Your views on Foie Gras

[Alec John Moore]

"he wants to force you to fit in with him" could be said of a number of posters on this thread from both ends of the spectrum. Having met Tom I reckon I could confidently say he has the courage of his convictions and believes in his "cause". That doesn't mean he is intolerant of others who don't share his views. Could that be said of most of the people who have posted on this thread?

[StraferJack]

Alec - you are confusing having strong disagreement (which is what people on here are doing) with removing people's choice (which is what Tom has done in contacting the restaurants and having them remove it from the menu)

His actions are essentially no different than those of the people who stand outside abortion clinics and try and stop people entering - ie beyond mere disagreement. It takes an emotive (if arguable) subject and bypasses the argument

[Huguenot]

No, Moore, it can't.

No-one else on this thread has gone to retailers trying to prevent them selling things to customers that he doesn't approve of.

If Mickelwright had come on here offering his views on Foie Gras I would admire the 'courage of his convictions'.

He didn't do that - he tried to prevent people buying things he didn't approve of by restricting their access.

That's intolerance and manipulation. That's 'force'-ing people to fit in with him.

[katie1997]

Alec John Moore Wrote:

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

> "he wants to force you to fit in with him" could

> be said of a number of posters on this thread from

> both ends of the spectrum. Having met Tom I reckon

> I could confidently say he has the courage of his

> convictions and believes in his "cause". That

> doesn't mean he is intolerant of others who don't

> share his views. Could that be said of most of the

> people who have posted on this thread?

I don't necessarily agree with Tom's methods on this particular issue (eg directly lobbying local restaurants to stop serving something) but at least, as others have said, as he has felt strongly about an issue, he has at least got up off his arse to attempt to address it. As opposed to those who post on here who are seemingly very much intolerant - and distinctly unpleasant - of others that do not share their views (or rather their misguided idea of what others' views are).

Fair enough, Tom could have perhaps been better off having targeted a campaign towards battery chickens but so could others who suggested it.

I don't doubt that Tom welcomes all - whether vegetarian or not - to attend local meetings to discuss and put forward their views and opinions in person. I also think he has come across rather well (and very polite) in his manner and behaviour online in response to this understandably emotive topic/thread.

Edited to add: sorry, long-winded way of saying that I agree with you here Alec.

[Ridgley]

not quite clear on this,does this harm the duck or goose?

[Alec John Moore]

I don't know the details of Tom's method, or the method of the group of which he is a member - I don't think Tom acts alone - but I reckon he used his powers of persuasion rather than coercion or force on the proprietors of the businesses concerned. So, if Tom and his cohorts have restricted choice or access a bit in the local area this is a small victory given the ubiquity of most things via the interweb. He has raised debate and discussion about the issue as a result of his "forcing people to fit in with him" and generated lots of vitriolic response to his actions. But then, that's what one finds oneself wondering about after reading the EDF, to refer to another thread on here.

[katie1997]

Absolutely. This is the place for splenetic ramblings for some.

When I said his 'mehod' I meant approaching local businesses seemingly without majority of local support as opposed to whether it was coercion or persuasion.

[Alec John Moore]

Sorry, "Katie Morag and the big boy cousins", cross posting. My reference to Tom's method was in relation to H and SJ's posts, I seem to recall.

Alec

[Loz]

Ridgley Wrote:

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

> not quite clear on this,does this harm the duck or

> goose?

Well, removing the liver is rather fatal.

