RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTuberus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim?
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Legislatures to Consider "Ag-Gag" Laws
[102 posts] [21 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
rus
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim.
Gotta draw the line somewhere; why not at the pet / livestock distinction? Seems as good a place as any.
Call it whim if you like. You're free to draw your line where you like, of course, and justify it to yourself however you see fit.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim.
Gotta draw the line somewhere; why not at the pet / livestock distinction? Seems as good a place as any.
Call it whim if you like. You're free to draw your line where you like, of course, and justify it to yourself however you see fit.Relativist fallacy
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim.
Gotta draw the line somewhere; why not at the pet / livestock distinction? Seems as good a place as any.
Call it whim if you like. You're free to draw your line where you like, of course, and justify it to yourself however you see fit.Relativist fallacy
So, by what objective criteria do you evaluate livestock? Empathy strikes me as a bad metric... subjective, isn't it?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim.
Gotta draw the line somewhere; why not at the pet / livestock distinction? Seems as good a place as any.
Call it whim if you like. You're free to draw your line where you like, of course, and justify it to yourself however you see fit.Relativist fallacy
So, by what objective criteria do you evaluate livestock? Empathy strikes me as a bad metric... subjective, isn't it?
That's completely dependent on your ethic. For me, mostly following my own form of virtue ethics - empathy works just fine. I suppose if you're a utilitarian or follow a deontological ethic that might not work though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Mercurius wrote >>
That seems to be a pretty arbitrary distinction.So?
In conclusion then, your reason for not caring if a cow has a "decent life," isn't based on reason - but rather a random personal whim.
Gotta draw the line somewhere; why not at the pet / livestock distinction? Seems as good a place as any.
Call it whim if you like. You're free to draw your line where you like, of course, and justify it to yourself however you see fit.Relativist fallacy
So, by what objective criteria do you evaluate livestock? Empathy strikes me as a bad metric... subjective, isn't it?
That's completely dependent on your ethic. For me, mostly following my own form of virtue ethics - empathy works just fine. I suppose if you're a utilitarian or follow a deontological ethic that might not work though.
Thinking back to previous conversations, I can see that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Bear wrote >>
ohiogirlie74 wrote >>
What's the alternative, petting the cows, naming them, brushing them, kissing them, putting ribbons on their tails, and THEN hammering them in the head?No, just letting them live decent lives.
Why should I care if a cow has a "decent life"?
Because it's not clear that depriving it of one, all other things being equal, really buys you very much.
I'm with Twixlen, actually, that the main problem that we face at present isn't a shortage of available calories but a maldistribution of them. That said, the rate at which population is growing relative to available calories is alarming. So whatever the merits of cheap food now, down the line food cost is likely to be a nontrivial issue.
But the usual comparisonsâ€â€conventional beef costs less than the hormone-free antibiotic-free pasture-raised kindâ€â€are far from apples-to-apples, because the cheapest conventional beef you're going to find is also far more likely to benefit from government subsidies to production; far more likely to produce environmental externalities that your tax dollars will pay to clean up; at least somewhat more likely to be implicated in disease outbreak; and will almost certainly benefit from scales of production and distribution networks that will lower its price.
So when you start to think about all of those differences, you realize that muchâ€â€even mostâ€â€of the difference in price between meat from animals that lived well and meat from animals that lived poorly comes from the larger system of production, not from the specifics of how they were raised. And that the main reason that those differences persist is that we continue to subsidize them, primarily with our tax dollars.
So, why should you care about whether an animal had a decent life, when you're making your decisions as a consumer? In short, to strike a blow against the tax-and-spend nanny state.
Posted 1 year ago # -
revolutionist
SN
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
revolutionist wrote >>
It's weird, because it seems that instead of addressing the animal rights folks head on; that is... well, what do you think "rights" are? can non-humans have rights? are they the same as human rights? etc. We choose to enforce our position backed by the force of law. That instead of engaging in public discourse they seek to limit the very possibility of public discourse.I've called this particular example lawfare: the deliberate use of the legal system to inflict harm ( in this case, criminalization of some animal rights activist activities as a prelude to using legal force ( police, courts, prison system )).
