Warning: Farmers are EVIL?

Viva! should lighten up a tad... Farming is a job just like anything else, and if people can't afford to take care of their families or support their farms then why not have a benefit gig for them?

Viva should drop their bleating and just let people get on with trying to make ends meet.

Without wanting to turn DiS into a full on polit-fest (that could be fun, no?), I think you've both missed the point by about the size of three continents. Yes, there are poor farmers, but they're poor precisely because larger commercial farmers (the one's likely to be benefitting from both government compensation and this gig) monopolise subsidies and land. The same grouping have consistently implemented cost cutting farming methods to the detriment of health standards and the welfare of livestock, largely as a means of appeasing the similarly unscrupulous supermarket chains. That's not to say all farmers are irresponsible - it's just that the less scrupulous ones always seem to be at the recieving end of cash when great swathes of poverty stricken urban neighbourhoods are left to fester. And as for the 'hitler was a vegetarian' comment...is DiS a forum for intelligent debate or offensive banality? (Oh, and I'm a meat eater by the way.)

A couple of important points that appear to have been missed:

Re subsidies: When it comes to revenue from taxes, 5 times as much leaves London as enters - yet who do farmers vent their collective spleen at when things go wrong for them? Yes, the so-called 'metropolitan elite' of London! The Countryside Alliance had a damn cheek marching in the capital in protest, when this is the origin of a large percentage of farming subsidies; it's not as if London doesn't have it's own social and infrastructural problems...and while we're on the subject, did anyone else notice that the part the farming lobby played in the anti-democratic fuel protests last year, despite the fact that their fuel is tax-exempt?


Re use of land: As Magnus Pike (among others in the scientific community) has pointed out, farming land is up to 10 times as efficient when used for growing crops, as opposed to grazing livestock.


Oh, and by the way - I am a vegetarian, but I would never dictate to people what they should or shouldn't eat; hope all you carnivores feel the same way...

oooh, nice use of bold and italics there

London makes a vast amount of money from financial and international markets, many of which trade on invisible products, insurance and banking etc, ao one of the worlds leading finacial cities it can afford to support the rest of the country, that's what it's there for

the reason that teh countryside alliance had the cheek, as you put it, to even think of entering your city, was that they realised, in the same way that small bands do *this is a music site after all* that to be heard, to get noticed you have to be in London, it's where the people are who really change things

the farmers joining with teh fuel protesters was a bid for greater coverage of both issues, the papers may have found the need to attempt to undermine farmer protesting about fuel prices (and teh tax free stuff is only to be used for work, when they drive into town to go shopping they have to use 'real' petrol, just like everyone else)

the countyrside alliance, by its very nature, is a mixture of intrests and feelings, adding teh fuel protestors was no great leap of politics, especialy as fuel and driving is a greater part of most country lives than those in the city (greater distances to shopping/recreation areas etc)

and the scientific community can kiss my arse, basicly, these are the same people who at one time declared non-white races to be inferior, OP chemicals to be great, and the advent of high explosivs to be the end of all wars, lets not put all our trust in the men with beards and glasses just yet

I am neither a vegetarian, nor am i a carnivore. To limit myself to one would be shortsighted and stupid, i am, as I am able to be, an omnivore.

ollie.

When, exactly, was I comparing urban slums to the countryside from a socio-political perspective? Of course they're different. I was merely suggesting that the money paid out to commercial farmers, often unneccessarily, could be put to better use in alleviating the poverty of underprivelaged urban areas.

To equate a pressure group with Hitler is not only historically inaccurate (Hitler didn't like them much either), but also grossly offensive. I suggest you're a little bit careful in the future about throwing around the names of historical figures without a thought for their political sensitivity.

And as for the following : "name me one band that aren't political." "if all farmers are punished for having even looked at a cow, who's going to grow all the sprouts and lentils eh?"......did I suggest that farmers shouldn't slaughter animals for meat? And where does the politics of bands come into my original argument?

If nothing else, this debate has exploded the myth that people who love alternative music are bright enough to see through the politics of the Right. I kinda hoped it was true.