[StraferJack]

Ridgley ? that?s the question that cuts to the heart of the debate

Does it harm the animal? Well inflating it?s liver so prematurely means it dies early - so that?s clearly not A Good Thing. But you?re already breeding it to kill it so that counter balances the argument a bit. Depending on the farm in question, the animal is quite happy to be overfed (waddling over to the farmer when he comes to feed them etc) and lives it?s rather strange life in better circumstances than battery chickens. But it?s entirely possible for it to be basically kept in grim conditions on other farms

As with any food, if you are bothered, check the source as much as possible

[Alec John Moore]

That's a big assumption, SJ, to adduce happiness with responses to the offer of food in an animal that is bred to be stuffed. It would be interesting to explore the question of animal welfare a bit more on the forum but I'm not sure this thread is the place for it. However, I had a look at the Compassion in World Farming website just now (there's a clue in the title of their organisation in case you hadn't noticed) and it seems that in 1997 "animals were legally recognised as sentient beings (capable of feeling pain and discomfort) by the EU." Also from CiWF website: "In 1999, against all the odds, the EU agreed to ban barren battery cages for laying hens from 2012. . . . . In 2007, the UK government stated the ban would be enforced in the UK despite continued opposition from many in the egg industry and many EU member states." That puts the comparisons between treatment of ducks and geese for foie gras production and the treatment of battery chickens for egg production into a wider context.

[Huguenot]

I have no objection to the substance of Mickelwright's complaint about Foie Gras. However, this is a red herring. Also a red herring is the question about battery chickens. I don't like that much either, but it's irrelevant.

The question is whether the ends justify his means.

It's quite easy to see that if this applied to any other situation it would be unaccceptable behaviour. I don't like privtae car ownership - is it okay for me to coerce retailers to prevent petrol being sold in ED? Clearly not.

Hunt SABs? No. ALF? No. Anti-abortionists? No.

Mickelwright? No.

The irony is that all your 'context' is scoially responsible and democratic. I'm absolutely fine with it. Coercing restarauters is not.

[BrandNewGuy]

Not sure about the 'coercing restaurateurs' bit. What would have been the consequences if they'd told Tom to sod off? Broken windows? Permanent picket? Customers being spat on? Probably not...

[*Bob*]

Argh!! Shriek! It's all so terribly, terribly important!

[Huguenot]

It's nothing to do with that BNG. The insult is that Mickelwright thinks he can act unilaterally to make other people conform to his beliefs.

That's it. It's not about hurting geese or battery chickens.

[BrandNewGuy]

You used the word "coercing". As far as I can tell, the restaurateurs could have told him to sod off and their businesses won't suffer. In what way is that coercion? If someone wants foie gras back on the menu, they can go and ask them to do so.

If Tom believes he is right, then let him talk to others and try to persuade them of his view. Any problem with that?

[Huguenot]

No problem with Tom believing he's right, talking to others and persuading them.

He isn't.

He's targeting suppliers to prevent other people getting access regardless of whether they agree with him or not.

[Huguenot]

BTW, you're incorrectly asserting that coercion requires threats of violence. Coercion can be achieved in many ways - including reward.

It simply means putting people under pressure.

[*Bob*]

Oh squealing self-important hissy-fit - again.

Didn't The Palmerston pop-up two pages ago, print their foie gras menu, and leave without give a sh1t?

Oh yeah.. they did.

Still - on with the show. Shriiiiiek.. squeeeeeaaaal... etc

[BrandNewGuy]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> BTW, you're incorrectly asserting that coercion

> requires threats of violence.

I wasn't. Asking someone to take an item off a menu is just that...

[titch juicy]

Huguenot- the restaurants aren't obliged to take foie gras off the menu, if someone asks them to. Surely they would do what they thought was best for the business.

If they did decide to take it off the menu, for moral or business reasons- you have the freedom of choice to eat elsewhere.

It's not Tom Micklewright's choice to remove it from the menu, it's the restaurants.

[Otta]

Make it stop, make it stop, make it stop!!!

It's like Groundhog Day, I keep clicking this thread, but nothing new has actually been said since about page ... 2?

Just let it die in peace, like an old aged goose!

[Huguenot]

"Oh squealing self-important hissy-fit - again. "

You seem quite incapable of judjing tone *Bob*. I suspect that's more to do with you than it is with me.

[*Bob*]

How's the Notting Hill one going? Has that one reached squealing point yet?

[Alec John Moore]

Otta, some people come later to the fray for whatever reason. I'm quite enjoying it today. Alec