Not Just Cheap Prices but Cheap Ethics Too?

fantombloo on 02/04/2015 - 15:31
Last edited 02/04/2015 - 15:33

Ozbargain members continually post and upvote deals that involve the suffering of nonhumans. Cheap bacon, milk, KFC, woolen items, etc. are met with cheers. Yet someone posts about cage eggs and all hell breaks loose.

Do people not realise that pigs are often confined their entire lives in small stalls where they cannot even turn around? That dairy cows are repeatedly force-impregnated in order to get them to lactate and their children taken from them and killed? That broiler chickens wallow in their own excrement right up until they are rounded up like basketballs into shipping boxes destined for the slaughterhouse? That sheep have their rear ends torn to shreds so that a species that has no right business in this country can survive long enough to produce a profit for their owners?

Why are Ozbargainers so whimsical and irrational when it comes to animal exploitation?

Site Discussion

Comments

  • iridiumstem on 02/04/2015 - 15:48
    +4

    Because it is the one that is talked the most in media and if we get rid of all "animal cruelty" arising from domestication of animals, we will probably need to kill off half the human population because it would reduce the food production a lot. So even though it is easy for us to say "Caged eggs are bad", it's hard to say, "Get rid of all domesticated animals".

    • fantombloo on 02/04/2015 - 15:53
      +8

      You do realise that the animals you eat themselves eat food that we could eat, often crops we grow. Chickens require 3kg of feed per kg of meat they grow, cattle around 15kg of feed per kg of meat. Recycling plants through animals is a very inefficient way to feed humans. The grain used to feed the cattle in America alone could feed over a billion people directly. Not that this has anything to do with the question I asked anyway.

      • iridiumstem on 02/04/2015 - 15:56
        +7

        Yes, but if you go into nutritional values, it is different. I think I remember reading papers about learning how to cook meat have influenced the evolution of brain; brain requires insane amount of energy. The efficiency of calories, nutrition values intake etc from calorie outtake, i.e. hunting, was vital in early days of human race. People like meat because it is still one of the best source of nutrition and calorie (proteins, fat etc etc) in a way. Of course we have vegan substitutes, artificial or natural, for them, but how we process food in our brain is from when we were cavemen/in early stages of history, which often has influences on what we prefer to eat. Human actually has ability to eat more than what we consider as food if you think about it (i.e. Insects are a part of cuisine in many non-Western culture).

        I don't have any feelings towards vegans, if they are vegan, they are vegan. I'm saying this hust in case you think that I am going to bring naturalist's fallacy onto the table.

        Also, I think I've given you my opinion about your question. Media, how easy it is to say it and how much it makes you feel like a better person, the cost attached to following that idea.

        • fantombloo on 02/04/2015 - 16:11
          +1

          "in case you think that I am going to bring naturalist's fallacy onto the table."

          What else apart from that did you actually do?

        • iridiumstem on 02/04/2015 - 16:16
          +7

          @thevofa: I didn't. What I've said is from evolutionary and anthropologist perspective, from readings of researches and essays I've unfortunately had to read. Of course, what it is doesn't imply what it ought to be. I don't think I've written any words that says, "People should act that way because it is natural.", I don't think that is true.

          I've simply listed the theory/explanations based on theories on why people like meat. If you choose to be a vegan, I respect your choice. I don't think I have the right to say whether it is wrong or right for you to make those choices.

        • fantombloo on 02/04/2015 - 16:28

          @AznMitch: So you presented data in order to not use it?

          TBH it's moot. I never raised the topic of meat or veganism. I raised the topic of the absurdities of how people here treat cage eggs as some cardinal sin all the while being complicit in other atrocities that are no less repugnant than cage eggs.

        • iridiumstem on 02/04/2015 - 16:31

          @thevofa: No, I've represented it to support my point of "it's hard to say, "Get rid of all domesticated animals"."

          It is easy to say "let's get rid of all cage eggs", we can always get a free range egg instead, it's hyped in the media to be the morally right thing, it's not hard to substitute caged eggs with free range eggs (price change is minimal). I suspect that this plays a role in where people complain about cage eggs and don't complain about other "animal exploitations".

        • sickllama on 02/04/2015 - 17:07
          +1

          @thevofa:
          People are hypocrites. Deal with it.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 03:33
          +15

          @thevofa:

          I raised the topic of the absurdities of how people here treat cage eggs as some cardinal sin all the while being complicit in other atrocities that are no less repugnant than cage eggs.

          Isn't it a good thing that so many people are passionate about boycotting something which involves animal cruelty.. even if they don't boycott or show the same level of disgust towards every other product or practice out there which involves the suffering of animals?