First use of the term I'm familiar with is from the book 'Unrestricted Warfare', written by officers of of the Chinese People's Liberation Army.
I'm not sure if that qualifies as a conservative idea; looks to me more like a tactic which is independent of ideology.Rus, when I put my neologism loving hat on, I too like the term "lawfare"; it reminds me of Schmitt's whole notion of politics as "war as the continuation of politics by other means". There is an article in "[url=https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=43+Case+W.+Res.+J.+Int'l+L.+457&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=3b9357dc7e3801857933b4b48b39a35b]Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law[/url]" that deals with the notion of lawfare and Schmitt.
It is interesting to see the discussion of "ethics" on here regarding "animal rights". Again, I am about as radical a leftist as they come, and I too generally hold to a virtue ethic, but not one based on empathy, rather it is based on reason; however, I am not an "animal rights activist", and would much rather spend my energies fighting NAZIs.
In any case, my main question had to do with the baring of knowledges; the whole idea of the "gag".
For me it comes down, not to "what is a bearer of rights"; but rather legislating knowing, the limiting of investigation, which amount to an attempt to put an end to the questioning without addressing the question: ie, shutting one side up.
My own bias is revealed here, so I'll tell you why I think conservatism in general takes this side more often than the other, I would like to hear from other conservatives. For a conservative, simply put: the "private" trumps all other interests. It even trumps science (taken in the generic sense of knowing), it certainly trumps "the general intellect" (a notion that Marx lifts from Rousseau's "general will"), etc.
In short I hold that knowledge, knowing, thinking, questioning, etc is more valuable than ignorance. However, for a conservative it seems to me, ignorance can be more valuable than knowledge; because ignorance can be, and often is, more profitable. That is, if an industry (say slaughterhouses, oil or gas drilling, etc) believes it will loose money if it is common knowledge how their industry conducts business, then they will fight tooth and nail to shut up those who would document how they are run. Here private profit trumps public knowledge; and ignorance is instituted along with industry.
Now I think the animal rights position is pretty straight forward; they have laid out their arguments, they have collected evidence, and presented it. The reply from the "meat industry" is not to address that (which some have done in this thread kindly on their behalf), but rather to shut the "activists" up.
Why attempt to silence them? I have outlined why I think conservatives do it, but I would like to hear from conservatives themselves; am I correct? That is, for a conservative if ignorance is more profitable than knowledge, is ignorance to be championed, and knowledge assailed?
Posted 1 year ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
The term "lawfare" has been used before, but not in the way that rus has been using it; that's expanding the definition of the term, though perhaps not unreasonably so. "Lawfare" does not typically mean legislators changing the laws through the normal legislative process (influenced by private actors via lobbying groups though that may be). It more commonly and accurately describes the use of existing legal systems to achieve aims that could otherwise be achieved primarily only by military means, particularly against an opponent like America where courts can bind the political branches of government.
Posted 1 year ago # -
revolutionist
SN
Login to Send PM
gramarye wrote >>
The term "lawfare" has been used before, but not in the way that rus has been using it; that's expanding the definition of the term, though perhaps not unreasonably so. "Lawfare" does not typically mean legislators changing the laws through the normal legislative process (influenced by private actors via lobbying groups though that may be). It more commonly and accurately describes the use of existing legal systems to achieve aims that could otherwise be achieved primarily only by military means, particularly against an opponent like America where courts can bind the political branches of government.Yea, it's usually used more in line with Schmitt's description of "politics" (indecently, I'm not a "fan" of Schmitt, he's just one of the people I refer to when I'm looking for "how conservatives think"). Though, the implication is (as far as Rus's usage), is that if it is "Lawfare" then Rus is implying the Meat Industry would rather annihilate the "activists" than criminalize their activity, but in deploying the "legislative process" to "neutralize" their opposition they are (as Rus says) effectively engaging in "lawfare". What's interesting is that both concepts, "lawfare" and Schmitt's "politics", (and capitalism for that matter, insofar as one holds the "competition" axiom as foundational) are rooted in a basic logic of war; the zero-sum "us or them".
