Things that are making you crabbit! [4]

Yes, I too.   

Italy was so riddled with corruption it was sinking into a cess pit. The Vatican realized it was change or die. Same thing with politics. The very air feels fresher. But at the moment there is a fight to the bitter end between the new people and the old guard clinging on for grim death to their privileges, its stirred up a hornets nest of nastyness as they realize their cushy number is being dismantled every day. Theres a manager of the railways moaning about his million pound wage packet being cut while others are living in their cars with their children after being turfed out of their homes. The sheer almighty arrogance is beyond belief.

Good to hear.   

I had a conversation with an Italian and an American a couple of years ago and I remember they were discussing their politicians. Bush and Berlusconi.  

Luckily some things change.   

only Berlusconi is still lurking in the background still in power.

David H wrote:Fact checking the source. The data is from a study done in 1979, and the questions were asked differently than this implies. This image has created so much drama that there's now a web page just about it.

http://www.fearus.org/

Did a study really take place? Is this "real"?
The data originated from a study "Adolescents' Cues and Signals - Sex and Assault" by R Giarrusso ; P Johnson ; J Goodchilds ; G Zellman. [According to this book all were currently researchers at UCLA.] It was presented at the Western Psychological Association Meeting Symposium, 'Acquaintance Rape and Adolescent Sexuality,' in San Diego, California, April 1979. Click here for more information on the study, including who they interviewed.

However, the data in the picture that has been circulating has been misrepresented. The original study did not ask "Yes" or "No", but asked subjects on a five point scale. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out specifically what each point was, other then at the two extremes were "Yes" and "No". For more information, see the infograph/chart below.  

I just love when the internet latches on to something before doing any research.

I bet a minor fraction of those who saw the original image will see that page showing the facts behind the study.

1. Post sensationalist photograph accompanied by misleading title to the internet.
2. Get likes/karma/upvotes.
3. ?????????
4. Profit

David H wrote:Just saw your new avatar......  

I was inspired by Eldo's Donnie Darko kitty  

Mrs Figg wrote:only Berlusconi is still lurking in the background still in power.

What did you think of Romano Prodi? He seemed to be the antidote to Berlusconi for a short time.

Well, I posted this before.   



"The role of satire is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:only Berlusconi is still lurking in the background still in power.

What did you think of Romano Prodi? He seemed to be the antidote to Berlusconi for a short time.

it was before my time, but he beat Berlusconi so thats something positive.   

omg   its Berlusconi

more Berlusconi   

Bluebottle wrote:Well, I posted this before.   



"The role of satire is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

  

Mrs Figg wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:only Berlusconi is still lurking in the background still in power.

What did you think of Romano Prodi? He seemed to be the antidote to Berlusconi for a short time.

it was before my time, but he beat Berlusconi so thats something positive.   

Yeah.   Italian politics are crazy, but I guess that's part of what makes them interesting.

it is so nice to see that even in this modernized, industrialized world we still treat animals like living beings, with respect and patience and not like another machinery in this circle of natural life.. wait what?!

Is it April fools already?   

The image is slightly misleading, since the "hole in stomach" thing is not a regularly-used alternative to feeding cows the normal way, but rather a procedure used by agricultural scientists in their dietary experiments on a small number of cows.  Still fairly disturbing if you're not used to it (I'd never heard of this before), just not standard procedure.  But yeah, certain kinds of animal research are pretty morally icky (IMO).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannulated_cow

Mrs Figg wrote: Is it April fools already?   

well, it is now, but not when i posted it, sadly.

Eldo, i don't really care if is for science and just a small number of cows, the general idea behind the "science" is disgusting and the way the animals are treated is wrong, even though they might not be in pain.

Norc wrote:Eldo, i don't really care if is for science and just a small number of cows, the general idea behind the "science" is disgusting and the way the animals are treated is wrong, even though they might not be in pain.

If their quality of life is good, I think there's a good argument for limited studies that contribute to science to improve the lives of all cows.
However all the animal rights arguments get into awkward shades of grey if there's any meat at all in your diet (as there is in mine).

{{Not to mention bears on your head or seals on your feet....  }}

i am all for science, i just think that this particular science's reasons are poor and well, i just don't like seeing living animals being industrialized like that. i am not attacking the right to eat beef i just think there is a more humane way of testing what diet gives the best meat/milk (like having the cows eat it). also this hole, i only see potential inflammations and complication of having an open hole into your stomach. they step in shit and dust everyday, that can't be good can it?

those holes in the stomach are grotesque, its like electrodes in the head, it might not hurt but its fucking around with animals like they are toys and not sentient beings. If they could speak would we do it? as for feeding animals have spent millions of years evolving the digestive system and feeding habits, if it aint broke why fix it. We only mess with animals for our gain not theirs. I am not against meat eating and I understand the need for good husbandry but this is a step too far into Frankenstein.

I am overjoyed to read that whale murder is now illegal and we have the Ozzies to thank I believe.   

aw.. but whale meat is so good  
 
(joking ofcourse! good job ozzies, the japanese were going a bit .. erm.. too far with that  )

As a farmer, these are the sorts of issues that leave me divided. Just in America we're eating 26 billion pounds of beef per year which requires slaughtering 33 million cattle, or 90 thousand a day  . There's just not enough pasture or hay fields to provide all that meat in the old fashioned way!  

Most of the cattle are born on smaller traditional ranches, but before they're a year old they're shipped to giant feed lots where they're fattened on corn and such for the last months of their lives. It's done as humanely as is economically possible, but it's not pretty. And if it's done badly, millions can suffer and die of digestive problems.

This is where the ag scientists and their Frankenstein experiments come in. By figuring out how to fatten them faster, they're increasing the health, increasing the profits and shortening the time they have to spend in the feed lots, which reduces suffering of the millions. They see this as humane, and I don't disagree.

Now let's not even talk about pork and bacon...  

i am so glad i live in norway...almost all the farmers are almost self-supplied on food, even "milk-farms".

Let me wade in without having a full grasp of the facts since I don't have time right now.

To quote Spock:

'The needs of all cattle outweigh the needs of a few cows.'

My point being is that if a few cows with a few holes in them done in a relatively humane way can lead to billions of current and future cows being treated much better... then isn't it worth it? Where specifically is the line between morality and necessity?