          So what if there is hypocrisy and/or inconsistency. The fact is, people care and are capable of caring. They (we) might not be perfect.. we never will be.. and that certainly isn't an excuse to allow us to do everything half-arsed and entitle us to feel virtuous for only caring a percentage of the time.. but think back to a few years ago, and what was the majority attitude towards cage eggs back then? Were people as aware of the practices back then as they are now? Were there as many people insisting on buying free range as there are now? Would there have been such a passionate and wide/high response against cage eggs as there is now?

          Times are changing. You do see labels on supermarket meat now for RSPCA approved, sow-stall free, free range, etc etc. Did those exist 5 or 10 years ago? These issues are now filtering into the mainstream consciousness. Sure it is happening slowly, but people are becoming more aware now, or are at least questioning where their food is coming from. It'll take time for EVERYONE to become fully educated on all the processes/practices and to make up their own minds… it'll take a long time before everyone makes different decisions (and there will always be some who simply will not be swayed or impacted by any new information).

          I hate to say it dude, but you do come across as very black and white in thinking. Like people have to be 100% perfect in their behaviours and views or they're a bad human being. That's the vibe I get from your post, but I could be making the wrong assumption here. I'm curious to know what your ideal would be. Right now I get this all-or-nothing kind of attitude. Do you look down on people who eat meat but say no to cage eggs? Why not think of that positively as a small step towards progress, rather than condemn them for being hypocrites, or point out the obvious that it's absurd or inconsistent? (humans are absurd creatures.. I don't believe we're rational by nature, so it's not exactly surprising that the things we do are absurd, but that's off topic..)

        • endotherm on 03/04/2015 - 03:49
          +2

          @AznMitch: Actually it is hard to substitute, based on supply and demand. There aren't enough eggs to go around, backed up by these comments. Not to mention the hundreds of millions needed just for vaccine production for a single virus. http://grow.cals.wisc.edu/health/knowhow-how-to-make-a-flu-v…

        • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 03:57
          +1

          @endotherm: Whoa! I had no idea eggs were used for vaccines. Fascinating.

        • iridiumstem on 03/04/2015 - 07:06
          +1

          @endotherm: When I said substitute, I meant it as compliment goods and substitute goods. As in, they both are eggs. You are not losing out because they taste different and stuff if you move from caged to free eggs. Macro level, it would reduce the production level because it is practically making the farmers to go for less efficient method (i.e. number of eggs produced per m2 is less). I was simply referring to people's behaviour and potential gain and loss from individual's perspective.

          I have to admit, sleep deprivation did make my comments on this very dichotomical and bitter.

        • giilour on 04/04/2015 - 09:43

          @thevofa:

          I agree with you but you have to put it all on the same level - and just that people are being aware is a step in the right direction, have to spread that feeling of caged eggs across the board. I like that meme out that says "people think $5 for free range eggs are expensive but you happily pay $5 for a cup of coffee"

        • tikei on 04/04/2015 - 14:31
          -1

          @sickllama:

          I'm not. I buy caged eggs only :p

        • Dan_ on 05/04/2015 - 11:22
          +2

          @thevofa: By your criteria, the people who have an issue with caged eggs, although somewhat uninformed, are more ethical than those who didn't raise the issue at all (i.e. everyone else). It most certainly is a (very thinly veiled holier than thou) post about meat and veganism.

          And what do you mean we're not rational?

          (1) Caged eggs, Price $3:
          $3 worth of eggs

          (2) Free range eggs, Price $5:
          $3 worth of eggs + $1 worth of feeling good about chickens happily roaming the farm yard = $4

          Choice one is therefore the rational choice. Most people don't place as high a value on the feel good part of free range eggs as say, a Nazi-vegan for example, who would consider choice 2 to be a bargain because they get their money's worth plus the bonus of riding on a high horse around people who eat a proper diet.

        • Dan_ on 05/04/2015 - 18:57
          +2

          Correction to Nazi-vegan: Militant vegetarian

      • Tyrx on 04/04/2015 - 17:37
        +2

        Uhh, no… the majority of grain given to cattle is not suited for human consumption. The entire argument about the poor grain to kilo is rather silly. It's especially ridiculous saying something like that when we live in Australia where the vast majority of cattle is fed solely on pasture. Last I heard (mind you that was in 2012/2013, so it's a little outdated) only around 3% of Australian cattle are raised on grains. I don't know much about chickens, so I won't comment on that.