But, not to get distracted; if it comes down to it, if ignorance is more "profitable" than knowledge; then is ignorance a "Good", a value, etc; and is knowledge, education, inquiry, "investigation", questioning authority, etc. a "Bad"?
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
revolutionist wrote >>
In short I hold that knowledge, knowing, thinking, questioning, etc is more valuable than ignorance. However, for a conservative it seems to me, ignorance can be more valuable than knowledge; because ignorance can be, and often is, more profitable. That is, if an industry (say slaughterhouses, oil or gas drilling, etc) believes it will loose money if it is common knowledge how their industry conducts business, then they will fight tooth and nail to shut up those who would document how they are run. Here private profit trumps public knowledge; and ignorance is instituted along with industry.I think in some cases at least you might be seeing "conservative" instead of "technocrat".
As in the technocratic reflex to dismiss those without the knowledge, expertise or skills of the subject at hand as irrelevant. AKA "engineer's disease".
Posted 1 year ago # -
ohiogirlie74
Short North/ Italian Village
Login to Send PM
@Bear: I do concede that you're mainly right. I was feebly attempting to serve an alternative POV. But, actually, I do think (many) consumers ARE idiots. My big fear for American Agriculture is that people will blindly fall for propaganda enough to either affect a company's operation, when they're not really doing anything wrong, or seriously hurt actual employees of those companies.
As far as what's a "decent" life for livestock, though, that's so subjective, it's impossible (but makes for fun philosophy chats)... What's more decent? Being killed by someone who treated you well and you thought you trusted, or being killed by a stranger or a someone you knew was a jerk? Both suck a lot. Meat cows aren't conceived on cow honeymoons after cow marriages - they're squirted into lady cows from a tube shipped from a warehouse, filled by a bull zapped into action by a prod. Without dinner and drinks! 9 months later, they're dropped on the floor and put right to work, eating. In return, they get slaughtered and sliced up... some sooner than others. Who gets the better deal, there? Longer lives or shorter? None of it's decent! Decently raised livestock is basically "wild game."
But, you couldn't be more right about the "cost" of cheap food being outta whack. If companies had to be responsible for their footprint, like correct their own damage (and pay for it), burgers and gasoline would be a true luxury, and home-grown food and bicycles would gain a lot more popularity. (But that's another topic entirely.)
To myliftkk: True, I actually know relatively little about China, and got caught up in a rant. My apologies for the egregious falsehoods. I thought that their inspection criteria were a little more relaxed than USA's, and I have heard that things are changing and their prices are rising lately, so, thank you for the correction. I see your points about the benefits of information as a force of social change, but tend to diverge at the point where Pepsi claiming it's awesome in a commercial is the same as someone showing that Coke is cruelly testing products on cute bunnies and suffering a boycott. (Thought I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many activitists are on competing companies' payrolls.) I was probably born 200 years too late, because bullets and codes of honor still sort of appeal to me over lawyers and entitlement.
All in all, it's been interesting to read everyone's take. I have a special prejudice against certain kinds of activists, and I guess it made me chime in prior to considering the whole picture. This has been a lot more pleasant than reading the comments on a news story at 10tv or Dispatch, and losing faith in humanity. So, uh, thanks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM
Gag on Ohio's consumers' counsel blasted
Monday, May 16, 2011 03:08 AM
BY DAN GEARINO
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCHOhio legislators would be setting a terrible precedent if they move forward with a proposed gag order for the Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, national consumer advocates say.