I once had a bet that i could relate and famous person or band to Hitler in a few steps

I won, of course

why? because, like a vegetarian, like a punk, like me or you, he was a person, under all the labels and assumptions, he was basicly the same being as everone else, putting someone or something, good or bad, beyond discussion is invalid, and shortsighted.

the 'insensitive, callous' way that i addressed this matter was needed, the argument stems for people thinking, or at least spreading generalisations and assumptions to others, in this instance that all farmers are money grabbing cow killers

a pressure group puts it's own views forward, they don't forward a balanced argument, that's not their job, they invent a universal stereotyped enemy all rally support against it, tell me where my comparison is off?

i stand by every word I've ever said, the day i let someone else dictate my opinions is that day i shouldn't have an opinion

ollie.

and there i was, hoping you weren't in London, oh dear, goodbye valid arguments, hello partisan sprout-spitting city-boy

not that I'm bringing those charges you understand "I leave people reading this BB to draw their own conclusions on this topic..."

as was my idea with the fuel/farmer comment, parasetic cider drinking country boys that they are, eh?

and as for at one turn rejoicing at the Concervative defeat in '97, then at the next claiming that taxes/fruits of labours are to be shared only when desired... are you sure that the right wing party was defeated in '97?

and if we're geting petty, most of teh vegetarians i know are shortsighted and stupid. does that mean that all the people you know aren't healthy? that's not what I'm claiming

see you at the secession of London referendum

ollie.

It's not a case of putting something beyond discussion, it's a case of not invoking the name of someone associated with such hate and prejudice over an issue that simply doesn't warrant it. Let me put it in simple terms for you :

Hitler got his way through exterminating massive numbers of people. Pressure groups hold rallies, gather petitions, and exercise their genuine democratic rights.

That's why your comparison was callous.

Hitler got into power via democratic means, *then* started exterminating massive numbers of peoples

trying to take away the right to eat a food is the same as taking away teh right to life, it is a right, a choice to be made personaly, that is why it's teh same thing

I don't find being called callous a bad thing, should i?

For the last time, I did not say that people shouldn't be able to choose what they eat. I'm a meat eater myself!

I would, however, take issue with the idea that promoting vegetarianism is somehow on a level with the holocaust - that, my friend, is as ignorant as it is offensive and doesn't deserve any further response.

Don't think i did say you were forcing people to do anything, nor did i say that eating a carrot is the same as killing a ethnic/religion based group

little steps, that's all they are

and at no point did i start a personal insult angle to this, any comments i've made have been generalisations at worst, challanges at best

further comment is always needed, wars begin when people stop talking

ollie.

Here's what you said : trying to take away the right to eat a food is the same as taking away teh right to life.

That's what I was disagreeing with.

"when power is held by those of an older generation, it will always be seen as Righwing"

tell me that right is Bad and Left is good.

I'm not going to tell you that either is good, why? because they're positions, static things, society and people at large are fluid, changing with a need for changing power/political structures, today's far right would be seen as a moderate centre party in another time

comments that aggravate or of no difference than those that stimulate, it's all in the reception of them, if they don't fit into a your (using the collective term here rather than the personal) belief system then they minght seem wrong, even heratical or offensive, to ignore them will insure you stay happy, to challange them might undo your ideas, rather than those posed, that's why people argue, as much to re-enforce themselves as to inform others

and i would hope that the writers here have a wide range of social and political upbringing and beliefs, makes for a more interesting life.

ollie.

I simply don't swallow that line, and I've heard it many times before. It's about time we got away from that kind of post-modern conciliatory idea that there should be no ideological positions, that our views must adapt according to societal change.

The fact is that genuine belief, genuine ideology, affect how society operates. In other words, doggedly changing ones beliefs in order to fit change that we haven't had a say in is a means of relinquishing our democratic right to change the world around us.

New Labourites somehow managed to convince some party members that the so called triumph of free-marketism was irrevocable and that the Party should change accordingly. Now, of course, we're seeing a general disaffection with those same ideas. It's the same principle - the illusion of modernisation was shown to be merely coercion to new, and foolhardy, ideas.

That doesn't mean that dogged ideology shouldn't mold to fit change...but it does mean that the idea of absolute ideology shouldn't be rejected outright. (This is what you are doing when you say that both Right and Left have the same value.) When this happens, we lose our ability to challenge change for the worse, and we lose our ability to induce change for the better.

I know, while not the same direct action, it is depriving a person of a right, a lifestyle choice, or even something so basic to their personality that it isn't a choice

the right to control over our own bodies is one of the most basic elements of our human rights, so the right to eat whatever we choose is just as basic

the vegetarian issue tends to lean, not towards self empowerment, self improvment and self forfillment, as it should, and while not as vocal, often does, but ratrher it tends towards the view that "eating meat is wrong" rather than "eating veg is good"

which is the differance between loving your country/city (pride), and disliking another (hate)

ollie.

yet it's the cities where the riots/racist problems are at their most violent.

a multicultural society can't be acheaved untill the very term isn't anylonger valid, by further re-enforcing personal/group identities, be they regional or ethnic/racial will do nothing but divide people further

hence my dislike of rigid country/city localisation of intrests, the 'this is ours, not theirs' view doesn't help this, wether it's of money, land or national identity

ollie.

since when has London had to fork out for the rest of the country ?
don't forget London's interested are represented politically ... something which can't be said for the rest of the country.
in my part of the world, people are more pro-Europe, for example, because the idea of being ruled by a remote city miles away from them isn't exactly unfamiliar.

there is a north/south divide both politically and economically. divide the country in half, it's more democratic that way.