        With that said, it's pretty obvious that our current system of meat production is unsustainable from an ecological perceptive. However, stating that the concept of meat production is inefficient leans towards being deceptive. A large percentage of farmable land in the world cannot produce the diverse range of fruits, vegetables, and legumes that is necessary for vegan diets. They are however suitable for growing grains. Not all arable land is created equal. The problem we're having with the impact of meat today is due to people simply consuming it too much.

        • ankor on 08/04/2015 - 17:46

          Flyby negger didn't even have the decency to respond to your position. I call bs to that and give you a +

  • RockyRaccoon on 02/04/2015 - 15:49
    +20

    Just like they voted down Apple productrs because they were made in Chinese sweat shops, but ignored that these same shops made Dell, Msoft, HP and samsung products.

    Like they make comments about politics when it's got nothing to do with a deal.

    Like those who cheer the many minor parties that block legislation from a party that the majority voted for and call that democracy (and I am not just referring to this current parliament).

    It's ok to foister your beliefs on others but not have them do the same to you.

    I voted against the egss to raise the stupidity that has come into this place, the ethics that mean one can post a deal for KFC, which buy's chickens that are not free range, but can vote down a deal on cheap eggs. Probably the same people who complain that food prices are too high for the masses.

    If you dont like it, show this stupidity up, by voting down KFC deals, maybe then people might just see this as a deal site, not the site to try and change the world. There are other sites that do that a lot better.

    • tonyjzx on 05/04/2015 - 11:23
      +3

      here's the thing, Dell, Microsoft, HP and Samsung dont try to push their 'revolutionary' ideals and 'world changing' philosophies like Apple

      if you're Apple you should expect to be scrutinized more than the opposition

      • RockyRaccoon on 05/04/2015 - 15:53
        +1

        Ah ethics apply only to those who are "revolutionary".

        As John McEnroie says - "you cant be serious!!"

        Just like democracy only applies when its freedom for your side. eg Left wants Nazi's banned and Right wants communists outlawed.

        Rather than each wanting both banned.

        • Bren20 on 09/04/2015 - 11:20

          I'm not so sure nazis and communists are comparable

        • RockyRaccoon on 09/04/2015 - 11:41

          @dinna89: Neither am I, but read this and tell me who was worse

          http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-…

          Of course it depends on if you are left or right.

          12 million vs 9 million but hey whats a few million between friends, which BTW they were for a few years of WW2

          But as I said below, lets not nit pick especially with examples.

      • Hessian Sack on 07/04/2015 - 13:40
        +8

        I think the better argument as to why Apple should be held to a slightly higher standard are their very strong margins and huge cash reserves. Apple has the means to change things.

        • RockyRaccoon on 07/04/2015 - 17:31
          -5

          Again in your case you also cant be serious. You mean ethics applies to those who can afford them?

          So caged eggs are ok if the producer isn't making much money out of it. But if they are then they shouldn't do it.

          The point is that most of the so called ethics that people apply are for different reasons. If I like the product/company then like politics it's not an issue.

          If I dont like the company/politician then my god they have to be brought into line. But adding in that they make high profits makes it ok to be inconsistent.

          Which is what this thread is all about.

          Caged eggs are bad, but if its included with your favourite meal eg Egg and Bacon roll/sandwich, well then it's ok. (it's still made with a caged egg) The OP was saying that many who vote up KFC and vote down a caged egg deal on the concern about the treatment of the chicken in the production, is Hypocrisy as both have the same impact on the chicken.

          Workers at the SAME factory (foxconn) are mistreated when they make Apple Products they are also mistreated when they make Samsung, HP. Dell products. So you dont buy the Apple product, and buy one of the other brands Foxconn make, guess what the worker still gets mistreated!!

          So you have done nothing.

          If you TRULY are concerned, then applying the same standards to all the companies that mistreat workers is the way to change things.

        • elektron on 07/04/2015 - 18:18
          +3

          @RockyRaccoon:

          I think you need to check your facts. Foxconn doesn't make products for Samsung.

          I think it's not unreasonable to hold the most profitable company in the world to account when they are squeezing every last cent of their margins at the expense of working conditions.

          I actually agree with the broad point you are making about the hypocrisy of some individuals, but in regards to Apple you sound like either an Apple shareholder or an Apple fanboy :)

        • RockyRaccoon on 08/04/2015 - 07:26

          @elektron: Correct on the Samsung point, but like many discussions here people focus on the minor points rather than the overall.

          My point in raising the Foxconn example, was about as you rightly acknowledge the hypocrisy.