Meanwhile, the source of the proposal remains a mystery. No legislator, lobbyist or outside group has claimed to be its author, although the measure was added to a budget bill that the state House passed this month.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
@Walker That is a wholly different matter. Even if the theme is attempts to suppress criticism, the OCC is a government agency unlike the "Ag Gag" laws which apply to private citizens.
A.
Posted 1 year ago # -
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
@ohgirlie - If you had been born 200 years ago, you wouldn't have had the societal standing to likely engage in this conversation. Had you survived to child-bearing age, without being struck down by a myriad of diseases you would've had a slightly better standing in society than a slave. More than likely, your life would have been brutal, cruel, and short. So, the sooner you disabuse yourself of the notion that there existed some sort of idyllic history in which you fancy you would have existed, the better you'll understand the value in the methods of the activist, even if you dislike the political ends which these particular ones wish to achieve via them. Having had a large number of friends that lived both inside and outside of the Soviet communist system, I can assure you, the last thing people want is to rewind history.
Furthermore, just narrowing our focus to this country, there has always been a huge amount of activist advertising throughout our past. More than cursory glance at a fuller spectrum of US history will show the record replete with everything you decry (though the communication tools have upgraded immensely). Was some of this of dubious veracity, of course, was much of it honest, true as well. But, the Republic has survived many times over, and my guess is it will survive the broader discovery that Big Ag's processes to manufacture flesh sausages is quite distasteful by most current measures of value.
Lastly, I'll posit that negative advertising has existed from the first time two merchants tried to schlepp the same product. In fact, there's already laws on the books to deal with over-zealous advertising called slander and libel laws. Now, purposefully many interested parties have kept these weak in this country (as opposed to the UK) because these parties don't want to be accused of defamation when they regularly do it to others. Now that the tide turned however, they find them too weak to defend themselves against nearly similar tactics. Well, those are some crocodile tears if I've ever seen them. Politically, I don't have any issue with strengthening libel and slander laws across the board to discourage falsely concocted activist propaganda schemes (provided individuals and smaller companies get the same benefits from being targeted by larger firms' erroneous advertising). However, the discovery of truth should take a backseat to no industry, period.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
There is some really compelling information out there that puts this situation into perspective. Will Potter, an investigative journalist, has written a great book "Green is the New Red" about the ways corporate interests have worked to stifle activist messaging.
A really great interview on the the discussion can be found here:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/kexp-video-interview-will-potter/4939/The other component is who exactly is drafting up ag-gag regulation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_CouncilPosted 11 months ago # -
Red Sun Rising
Login to Send PM
Iowa is one signature away from criminalizing undercover investigations of factory farms. Please call Gov Terry Branstad right now at 515-281-5211 and ask him to veto HF589. It'll take you one minute.
They don't ask where you are from when you call.
Note: Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than any other state, over 2 dozen offices there and has spent significant lobbying dollars in support of this bill.
Posted 2 months ago # -
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM
Much as I hate to say it, RSR may have a point on this one. Here's the relevant passage from the bill:
Sec. 9. NEW SECTION . 717A.2A Animal facility interference.
1. A person is guilty of animal facility interference, if the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully do any of the following:
a. (1) Produce a record which reproduces an image or sound 19 occurring at the animal facility as follows:
(a) The record must be created by the person while at the animal facility.
(b) The record must be a reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium.
(2) Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which was produced as provided in subparagraph (1).**********
The criminalization of recording (it's an aggravated misdemeanor for the first offense and a class D felony for any repeat offenses) is bad enough. The criminalization of mere possession and distribution of the recording is beyond the pale, though, and I think it will encounter significant First Amendment concerns.
I'm fine with unauthorized entry for the purposes of recording the treatment of farm animals being a civil trespass, because a private right of action implies that the recording person invaded the private property rights of the landowner, which is true. Making something a criminal offense implies that a person's action harms society generally. (Then again, I also start out heavily biased towards making anything criminal, since I think our criminal laws in this country are out of control as things stand.)