Finally, something we can agree on...!! Isolationism should be a policy of the past.

I'm sorry, but to argue that Right and Left are the same simply because the two polar extremes occasionally meet is spurious. Your affected attempts at post-modern ethical discourse may sound compelling at times, but they collapse when put in a proper political context - sure, hard-left anarchists and hard-right conservatives can be compared because of their disregard for central government, but their reasons for such a stance and the surrounding political minutiae that comprise the opposing ideologies mark them out as utterly different, not only in an academic sense but in a practical sense too.

Ideology expressly determines what one views as good or bad, and try telling a member of the Mexican Zapatistas that ideology isn't a way of life.

I agree entirely with the last sentence of your post, which basically said what I had said about multiculturalism - the key is difference *and* tolerance. Once tolerance of variety is established, then multiculturalism can prosper. I'm not sure, however, that race and identity "shouldn't matter" - the existence of a variety of races certainly shouldn't matter, but the distinction of each culture shouldn't have to be forgotten. By levelling out cultural difference, multiculturalism collapses and becomes merely the subjugation of cultures that decide to retain their identity, exactly the sort of policy favoured by the likes of Norman Tebbit, who thinks that young Asians should support England's cricket team and not that of their homeland.

and i, while stating the ideal form of personal belief system, that of likeing your stuff and not annoying people about their stuff, don't follow it myself

when an extreamist group begin to promote their ideas, they tend to attack those of others as a means to do this, not that Viva! here are by any means the most extreme animal rights/vegetarian group around (unless the letters they've dispatched explode on arrival) there are others, in this aswell as other areas of society/culture who will go that little bit further to prove to the world how much they believe in something

that is both the best, and worst thing someone can do, all because they believe it's the right thing to do, isn't it?

ollie.

have you ever purchased something with Euros?

i have, i felt, for one transaction at least, that i was no longer English, but that i was on step closer to being truely International.

it felt good.

ollie.

I'd agree that the rigid town/country division is generally unhelpful. What I would argue, however, is that when the proportion of money that leaves cities to support the countryside is as great as it is at present, it's a form of imbalance/ injustice that needs to be highlighted. And from my personal experience, it's usually people from the country who emphasise the divide.

set one city apart from the country, why not set one country apart from the world? that'd work, who needs imports, exports, trade, commerce etc?

London is not seperate from the world, it is the main area of the country that draws money in from the world, if you cut off the money sucked in by teh buisness centre of teh country, you, as a city, would have very little left to go on

cutting off London from teh rest of england via the flow of money would cause just the same problem as cutting off Londong from the vast network of material and labour supplies that head into The City every day

a city is the centre of the local buisness/population area, not the whole thing, lock the staff in an office because 'they don't need outside' and see what happens

ollie.

i am the son of a farmer, and until a few years back when things started to change in farming we did not have a car.
i only know 1 farm out of about 80odd that are making money.

You vegatarians make me sick, if we all stopped eating meat all sheep , male calves would be shot at birth. sheep and male calves only live because people eat meat. get it into your thick vegatarian brains. as Tremor said fuck off and get a real job veggies and Animal rights people.
you veggies may be happy to protest about animal rights, but then most of you wear big slobby lipstick and were leather and eat jelly , mashmallows , all made from Cows and Horses.
so just fuck off and leave us people alone.
in 3 years time we may be all shooting our calves and lambs at birth if there are any more veggies and then animal rights people would see what we have to do because we cant sell the meat because of the price.


well said ollie in all of your replies are Ollie and Tremor from farm's or faming communities? we need people like you to support us.

i work over 40hours a week and im in school, my dad works about 75hours and he does nothing compared to most people i know, most people i know get up at 4am and finish work at 7or8pm every day of there life to milk and supply milk for you fuckers out there, and they make about £50/day.
Aled

People seem to have finally woken up to the fact that milk kills you.

It's not coincidence that China/Japan has a 1/9000 Cancer rate with no milk drinking and the UK where everyone does a pint a day is 1/9.

The British government has bailed them out for long enough, they should go the same way as the mines.

Is Aleds post someone on the board having a laugh ?

If not, first prize for most stupid, illinformed hateful pish I've seen on this board.

You're all working 16 hour days and losing money for the privilege, yet generalise all vegetarians as thick. Well done.