          If we take the original example caged eggs, then what by extension people here are saying, with profitability definitions, is that caged eggs sold by Woolies is wrong, but caged eggs by a corner store would be ok. (or even worse used by large "profitable" multinationals in pre prepared foods is ok)

          I wasnt trying to defend Apple or Foxcon, or put down Samsung. I was pointing out that when many here say they will boycott a product because of production abuses, be it that of workers or animals. then be consistent and apply those same requirements otherwise all you do is nothing.

          So whether somone is a shareholder or fanboy isnt relevant. Do you ask if those who support caged eggs are egg farmers or shareholders?

          That is the problem with the, hold the rich to account in this whole debate. There are millions of poor who buy the goods (or eggs), while they buy, there will be demand, so if Apple or Samsung or Woolies stop, then they are bought, or supplied by someone else.

          To the point, which got hijacked with the rich can pay issue, is that if we stop caged eggs in the supermarket, they just end up in prepackaged foods, or the egg and bacon roll at the corner takeaway.

          The better way is to pressure authorities to impose regulation, rather than expect a few ozbargainers to vote down a caged egg deal.

      • deal seeking missile on 07/04/2015 - 23:21

        also: Samsung is Korean made not chinese

  • spackbace on 02/04/2015 - 15:50
    +1

    Ah vegans… tell me, how many supplements do you need to take to establish a balanced diet? Coz that's the natural way right

    • insular on 02/04/2015 - 15:57
      +1

      don't forget the vitamin b12 injections

    • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 01:33
      +4

      It's entirely possible to eat a balanced diet which provides the essential nutrients as a vegan, ya know :P

      Google for vegan food/recipe blogs or instagrams. The meals and snacks they come up with are amazing and packed with nutrition. This is one mouthwatering example. She makes her own recipes. You won't find meat anywhere on there :)

      • spackbace on 03/04/2015 - 01:39
        +7

        I just haven't personally witnessed a vegan that didn't take supplements.

        Hell my cousin is bringing their kids up vegan, and they were taking supplements at like 2/2 and a half (I think they were breast fed till like 2 and a half, but that's for a different discussion!)

        I just see the big trend lately of 'grains are bad etc etc' but then these same people have their bottles of pills. Sure I might eat junk food, drink soft drink etc but I don't soap box, I know I eat bad shit but hey I like it! But don't make out like your (not you per Se, but the general term) diet is all natural, and then open a bottle of pills!

        (now see what you've gone and done, you made me write paragraphs!)

      • BobD on 03/04/2015 - 09:02
        -1

        "You won't find meat anywhere on there"
        I particularly liked the one that had sprinkles (hundreds and thousands) with jam on toast. Now that is a very healthy meal, NOT. Sorry, I note it was brown toast. That would make it healthy. lol.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 14:10
          +2

          Good on you for picking out one treat out of a long list of wholesome meals. Ur so clever.

      • insular on 03/04/2015 - 10:02

        not vitamin b12

        • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 14:13

          There are vegan foods that are fortified with B12. Vegemite is one. Breads and cereals are another.

        • insular on 03/04/2015 - 23:08

          @waterlogged turnip: keywords here are: "fortified with"

        • Ryxxi on 04/04/2015 - 09:11
          +2

          @waterlogged turnip: you know vegemite come from yeast? its a living organism too . lol. Even plants are living organisms. They probably don't have a brain and feelings but they are living.

        • deepdag on 04/04/2015 - 13:19
          +5

          @Ryxxi: Plants are living beings and have feelings too. Numerous studies show how they respond to music. May be brains not like humans or other animals but certainly without some intelligence they won't know how to search their food in soil and extract only what they need!

        • RockyRaccoon on 04/04/2015 - 15:54
          +2

          @deepdag: Oh dear that's going to set the cat amongst the turnips. Air Diet anyone?

        • deal seeking missile on 07/04/2015 - 23:27

          @RockyRaccoon: an Air diet might make you gassy :P bad joke aside humans are not herbivores, we evolved to be omnivorous, we need meat - even in small quantities. The proteins in meat are fundamentally different to the protein in plants, they can never be a perfect substitute for meat.

    • subywagon on 05/04/2015 - 01:46
      +1

      Hitler was a vegan….

      • Dan_ on 05/04/2015 - 18:59
        +1

        I think he only went as far as vegetarianism.

        • subywagon on 05/04/2015 - 20:47

          Close enough ;)

        • ankor on 08/04/2015 - 17:51
          +1

          @subywagon:

          So we're saying someone needs to invent a time machine, go back and feed Hitler bacon, get him addicted to it..
          The effect of which would be no WW2, so then there'd be 50million+ more people on the earth and we'd have more issues with food shortages, water shortages, and overpopulation, leading possibly some other type of catastrophic war.

          puts on the tinfoil hat and undies

  • sempro on 02/04/2015 - 15:50

    ….OK

  • spackbace on 02/04/2015 - 16:01
    +3

    Love the irony of the report on the OP for Spam ;)

  • Reverse Snorkel on 02/04/2015 - 16:25
    +5

    I ♥ bacon

  • Davo1111 on 02/04/2015 - 16:27
    +31

    The short answer is I don't care.