Posted 2 months ago # -
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM
Looks like it isn't just Iowa either:
Doc Document Date
1 IA 2011-2012 HB 431 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 1/12/2012
A bill for an act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies. (See Cmte. Bill HF 589).2 IA 2011-2012 HB 589 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 11/10/2011
A bill for an act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies. (Formerly HF 431).3 IA 2011-2012 SB 341 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 1/12/2012
A bill for an act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies. (See SF 431.).4 IA 2011-2012 SB 431 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 1/12/2012
A bill for an act relating to offenses involving agricultural operations, and providing penalties and remedies. (Formerly SF 341.).5 IL 2011-2012 HB 5143 Created: 2/9/2012
Modified: 2/9/2012
ANIMAL FACILITY - OFFENSES - Amends the Animal Research and Production Facilities Protection Act. Adds definition for "deprive". Changes current prohibited acts into animal facility tampering and adds disrupting operations at the animal facility, if the operations directly relate to agricultural production, animal maintenance, veterinary care, or educational or scientific purposes. Creates the offense of animal facility interference for creating or possessing, without the consent of the owner, a visual or sound recording made at the animal facility, which reproduces a visual or audio experience occurring at the facility. Also includes in animal facility interference exercising control over the animal facility with the intent to deprive the facility of an animal or property, and entering a facility not open to the public. Animal facility interference is a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense. Creates the offense of animal facility fraud that retains the current entering a facility under false pretenses, and by theft or deception obtain control over facility property. Adds to animal facility fraud making a false statement or representation on a facility employment application, with the intent to commit an act not authorized by the facility. Penalty for animal facility fraud is a Class 4 felony to a Class 1 felony depending on the amount of loss or damage inflicted. Adds to current civil remedies an authorization for civil damages of treble the amount of actual damages, plus court costs and attorney fees. Provides an exception to animal facility tampering and animal facility interference for certain persons.6 IL 2011-2012 HB 5143 Summary Created: 2/9/2012
Modified: 2/9/2012
ANIMAL FACILITY - OFFENSES - Amends the Animal Research and Production Facilities Protection Act. Adds definition for "deprive". Changes current prohibited acts into animal facility tampering and adds disrupting operations at the animal facility, if the operations directly relate to agricultural production, animal maintenance, veterinary care, or educational or scientific purposes. Creates the offense of animal facility interference for creating or possessing, without the consent of the owner, a visual or sound recording made at the animal facility, which reproduces a visual or audio experience occurring at the facility. Also includes in animal facility interference exercising control over the animal facility with the intent to deprive the facility of an animal or property, and entering a facility not open to the public. Animal facility interference is a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense. Creates the offense of animal facility fraud that retains the current entering a facility under false pretenses, and by theft or deception obtain control over facility property. Adds to animal facility fraud making a false statement or representation on a facility employment application, with the intent to commit an act not authorized by the facility. Penalty for animal facility fraud is a Class 4 felony to a Class 1 felony depending on the amount of loss or damage inflicted. Adds to current civil remedies an authorization for civil damages of treble the amount of actual damages, plus court costs and attorney fees. Provides an exception to animal facility tampering and animal facility interference for certain persons.7 MN 2011-2012 HB 1369 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 1/26/2012
Agricultural offense penalties and remedies imposed. A bill for an act relating to agriculture; imposing penalties and remedies for certain offenses; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 17.8 MN 2011-2012 SB 1118 Created: 6/29/2011
Modified: 4/30/2011
Agricultural offenses penalties and remedies imposition. A bill for an act relating to agriculture; imposing penalties and remedies for certain offenses; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 17.9 MO 2012 HB 1796 Created: 2/22/2012
Modified: 2/22/2012
Creates various crimes relating to animal facilities and crop protection.Posted 2 months ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.