food, we also spend the longest amount of time at work. I leave the house at around 6:15 in the morning and often don't return before 20:10. The last thing on my mind is to cook a full meal from raw ingredients. Were it not for my wife I know for fact that I would be eating convenience food far more often.

Cooking doesn't need to be a stressful energy consuming experience, it is very possible to chill out and relax while cooking (because you have to concentrate at the task at hand, it takes your mind off any other stresses or worries you have in life, and allows you to relax and happily work on something that is achievable and rewarding etc). Time-wise, there are thousands of good recipes that take as little as 20-30mins and there are hundreds of books devoted to such recipes. You don't need to cook every day to reap the benefits, even home cooking twice a week can save money and ensure there is plenty of cooked stuff in the fridge ready to be heated up and eaten at any moment in the following days etc.

Face it, every one is different, while some care about animal welfare, others put themselves first above all other matters and then there are the millions of shades of grey in between (such as me).

And so, I come to the original simple question: Will you pay for higher food standards? Well, as we saw at the start, I will, but I also understand why others think differently. I even sometimes try and convince people of why they should change their shopping habits, but I don't hammer the point too much.

I understand what you are saying. The thing is though, i just can't stand people that have no concern whatsoever for the welfare of animals, don't such people bug you too?

 

[fergalthefish]

no answer Tokis? or evading the question.

 

[afireinside]

Interesting how you've chosen to put such a remark in your signature to avoid actually saying it in a post.

I want people to see it every time I post.

no answer Tokis? or evading the question.

I am wondering the same thing. Doesn't smoking build up tar in the lungs, which could lead to things like lung cancer and emphysema? It doesn't effect you soley, but people/ animals around you. Second hand smoke.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

question for Tokis-Phoenix - on ur profile it says "enjoying my smokes". what does this mean?
if its what i think it is (smoking) then surely you're animal rights ethics are off. don't they force lab animals to smoke to see the damage they do?? isn't breathing out smoke harmful to others and the environment??
my apologies if i'm wrong about the meaning of your profile btw but if i'm right , then no apology at all.

do you have a n answer for my earlier question Tokis??

I apologize i did not notice your post earlier, i have only just logged on and are working through the posts of this thread as i go along.


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 ( http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm ). 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).

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 .

c. Concerning the environment, it has minor environmental damage especially in comparison to things like cars, central heating in houses, electricity, rubber manufacture etc. Do use transport like cars, buses etc? Perhaps you should consider giving up those before you go onto me about the environment- i'm not saying this is any justification, but i have probably done more than most here for the environment and its wildlife with my tree planting projects.

So my ethics aren't off, considering that tobacco hasn't been tested on animals in over a decade now etc.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Wrong! you conveniently seem to have forgotten that I do buy free range, just because you have a bee in your bonnet about KFC and McD's makes me uncaring if I eat them.

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.

Some wild assumptions there! I never stated that I don't have a large food budget, in fact I spend more on food now than ever before BECAUSE I buy so much free range. Don't assume that you know more about financial management than I do I do not have a "lack of money" and have made no excuse for buying it, I've said that if I needed to I will.

Well thats the first you ever indicated that you have lots of money to spend on food- you earlier posts indicated completely otherwise;

I eat the best I can, but if it gets too dear for me, then I would rather eat lower quality meat than no meat at all and yes I can live with it.

Wrong again, I do have ethics, but just as you are prepared to buy things that could well be made with non free range ingredients and had no issue with buying a sarnie on a train, I am prepared to occaisionally buy fast food which is non free range. if you truly believe all you are saying live your own life by it before dictating to me. When you can honestly say you never buy anything that is not intensively farmed or has ingredients that have been intensively farmed you may be on a firmer footing for your ethics ranting!

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,

Not only are you assuming but you are also misquoting me too, see the bold. You have the same attitude as PETA and you referenced them yourself in post 3 so the link is already there . In what way is it sinking using the word fundamentalist? Here is a definition of Fundamentalist for you, I've bolded the bits that highlight why it applies to the attitude you are adopting.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

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?

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 see, I do buy free range, but am honest enough to admit to buying KFC/McD and in your rigid thinking, that makes me completely wrong. The fact that I do buy free range is forgotten in your mind and you then call me a hypocrit and accuse me of having no morals or ethics.

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?

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.

 

[Arfie]

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 ( [URL="http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm"]http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm[/URL] ). 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?

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 .

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.

c. Concerning the environment, it has minor environmental damage especially in comparison to things like cars, central heating in houses, electricity, rubber manufacture etc. Do use transport like cars, buses etc? Perhaps you should consider giving up those before you go onto me about the environment- i'm not saying this is any justification, but i have probably done more than most here for the environment and its wildlife with my tree planting projects.

So my ethics aren't off, considering that tobacco hasn't been tested on animals in over a decade now etc.

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

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

no answer Tokis? or evading the question.

Um no, i had already started answering another post when i noticed yours, and besides that you hardly gave me anytime (i had just logged on). But i was more than happy to answer your question (see recent posts) and any other questions or accusations you have for me.