    • fantombloo on 02/04/2015 - 16:29
      +2

      An honest answer. Thank you.

  • spackbace on 02/04/2015 - 16:27
    +2

    Actually I might have a Zinger Burger Combo for lunch :)

  • Axelstrife on 02/04/2015 - 16:47
    +2

    As someone who reported all invalid neg votes on that deal only to have mods Twist the rules to suit them I say to you don't bother with this topiC it's pointless to bother.
    Whether you are right or not if the community or mods don't like it For personal reasons its Begged in that caged eggs deal which was an entirely valid deal but personal reasons. Meant mods didn't care about invalid votes nor the people commenting or voteing.

    • rompastompa on 02/04/2015 - 17:01

      So the weak/disabled people can't neg now? :)

  • c0balt on 02/04/2015 - 23:45
    +2

    I fully understand the dilemma. I myself prefer traditional animal husbandry methods, but I still usually buy the lowest cost for the same quality because at the end of the day I prefer to have more money for other things than satiate my tiny need to want to improve conditions for my food source.

    The fact is we are 7 billion mouths on this planet, and we don't need to care about the feelings of our food source with the way modern societies operate.

    I would rather a 50% reduction in our species numbers so we could sustain ourselves with more 'humane' methods, but the truth is that we can't.

    The social justice warriors would just end up hurting the poorer of society (a group they usually try and fight the hardest for) by forcing huge shifts in industry, so it's a double edge sword.

    Davo said it best, the short answer is I really don't care.

    • belongsinforums on 03/04/2015 - 01:22

      China tried to reduce their population. They're letting go of the one child policy now

      • taqi on 03/04/2015 - 13:28
        +2

        It actually worked.

        • belongsinforums on 03/04/2015 - 14:30

          Yes, of course it reduced the population size, but at a cost. Think huge amount of elderly people, and small amount of young adults to take care of them. Think predominately white collar workforce and a lack of blue collar workers. On a humanistic level, think people having to sell or give their babies away, or not even register their babies to avoid taxes. Think babies flushed down toilets.

          I think a more gradual approach would be much more effective. Contraceptives need to become more popular in many places and cultures. Early abortion should be a safe procedure, legalised everywhere. Hell, if you're really keen on reducing the population, make euthanasia legal.

        • iridiumstem on 05/04/2015 - 23:37
          +1

          @tomkun01: As much as I hate the one child policy, I think your arguments about the population distribution becoming more skewed towards older people applies to almost all OECD countries (at least from my knowledge, happy to be proven wrong) out there regardless of whether they had one child policy or not. Japan is one of the prime example of the population becoming more skewed towards older people. South Korea suffers similar problem. I might sound harsh here (since it is people we are talking about) but older people are living longer and younger people are not having enough children to support the older generations and that seems to be the general trend in developed country imo.

          That being said, I don't like One Child Policy as I said. I am simply pointing out that your point about younger generation being smaller than the older generation applies to most of the countries out there.

        • belongsinforums on 06/04/2015 - 09:29

          @AznMitch: I certainly don't have the statistics to back it up, nor do I think that accurate statistics are available, but I daresay that the OCP only exacerbates the problem. Yes, you're right though. People in Japan can't afford, or think that they can't afford to have children. They mustn't be having much sex, just like my Japanese friends say, because condoms are not popular there. Don't even mention the birth control pill to women there!

        • iridiumstem on 06/04/2015 - 09:57

          @tomkun01: OCP probably does have negative effects on the aging population bit. Though I have to say, I think it at least, with all its side effects, controlled the population. Yeah, it probably has undesirable long term effects but it at least controlled the population, regardless of how inhumane and brutal it was.

        • belongsinforums on 06/04/2015 - 19:58

          @AznMitch: Agreed, could have been worse. Act now, worry later!

      • tyler.durden on 04/04/2015 - 08:48

        removed

      • tyler.durden on 04/04/2015 - 08:49

        During one child policy,

        Do people who had two children
        killed one of their child (mainly the females)?

