First Amendment.....naaaaaaaaaahhhhhh....not in Minnesota..?

[jayl0ve]

What other country's mainstream media are you watching?

I mean, you're just basing that on English-language countries, correct??

I'm sure British news is 'better' or something. That's cool. They can have their news shows (???)

We'll keep like, everything else.

[AUSSIE_FABS]

Don't be offended many americans think it as well. If I wanted to 'hate on' america there is a lot more could say

Very defensive aren't we

"everything else"
hohoho

[jayl0ve]

I'm not saying American news doesn't roundly suck donkey d**k!!

I'm not even getting defensive I'm SERIOUSLY asking if you watch other country's media, because I'm pretty sure mainstream news everywhere is sensationalist and at least a tad biased

The part about 'everything else' was just a joke!! You know, kinda playing on how you guys (everybody else in the world I guess) see us...

[AUSSIE_FABS]

Yeah all mainstream sensationalised but Americans kings at it. Sad thing is that for some reason other places ie some aus mainstream stations changing to us format. We have some good laws to stop certain people controlling media too much.

Lucky we have 'back up' channels that don't seem to have any bias, or jsut VERY good at hiding . I think us would prob have same, well I hope lol.

[tigerofintegrity]

I think people get offended too easily by stereotypes. I mean, most of us aren't thick, we realise it's not representative of everyone. But then again, they are stereotypes for a reason. There are often lots of truths or half-truths in them and a lot of the time, stereotypes do actually hit home. I'm a Chinese born in Ireland, an Asian in a western culture and I get bombarded by stereotypes all the time. I just find it humorous more than anything. I probably end up making more Chinese stereotype jokes about myself than anyone else! I also agree with a lot of them. A lot of them are clearly quite true. I mean, if you're not part of that stereotype then great, let people know you aren't but I'm sure a hell of a lot of other people fit that stereotype and I don't really feel there's a need to try and defend against that. As long as it's not used to cause any harm then just take it light-heartedly.

[jayl0ve]

Personally I'm not reacting from a place where I'm actually seeing myself in these stereotypes....it just makes me a little mad that people even mention them I guess.

btw Tigerofintegrity I dunno if you even know what this is, but there's this candy called Starburst here in the US and their slogan is 'It's a Juicy Conradiction'. Well, one of their TV spots features a kilt-wearing, bagpipe-holding Korean man who talks with a Scottish accent, saying something like "I'm a Scotch Korean, I don't make any sense!"



you just reminded me of that. I actually found it a bit narrow-minded, cuz I'm sure there's quite a few Koreans living in Scotland....pretty harmless though

[Rob ITST]

Yeah all mainstream sensationalised but Americans kings at it.

I'd say that's probably because we have the most news channels (just as we probably have the most cooking channels ), and a lot of them are nothing more than entertainment. There's plenty that aren't, but since they're not as entertaining, I doubt they're the ones that are shown worldwide.

It makes sense that it'd be that way too - I mean, why would anyone outside of America want to watch plain, old, boring American news?

[beltic caldy]

Like any law, there is a good side and a bad side to it

? Not following you here Rob? Most sensible/'good'/pro-humanitarian laws do not have a bad side (homicide/rape/fraud etc etc) - they are in place to codify against acts which are harmful to human/animal/environmental welfare, no? A law which punishes people for talking about bad practice....well, it completely flies in the face of my understanding of legislators had in mind when they sculpted the 1st amendment to your constitution - it could be reasonably argued that the 1st amendment was put in place to prevent this kind of legislation being allowed to be written.

Re breach of privacy and that kind of thing - we don't have an environment where people are wandering around with video cameras actively looking for problems that don't exist - these 'whistleblowers' act or not when a situation is not being dealt with by the authorities in place - in an ideal society, there would be no need or place for them - we can agree on that, i think? the reality, of course, is that many people don't really like to think about where certain parts of their diet (meat, i'm referring to here) actually come from - bad enough, in a sense, that they might consider a nice warm animal being killed (arguably unnecessarily, given modern alternatives) under humane, hygenic conditions, having lived a good, 'happy' life.....but when asked to think about concentrated animal feeding operations...the simple psychological truth/reality is that most of us don't want to dwell on those thoughts....they're uncomfortable.

