Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So then it's not really fair to compare the two, is it?


Seriously, I'm with Horsebox on this. The proselytizing from Thomas and his crowd is getting right up my chuff.


I'm fine if people disagree with this or any other food stuff production, and they can continue to educate and advertise their beliefs (as I've done numerous times on food issues I feel strongly about like bread) and I'll debate it here with him till I'm blue-in-the-face. But I think prevention of being able to obtain a legally available food stuff enjoyed by thousands if not millions around the world by a small, minority-interest cabal seems at best unhealthy and at worst dictatorial.

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How exactly, while it is legal, are you being prevented from stuffing your

> face with it whenever you want?


Well, if a bunch of veggie-fundamentalists run around stopping everyone from selling it...

So with your argument, DC, things like bear bating, dog fighting etc would never have been made illegal.


I think the problem comes with challenging cruelty to animals that has been enjoyed by the upper classes.


Working class cruelty to animals seems not to be as defendable by the great and the good!

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > How exactly, while it is legal, are you being

> prevented from stuffing your

> > face with it whenever you want?

>

> Well, if a bunch of veggie-fundamentalists run

> around stopping everyone from selling it...


I'm not a veggie fundamentalist yet, but if I were, how would you suggest I stop them from selling it?

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So with your argument, DC, things like bear

> bating, dog fighting etc would never have been

> made illegal.

>

> I think the problem comes with challenging cruelty

> to animals that has been enjoyed by the upper

> classes.

>

> Working class cruelty to animals seems not to be

> as defendable by the great and the good!


OMG - you're turning this into a class issue?! Wha...? Are you potty? There is no class issue at play here with anyone other than you. You think I ate swan for breakfast this morning or something? I didn't. I had bacon. See, common-as-muck me!


This is an issue of personal freedom to pursue an activity fully within the law. If you want to campaign to change that law, fine. Do so. In the meantime, leave me and my foodstuffs in peace.

The idea of not opposing something because at thus moment in time its legal seems a little silly. Otherwise wed still be owning slaves and women wouldn't have the vote.

I think lobbying businesses and politicians goes hand in hand. Infact in most cases businesses (especially in the food industry) have more power than politicians, so making the food provider change their output can be more effective than bringing MPs on board to force a change in the law that usually takes years.

Are you suggesting urban fox hunting mockney? Actually dog kennel hill used to be dog hunting kennels for royalty (surprise suprise!)

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > How exactly, while it is legal, are you being prevented from stuffing your

> > > face with it whenever you want?

> >

> > Well, if a bunch of veggie-fundamentalists run

> > around stopping everyone from selling it...

>

> I'm not a veggie fundamentalist yet, but if I

> were, how would you suggest I stop them from

> selling it?


Like I'm going to give you ideas.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Alan Medic Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Alan Medic Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > > How exactly, while it is legal, are you

> being prevented from stuffing your

> > > > face with it whenever you want?

> > >

> > > Well, if a bunch of veggie-fundamentalists

> run

> > > around stopping everyone from selling it...

> >

> > I'm not a veggie fundamentalist yet, but if I

> > were, how would you suggest I stop them from

> > selling it?

>

> Like I'm going to give you ideas.


Well why not? It's a forum isn't it?

And I'm an atheist but I'm not going to campaign to try and persuade churches in the area to stop catering for the locally deluded. I am happy to let them kneel down and murmur all they please - so either campaign to have FG made illegal through parliament etc. or leave it - and local businesses that may want to serve it - alone.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm certainly not surly - it's Friday, so I'm in a delightful mood.  As Earl Aelfheah said, the money has to come from somewhere. But Labour new that hiking fuel as well as employee NIC in would be a step too far - for businesses and consumers. It was the right decision for this moment in time. Suggesting that someone who's against fuel duty increase on this occasion is against and fuel duty full stop is quite a leap. Why do you demonise everyone who doesn't think that owning a car is a cardinal sin?  I'm not sure using Clarkson as an example of your average farmer holds much weight as an argument, but you know that already, Mal. 
    • Hope it's making others smile too! I don't know the background or how long it's been there 😊
    • If you are against the increase in fuel duty then you are surly against fuel duty full stop.  It has not kept up with inflation, I'm talking about getting it back on track.  Ultimately road user charging is the solution. Labour will probably compromise on agricultural land inheritance by raising the cap so it generally catches the Clarksons of the world who are not bothered about profits from land beyond, in his case, income from a highly successful TV series and the great publicity for the farm shop and pub
    • Were things much simpler in the 80/90s? I remember both my girls belonging to a 6th Form Consortium which covered Sydenham Girls, Forest Hill Boys and Sedgehill off Bromley Road. A level classes were spread across the 3 schools - i remember Forest Hill boys coming to Sydenham Girls for one subject (think it was sociology or psychology ) A mini bus was provided to transport pupils to different sites, But I guess with less schools being 'managed' by the local authority, providers such as Harris etc have different priorities. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...