        • belongsinforums on 04/04/2015 - 10:13

          I only know that the rich can simply pay a tax to have more children. Abortion is legal. I have heard that people in rural areas simply didn't register 2nd children with the gov. Altered birth certificates are not unheard of - two friends of mine have the wrong dates on theirs!
          Imagine what uneducated rural farm workers would do if they bore an unwanted baby girl that they couldn't afford. Disposal may seem like a solid option for some, but I'd like to think they simply found a way around the law

        • umamandy on 04/04/2015 - 13:41

          Abortion is legal and common in cities. You can also buy the morning after pill on the shelves in pharmacies (done it for a couple of friends who couldn't speak Chinese).
          Rural areas are allowed to have more than one child if the first born is female or disabled.
          And yeah, then pay the "you saw nothing tax" if you live in cities.

        • airzone on 05/04/2015 - 23:23

          @umamandy:

          Unless you come across an area where they partake in forced abortions.

        • iridiumstem on 05/04/2015 - 23:42

          @umamandy: Did you come across areas where they do that? I surely haven't in my 2 years of living in Beijing, but than again, I only lived in the foreigner parts of Beijing.

          Also, oh you. ;)

        • umamandy on 06/04/2015 - 09:19

          @airzone:
          Yep, does happen. But point was you can get around it if you have the moolah. Or the 15RMB for the morning after pill. :p

        • umamandy on 06/04/2015 - 09:24

          @AznMitch:
          Do what? The extra-baby payment? Yep. It's called Pudong. :p
          Not sure how widely practiced the 'if your first born is female or disabled' thing is. I didn't go rural that often. But the Chinese development politics lecturer who told me this does all her field work with rural women, so she has first hand experience, I guess.

        • iridiumstem on 06/04/2015 - 09:52

          @umamandy: Forced abortions. I've heard about everything else discussed here, except forced abortion :P

        • belongsinforums on 06/04/2015 - 20:00

          @AznMitch: So you've heard about how highly sought after aborted fetuses are by some, too? ><

        • airzone on 06/04/2015 - 21:08

          @tomkun01:

          They are good as ingredients for Pepsi Next, immunisation shots, and baby soup… Depending on who you believe ;)

        • iridiumstem on 07/04/2015 - 02:00

          @tomkun01: It's not like I don't believe how awful things can get to, half of my life, I was interested in psychopaths and genocides and that's partially what got me into psychology. I've read what things people can do and to be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised if what you are saying is true or even, what you are saying is actually better than what is happening.

          That being said, I honestly don't know how much is simple urban legend and how much is actually happening. Some people seem to make this "rural area" into a place where there are no civilisation etc etc, it makes a great stories at least. Let's be fair, stories without proof is just stories, urban legends.

        • belongsinforums on 07/04/2015 - 22:03

          @AznMitch: I have a friend working in the police force in a rural town there. Maybe this is just an extreme case, but in his first year on the job he got a call to a disturbance. A man had stabbed and killed someone he had a petty argument with. Don't forget that in Mao's era, education was banned, and many people never got a formal education. Without education and society, we would be uncivilised.

        • iridiumstem on 07/04/2015 - 23:20

          @tomkun01: Yeah, I have heard cases where people killed another person over 100 kuai at Chaoyang park. It still doesnt doesn't prove anything about forced abortion. I see it being plausible, definitely.

          Systematic evil is something easy to create, regardless of education and social background, I can even give you examples of it happening in US, something like Standford Prison Experiment and many more. If I go a bit further, many of the people who were in charge of Nazi camp were actually not "insane" or "psychopathic" in any ways. One of the interviews done with the psychologist who've analysied one of the Nazi who were in charge of one of the camp was something like, "He is at least saner than I am, after seeing how sane and normal he is." Constrains from civilisation, morality and ethics are simple arbitrary constructs that can easily be destroyed,, if you want my opinons on it. We tend to think that the evil are special type of people when they really aren't.

          Slightly went tangent, but my point is that while it is plausible that something systematically evil as forced abortion can be happening in rural areas, I need proofs.

        • belongsinforums on 08/04/2015 - 22:20

          @AznMitch: If the proof did exist, good luck getting that out of China alive

        • iridiumstem on 09/04/2015 - 13:11

          @tomkun01: So there is absolutely no chance that it isn't happening therefore there is no proof for it? Well for the culture of abortion being done commonly is easy to grasp with many people vouching for it along with the portray of abortion in literatures like 'Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress'. I don't believe that it's impossible, definitely, I think it is plausbile. Though I'd want to see something more than, 'I have a friend who told me evil things happen in rural areas' or 'people in rurual area are uncivilised with no education'. Also, the idea of 'there is no proof, it must be because of the censorship
          ', even though it does have some facts behind it (i.e. censorship in China is fairly bad), it does stop legitimate arguments on it (i.e. how can I argue against something like that without bringing in the fact that there are no proofs on it?).