you say 'there has to be a reason why these laws are passed'...factory farming (cafo's) is ugly business man - not just in America, but wherever it's practiced and has been proven to contribute, if not be wholly responsible for a range of very serious conditions that are and have made their way into the human system - bovine spongiform encephalopathy and drug resistant staphylococcus aureus to name just two - can i suggest that that the owners of these places don't want a light being turned on their places for several obvious reasons....the main one being the potential for massive damage to the sales of their goods - plain and simple. That they, the producers now seem to have power to sway/determine the course of the law-makers is simply not defensible - this should never, ever be the case - it's akin to, but infinitely worse than having small children in charge of adults in a household.

as regards the laws being/not being passed - in Iowa and Montana, the law is in place now - it has passed, and it seems likely that with the influence being exerted, other states may well follow suit.

http://www.timesrepublican.com/page/con ... l?nav=5003


I see myself as a citizen of this planet Rob....not an Irishman or a European or a vegan/vegetarian or christian/atheist/muslim etc - I am simply a humanist, and care about the direction I and my fellow humans are taking - some good and great, and others not so great - and I greatly relish the ability we have in our society to be able to openly discuss and talk about these things - the nature of this kind of legislation would seek to outlaw that.

[coke4]

Re breach of privacy and that kind of thing - we don't have an environment where people are wandering around with video cameras actively looking for problems that don't exist - these 'whistleblowers' act or not when a situation is not being dealt with by the authorities in place - in an ideal society, there would be no need or place for them - we can agree on that, i think? the reality, of course, is that many people don't really like to think about where certain parts of their diet (meat, i'm referring to here) actually come from - bad enough, in a sense, that they might consider a nice warm animal being killed (arguably unnecessarily, given modern alternatives) under humane, hygenic conditions, having lived a good, 'happy' life.....but when asked to think about concentrated animal feeding operations...the simple psychological truth/reality is that most of us don't want to dwell on those thoughts....they're uncomfortable.

They are kind of problems that don't exist, because at the end of the day, pretty much everyone knows what is going on, but turns a blind eye to it.

[beltic caldy]

They are kind of problems that don't exist, because at the end of the day, pretty much everyone knows what is going on, but turns a blind eye to it.

Interesting line of argument coke - so if we close our eyes, bury our heads in the sand, stick our fingers in our ears til the 'noise stops', the problems go away or cease to exist.....hmmmmmmm.....if a tree falls in the forest......

and i agree that many people are aware and turn a blind eye to maladies and woes...the affect of this on themselves is hard to see/measure and is insidious - i put it to you, that you would struggle to walk past someone being mugged on the street, anyone would, right? yet sometimes, maybe often, people do just that - primarily out of fear for their own safety....maybe sometimes out of simple 'not my problem' syndrome - perhaps a mugging-situation is a poor example, but you see my point i hope - i would say that the affect that scenarios like that have on a persons 'self-reputation' are varyingly subtle but entirely negative...both in the short and long-term....people can lose faith in themselves and over time become hardened and uncaring - i can't see that as a good thing.

This is me not turning a blind eye.

[coke4]

They are kind of problems that don't exist, because at the end of the day, pretty much everyone knows what is going on, but turns a blind eye to it.

Interesting line of argument coke - so if we close our eyes, bury our heads in the sand, stick our fingers in our ears til the 'noise stops', the problems go away or cease to exist.....hmmmmmmm.....if a tree falls in the forest......

and i agree that many people are aware and turn a blind eye to maladies and woes...the affect of this on themselves is hard to see/measure and is insidious - i put it to you, that you would struggle to walk past someone being mugged on the street, anyone would, right? yet sometimes, maybe often, people do just that - primarily out of fear for their own safety....maybe sometimes out of simple 'not my problem' syndrome - perhaps a mugging-situation is a poor example, but you see my point i hope - i would say that the affect that scenarios like that have on a persons 'self-reputation' are varyingly subtle but entirely negative...both in the short and long-term....people can lose faith in themselves and over time become hardened and uncaring - i can't see that as a good thing.

This is me not turning a blind eye.

I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing, and I am not saying that people should bury their heads in the sand, I am saying they have buried their heads in the sand. They do not care what is happening.

[beltic caldy]

Fair enough coke, you've stated your position quite clearly.

For my part, I'm explicitly stating that I believe it is a bad thing...for the people who see and do nothing, and for society as a whole.

To cite the oft-quoted (and source somewhat disputed) line by Edmund Burke (another outspoken Paddy... ) - "All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

blah blah blah....did you have a read at the above article, out of curiosity? The author seems like an interesting man.