        • belongsinforums on 11/04/2015 - 15:15

          @AznMitch: I like to imagine that the world is probably more fooked up than most people know. Don't mind me

  • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 01:26
    +17

    I'll play devil's advocate here (because I do understand your point, thevofa, and I think many others have already expressed the same throughout the relevant threads/deals)..

    This is a bargain hunting site. Often the cheapest things, be it food or clothing or electronics, have involved 'cruelty' or at least a lack of ethical treatment somewhere along the production line. It wouldn't just be animals which suffer. What about humans working for f*** all in factories, making $5 t-shirts we wear or absurdly cheap gadgets posted on here? How many times have you seen things posted on here for less than $1? made in China.. do the workers who help make those items live happy lives? Don't they also suffer? What about psychological suffering? They might not suffer in the same way animals do physically - but surely the same compassion should be given to all living creatures who are forced to exist in non-ideal environments, and pretty much 'slave' to satisfy a greed that is beyond them and insatiable?

    I'm with you re: animal welfare. I'm no longer a vegetarian but had been since the age of 10 for ethical reasons. Was a vegan for a while too. I'd prefer to continue living a meat-free diet and avoiding animal by-products as much as possible, but in all honesty it's difficult and can be a more expensive way to live (an unfortunate priority - I hate how money can or DOES dictate how one lives rather than us being totally free to live according to our values.. perhaps it is possible though.. perhaps I am too weak..). I'm also still trying to stay afloat against a long term eating disorder, and I realise that implementing any extra 'food rules' like food exclusions can be harmful for me mentally. Many, many anorexics also happen to be vegetarian or vegan. The line between it being an ethical choice and a decision which is fuelled by (and which fuels) their illness is a blurry one. But anyway.. I hope I can one day 'healthily' revert back to a meat-free diet. Screw the social implications, too :)

    Um, tangent there. Sorry. I suppose it's just easier for us to not think about all the heavy stuff 100% of the time. Consider it a coping mechanism. Sure it could be viewed as selfish (and in part I agree it is, I'm guilty of allowing myself to turn a blind eye / switching off to realities I'm aware of which go against my values just to selfishly let myself enjoy something guilt-free.. a horrible thing to acknowledge, but I acknowledge it nevertheless). But how would we all cope if we all took the burdens of all the atrocities in the world at every given moment? Would anything be purely ethical? How would one get by if one was to try and live a 'pure' life where there was no hypocrisy in action or thought?

    Personally I'm imagining it would require us to live rather isolated, non-interdependently.. grow your own food, make your own clothing, harvest your own energy/power. That is kind of my dream/fantasy. Living an entirely self sufficient life. Knowing intimately where everything you use/consume came from. You have the ultimate control over how things are done. Nothing suffers.

    Even the people who respond with "I don't care" to your question… I kinda wonder if that's really true. I think people do care deep down, but to take the time to engage with and think about what really happens in the world.. the harsh, ugly realities.. would just be too overwhelming. It's easier to shut it out and make the "I don't care" excuse. I doubt people are really that heartless. Life is just too complicated and people simply have different priorities - that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't change the horrible things that happen if they could.

    I dunno. It's interesting to think about.

    • spackbace on 03/04/2015 - 01:34
      +4

      TL;DR you didn't abbreviate anything :P

      • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 01:35
        +1

        FML :(

        • spackbace on 03/04/2015 - 01:40
          +1

          There we go :)

        • woz on 03/04/2015 - 17:41

          Self sufficiency - I should take you up river someday. You can do a lot worse that gin clear mountain water, rainbow trout, blackberries, figs, apples, peaches, apricots and even walnuts from roadside and streamside trees. If I could just find a chocolate tree, I'd be in heaven.

        • [Deactivated] on 03/04/2015 - 17:48

          @woz: Google "chocolate pudding fruit", or black sapote

        • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 18:26

          @chocolate turnip: I've never tried a black sapote, but have been told that it's a texture thing, rather than anything amazing - or even vaguely choc-like, taste-wise.

          Similar, but different - dragonfruit - look amazing, but are disappointingly lacking in flavour. Blah.

          :P + :(

        • deal seeking missile on 07/04/2015 - 23:34

          @waterlogged turnip: DUUUDE (or dudette) Sapote are like the best fruit ever. So many varieties all so tasty.

        • stumo on 08/04/2015 - 08:45

          @woz:
          But rainbow trout have feelings too.

        • woz on 09/04/2015 - 02:41

          @stumo:

          That's why I carry a priest. I only keep pan-sized trout that fit nicely in the smoker, and never more than my family can eat. The small and big ones are returned.

    • Devils Advocate on 04/04/2015 - 00:20
      +9

      I'll play devil's advocate here …

      Hey… That's my job!

    • belongsinforums on 04/04/2015 - 10:17
      +2

      You always have logical comments. Being serious here - could you please explain to me how vegos seem to ignore the life abundant in plants that they eat? and bacteria etc?

      • Thenarrator on 04/04/2015 - 16:15

        duh plants have less feelings than animals

        • deal seeking missile on 07/04/2015 - 23:41

          less but not none. For example the smell of freshly cut grass is actually a chemical signal which indicates stress. When it is stressed it moves nutrients back to the roots to save the energy for future growth. If you expose that smell to grass that hasn't been damaged yet it'll react in exactly the same way as the grass that's being cut. For a plant, the smell of cut grass is the chemical equivalent of a scream; warning its neighbors of impending danger.

    • Roman Sandstorm on 07/04/2015 - 12:59
      +1

      Personally I'm imagining it would require us to live rather isolated, non-interdependently.. grow your own food, make your own clothing, harvest your own energy/power. That is kind of my dream/fantasy. Living an entirely self sufficient life. Knowing intimately where everything you use/consume came from. You have the ultimate control over how things are done. Nothing suffers.

      Everything you say here is total and complete fantasy. Humans are interdependent. And have been for tens of thousands of years. It's a defining point of our species.

      Your fantasies of Grizzly Adams (or Ted Kaczynski) living in a cabin in the woods, or happy barefoot hippies in the free love commune, all living in harmony with nature, and not being dependent on the evil modern world are just that: arcadian dreams.

      Almost every skill, all knowledge, all the enabling factors which would allow you to live in that grass hut (or even one made of sticks or bricks), to grow and harvest food, to make clothing, etc, etc, is completely dependent on modern civilization. What about the petrol, (or gas or electricity) in the car (no doubt a large SUV) required to actually get to the isolated rural idyll? Hell, what about the roads to get there? What about the council or shire zoning regulations? What about land ownership and the necessary legal and social infrastructure behind it? What about rural fire safety? What about police services?

      And this is just getting to the perfect little patch of non-civilization.

      What about health? Education? Arts? Literature?

      The fact is, to live in such a sweet little fantasy, there needs to be a massive infrastructure underpinning it all. Just saying that one wants to 'opt out' of the 'modern world' doesn't detach one from it. Actually, it seems to me rather selfish and parasitic. To take advantage of all society's benefits, but then not in any way contribute to the growth or benefit of that society.

      So, you break a leg chopping down a tree (with a forged steel axe, imported from a factory in China, with an axe-handle of Malaysian hardwood). There's a good chance you die without proper, modern medical treatment. But in the fantasy there's always an 'out', a backup plan, as society will ultimately help you out. Your kid gets an infection. Good chance it'll die without proper, modern medical treatment.

      "Harvest your own energy/power". Harvest? Never mind. Solar cells from Japan. Generator from Korea. Diesel from Saudi. Electrical wiring from Thailand.

      And all the knowledge and skills from…. civilization.

      Yes, my points are exaggerated and blunt, but it is a height of hubris for anyone to think they could live some kind of self-sufficient hermit/hippie lifestyle, yet at the same time not suck from the teat of the very culture which gives them the opportunity to indulge in their egocentric fantasy.

      The idea of "entirely self sufficient life" is so far buried in homo sapiens past as to be effectively non-existent.

      • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2015 - 13:10
        +2

        That's why I said:

        That is kind of my dream/fantasy.

        and not "that is my ideal"

        o_O

        Everything you say here is total and complete fantasy.

        Yeah. No shit. Do you not have childish little daydreams that are totally unrealistic but put a little smile on your face? Flickering thoughts or mental images so far fetched but kinda nice regardless (to just you for your own weird reasons)? Things you wouldn't necessarily want in actuality, but are still interesting to think about nonetheless just in terms of how they could be implemented? Just imagining another reality for the sake of it? Or are you so stuck in this world that you never find pleasure in thinking abstractly just for fun?

        Apologies for having fantasies. You seem so offended.

  • woz on 03/04/2015 - 08:11

    I think I may have guessed what v in thevofa stands for…

    • iridiumstem on 03/04/2015 - 09:27
      +1

      V for Vendetta?

      Actually, there is something called Veganarchism.

      • woz on 03/04/2015 - 17:31

        The practice of eating things like lentils instead of meat - clearly it's voodoo.

        • iridiumstem on 03/04/2015 - 17:55
          +1

          Or maybe it is v for voodoo?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join