[Rob ITST]

Like any law, there is a good side and a bad side to it

? Not following you here Rob? Most sensible/'good'/pro-humanitarian laws do not have a bad side (homicide/rape/fraud etc etc) - they are in place to codify against acts which are harmful to human/animal/environmental welfare, no?

OK, maybe a poor choice of words. Sure, basic laws against rape/homicide/etc don't really have a bad side. But once you get past those, things can get more complicated.

we don't have an environment where people are wandering around with video cameras actively looking for problems that don't exist - these 'whistleblowers' act or not when a situation is not being dealt with by the authorities in place

I think that's over-simplified. I don't know why this law passed, but I can imagine a situation where innocent farmers have had their businesses disrupted by these "whistleblowers", so the intent in passing this law could have been to protect them (the intent of the voters, not necessarily the ones lobbying to pass the law). We've certainly seen it in the past, where activists take things too far.

can i suggest that that the owners of these places don't want a light being turned on their places for several obvious reasons....the main one being the potential for massive damage to the sales of their goods - plain and simple.

IMO, that's dangerous thinking. It's kind of like arguing that it's ok for the government to set up cameras everywhere, because if you're not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't mind. So, if you're a farmer, and you don't want someone posing as an employee so they can investigate your business (one of the things the law prohibits), then you must have something to hide. If I were a farmer, and I had ever hired/payed someone to work for me, only to find out they're intention was to find something to expose about me - well, I'd feel pretty pissed off, especially if I had done nothing wrong.

I'm not saying that this law's passing is a good thing. There very well may be more harm than good in it. All I'm saying is that there must be something about this law that made people want to vote for it - something that isn't being mentioned in these articles. I'm not from Iowa, Idaho, or Kansas, so I can't speak for them. Maybe they saw it as something that helps protects their and they're neighbors' livelihood. If you lived in an area where agriculture was the primary source of income, you might think protecting the rights of the farmer is more important than protecting the rights of the cow too.

I think we do agree on one thing - we shouldn't be eating meat from these mass slaughterhouses. I prefer to shoot my own food.

[beltic caldy]

Some good points mate, thank you.

I do tend to think if your business involves something as important as mass food production, then you should/must have transparency - not invasive/intrusive interference at all - and yeah, I will continue to lean on this one in this context, namely - if your in-built regulatory/inspection process are adequate AND you have nothing to hide, why have any real problem with anyone telling people how you do things? Why have such a problem with that that not only is it outlawed, but also anyone who passes such messages on can likewise be prosectuted?

As for me, I'm only a relatively recent convert to vegetarianism and veganism....I grew up in rural Ireland in a farming community (which was pretty much all of Ireland back then) - my reasons for my dietetic lifestyle are primarily for health (I've yapped plenty about ingestion of dairy and animal protein in another thread), animal welfare, to be perfectly honest is secondary, from a pure 'me' perspective...but still very important - especially when the practices involved are detrimental to human health and welfare.

I've also hunted an killed, skinned and cooked plenty of my own food - great many years ago now, and I confess that although I liked the hunting/shooting part, I never cared for the skinning/cleaning side - I do reckon these days that meat-eaters should not be so 'insulated' from that whole process....i honestly believe we'd have many more vegetarians if this were the case : )

I'm quite curious about state-legislation of this nature....I'm presuming it goes to individual vote (citizen-level) but honestly don't know - can you shed any light? I've mailed the author of the article mentioned above to see if he would like to elaborate : )

I reckon we're in closer agreement with much of this stuff than is coming through in this discussion ; )

[Rob ITST]

I confess that although I liked the hunting/shooting part, I never cared for the skinning/cleaning side

Same here. Cleaning animals is pretty disgusting. I worked in a butcher shop for a few years, and we processed deer meat shot by local hunters. Being the "new guy", you can imagine which parts were relegated to me.

I do reckon these days that meat-eaters should not be so 'insulated' from that whole process.

I agree with that. People should have a clear understanding of what goes on.

I reckon we're in closer agreement with much of this stuff than is coming through in this discussion ; )

True. Although I can understand some of the reasoning behind the law (mostly, to prevent fraudulently taking a job with the intention of what is basically spying), it would be better if there was no need for activists to attempt to document what goes on in these slaughterhouses. There should be adequate inspection by some regulating body which would make it pointless to try to find anything to "expose".

About the voting, I can't say for sure, but it looks like it would be decided by the state's legislative branch.